Republican Rep. Ron Paul Blasts Bush on House Floor!

[Guest guest]

Republican Rep. Ron Paul Blasts Bush on House Floor!

 

http://www.house.gov/paul/cong­rec/congrec2005/cr040605.htm

 

 

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 6, 2005

 

 

Who's Better Off?

 

 

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the

Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war,

the retort is:

 

 

" Aren't the people of Iraq better off? "

 

 

The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about

supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every

ruthless act he ever committed.

 

 

The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off

is that it's too early to declare, " Mission Accomplished. "

 

 

But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever

justified or legitimate.

 

 

Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good

results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate?

 

 

Do the ends justify the means?

 

 

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false.

 

 

There were no weapons of mass destruction;

 

 

the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks;

 

 

Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire

against the United States;

 

 

our security was not threatened;

 

 

we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told;

 

 

and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills.

 

 

Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy

resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion.

 

 

After the fact we're now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion

was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off.

 

 

Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam

Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or " supporting terrorists. "

 

 

It's implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not

patriotic and doesn't support the troops.

 

 

In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be

ostracized.

 

 

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein

is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government

that led to the regime change.

 

 

In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies

of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much

greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.

 

 

The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than

the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal from power.

 

 

The real question ought to be:

 

 

" Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change

while justifying war with false information? "

 

 

Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those

who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national

security is threatened.

 

 

How much better off are the Iraqi people?

 

 

Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better

off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed.

 

 

Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers

patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities.

 

 

One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical

Journal, certainly are not better off.

 

 

Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

 

 

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of

the war.

 

 

Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign

power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when

carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon.

 

 

Why is it that what is good for the goose isn't always good for the

gander?

 

 

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the

consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not

create freedom.

 

 

In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and

elections followed-- not the other way around.

 

 

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the

vote, but such an outcome couldn't be allowed for it would preclude a

coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and

preventing a theocracy from forming.

 

 

This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld

when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority

democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen.

 

 

Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don't

like the results.

 

 

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being

surrounded by unmanageable territory.

 

 

The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured.

 

 

Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some

claim it's already underway.

 

 

We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to

provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of

billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war.

 

 

Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since

1990 because of a need to protect " our " oil.

 

 

Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is

a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs

approaching $3 per gallon.

 

 

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no

government in place and the next election-- supposedly the real one--

is not likely to take place on time.

 

 

Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious

election at all?

 

 

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by

corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq.

 

 

Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting

of these funds.

 

 

The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not

changed.

 

 

The whole process is corrupt.

 

 

It just doesn't make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars

used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war.

 

 

First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American

taxpayers are required to rebuild it.

 

 

Today it's easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq

than to build a bridge in the United States.

 

 

Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget and operate on the

cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

 

 

One question the war promoters don't want to hear asked, because they

don't want to face up to the answer, is this:

 

 

" Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new

Iraq through force of arms? "

 

 

The answer is plainly no.

 

 

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under

Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion.

 

 

Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein's cabinet as Foreign

Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel,

or any other Middle Eastern country.

 

 

Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians

are no longer safe.

 

 

Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria.

 

 

It's strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have

expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against

Christians in Iraq.

 

 

Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on

Christians.

 

 

In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they

agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi

soil.

 

 

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it's

difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel

much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein.

 

 

Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near

being under control.

 

 

But there's another question that is equally important:

 

 

" Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war? "

 

 

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren't

better off.

 

 

The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not

better off.

 

 

The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends

of those who lost so much are not better off.

 

 

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist

against their will-- a de facto draft-- are not feeling better off.

 

 

They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

 

 

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200

billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent.

 

 

The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter

policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

 

 

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off?

 

 

I'd say no.

 

 

Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than

ever.

 

 

The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the

world is greater than ever.

 

 

This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the

invasion.

 

 

Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated.

 

 

Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which

it never was under Hussein's rule.

 

 

So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden

benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

 

 

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it's more than

twice that.

 

 

I wonder who benefits from this?

 

 

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national

security and defense of this country.

 

 

Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from

true national defense and further undermines our credibility around

the world.

 

 

The ongoing war's lack of success has played a key role in diminishing

morale in our military services.

 

 

Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of

troops.

 

 

Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be

required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our

foreign policy.

 

 

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and

obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and

increase in the national debt.

 

 

If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be

the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

 

 

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought

to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty.

 

 

Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed

conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice

personal freedoms in pursuit of victory.

 

 

The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for

freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very

freedoms here at home we're supposed to be fighting for.

 

 

It makes no sense.

 

 

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been

especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war

on terrorism.

 

 

Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the

American spirit.

 

 

Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a

spirit of growing militant nationalism.

 

 

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our

eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not

responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in

our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of

law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

 

 

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional,

and morally justifiable.

 

 

Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to

most Americans or the U.S. Congress.

 

 

Let's hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S.

Armed Forces are wrong.

 

 

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think

nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides

itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that

blessed are the peacemakers-- not the warmongers.

 

 

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a

moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless

of the number of people who die in the process.

 

 

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country

great.

 

 

We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and

the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with

the rest of the world.

 

 

Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for

the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the

only practical tool to influence the world-- and we have accepted, as

the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

 

 

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of

their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and

judicial branches-- not to mention international government bodies.

 

 

The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that

concerns only the fringe in our society.

 

 

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that

drives political thought in this country.

 

 

If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use

force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world,

against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with

the establishment of a totalitarian state.

 

 

There's no need for that.

 

 

It's up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and

there is still time to correct our mistakes.