Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul

[Guest guest]

I know there are some on GJ List who somehow, incredibly, think Dubya is doing a

decent job. This is simply beyond my reckoning; nonetheless, I wanted to share

the following email, which I found quite on the mark.

Best,

Jesse Abbot

>Re: Fwd: War in Iraq

>

>Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from

>Texas.

>

>In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002:

>

>

>"Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned

>there are some questions that won't be asked -- and maybe will not even be

>allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by

>those who are urging us to start this war.

>1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the

>height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

>2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we

>know

>it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

>3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we

>cannot

>be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that

>we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

>4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was

>able

>to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with

>Iraqi cooperation?

>5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to

>develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the

>attacks

>on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19

>hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

>6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when

>he

>recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

>7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a

>Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took

>place?

>

>8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed

>al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

>9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped

>appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called

>allies?

>10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total

>chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and

>that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts,

>alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it

>chooses."

>

>11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away

>from tracking down those who did attack the United States -- and who may

>again attack the United States -- and using them to in

vade countries that

>have not attacked the United States?

>12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst

>suspicions about the USA?" and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

>13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air

>force,

>and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then

>proved totally inept at defending the country?

>14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is

>exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the

>Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public

>opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go

>to

>war?

>15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of

>Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive

>evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city

>involved, and that evidence indicate

d the type of gas used was more likely

>controlled by Iran not Iraq?

>16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers

>have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and

>that thousands may have died?

>17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war

>against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United

>States?

>18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war

>against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an

>already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation

>of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

>19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to

>initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions

>have

>been ignored by various countries without penalty?

>20. Did former President Bush not cit

e the UN Resolution of 1990 as the

>reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack

>assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

>21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were

>set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the

>United Nations?

>22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to

>its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our

>position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

>23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable

>when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military

>tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected

>president?

>24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S.

>knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the

>Iran-Ir

aq war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged Iraqi gas

>attack on a Kurdish village?

>25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and

>encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for

>his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

>26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of

>aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

>27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is

>not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

>28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that

>they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war

>than our generals?

>29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not

>initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

>30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for a

ny

>reason other than self-defense?

>31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the

>time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries

>should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

>32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely

>disagreements will be settled by war?

>33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war

>and -- not coincidentally -- we have not since then had a clear-cut

>victory?

>

>34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence

>services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

>35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war

>resolution to the floor of Congress?

>--