October 18, 2009
Venue: U.S. House Committee on Foreign AffairsDate: 10/15/2009
Transcript:
Ron Paul: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the last months, we have had a pretense of having a debate about Afghanistan, but unfortunately, it’s not much of a debate. We’re deciding whether or not to send 40,000 or 80,000 troops over to Afghanistan and we can’t even decide where the frontlines are. But the worst part of this is this is just déjà vu again, all about going to war needlessly. The same arguments were used in going into war against Iraq and that is “weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda, scare the people, it’s in our national security interest to go there” and we continue.
The Taliban never did a thing to us. The Taliban, we were paying them money up until May of 2001. They’re not capable, even if they wanted to, they’re not capable of touching us. So we’re over there, pursuing a war, spreading the war, and going into Pakistan. The American people don’t want it. We’re out of money. We can’t afford medical education here and we’re demanding that we send 80,000 or 40,000 troops to Afghanistan and expand the war. It’s time to end the whole mess.
Chairman Howard L. Berman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
The time has expired and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, is through.
Ron Paul: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems like we’ve had now a war going on for eight years, into the ninth year, and from the discussion, it looks like we’re searching for a justification for it; what is the reason we are there? I think we got that cart before the horse. We’ve been fighting all this time and it means that it isn’t a management problem. It’s a policy problem of how we got there, why we’re there, and what we’re doing, and besides, this type of debate about management, I can’t imagine this type of debate going on in World War II. You know, we knew who the enemy was; we declared war. The President said he’s the commander in chief and told the Congress what he needed. Now, that isn’t an argument for the Congress not paying attention. It’s an argument against the way we go to war and it looks like we have accepted this notion that perpetual war leads to perpetual peace, and we satisfy the military-industrial complex and the special interests and all these motivations just to stay in war endlessly.
But even these eight years, I don’t see where the success is. Men die, thousands of Afghanis are displaced and die. It cost a quarter trillion dollars and we’re still finding out, you know, what are we there for? Oh, well, “if the Taliban takes over” – whom we used to, you know, get along with quite well = “if they take over all of a sudden, al-Qaeda is going to be there and there’s going to another 9/11.”
This is making the assumption that 9/11 couldn’t have occurred without these training camps in Afghanistan. Do you think those nineteen guys went over there and did push-ups in those camps? There is no way. There is no way they were there doing those things. The report, when they studied 9/11, they said, “Well, there is a lot of planning going on in Germany. A lot of planning going on in Spain and there were 15 of them and were Afghans [Saudis]. I mean, if somebody really wanted to, I bet they could have talked the American people into bombing Saudi Arabia. I mean, 15 of them are Saudis. I imagine under those circumstances, the American people and the Congress could have been talked into bombing Saudi Arabia under those conditions.
So I just don’t see how we could continue to do this and come up with any sensible policy because we never challenge, we never question whether preemptive war is a good strategy and this is what this is all about: preemptive wars, starting wars, saying it’s preventative. But this is a completely un-American approach to fighting wars because under the original system, the people got behind the war, declared the war, knew who the enemy was and we didn’t come up with these strategies; “Do we need 40,000 or 80,000 people and who should we give the money to? Should we give it to this group?”
Why don’t we ever ask the question and this will be the question I’ll leave with you. Why don’t we as a Congress and the administrations, former administrations as well as this one, why don’t we ask the question, what is the motivation for somebody to attack us? And I don’t think it’s ever really asked because I think there is a different answer than then if some say, “Oh, they hate us. They hate us for our freedoms and our wealth.”
And I don’t believe that for a minute. I think the people in Afghanistan, the large majority, no matter what the reports are from the administration, our puppet administration, most people want us out of there. They don’t want us in Pakistan. The people in Pakistan don’t want us there. People in Iraq don’t want us there. It’s occupation. So my question is this, why is that never talked about, or why is it dismissed so easily if indeed you study and you find out that people who are willing to sacrifice their life to make a point is because we are seen as foreign occupiers. Just as the Soviets were seen as foreign occupiers, just as we joined those individuals who wanted to throw out the foreign occupiers in the past, and yet now, we are. We learn nothing from history, both ancient history or even recent history. Why don’t we pay more attention to the true motivations behind somebody who wants to commit suicide terrorism against us. Anybody care to answer?
Chairman Howard L. Berman: In 20 seconds.
Unidentified Male Speaker: In twenty seconds. (Laughs).
Robert Kagan: Congressman, I think in 20 seconds, I can only tell you that some of us do pay a great deal of attention to what the ideology is that drives al-Qaeda and affiliated groups to try to attack us. It’s been articulated in tremendous detail on multiple books. It goes beyond not liking us because of our wealth and a variety of other things and it has to do with the struggle within Islam that they see us participating in whether we are present there or not. It is a very, very sophisticated strategy. It is a very, very sophisticated ideology and it is extremely clear on what their intentions are and why.
People often forget, either due to distractions, blinding cynicism or a lack of education, how unique this country really is. The United States of America is a nation forged and grounded in a rich tradition of protest and persistent refusal to accept the status quo. In many ways this tradition has been in hibernation--recent decades will never be known as the years of particularly impressive citizen participation in government and policy. Indeed, the American people have become increasingly apathetic and stupid, but I believe that the spirit has remained alive--in fact, I predict that the drive to change our most negative aspects of society is building momentum; isn't it obvious?Take the town halls on health care, for instance. Though CNN, FOX and MSNBC only cover the crazies, there is some remarkable dialogue going on--and not just by the supporters of health care. When it comes to the Public Option, there is a genuine philosophical debate to be had. Remember that the whole point of the American Revolution was to establish independence from an abusive and invasive government that taxed excessively and unfairly. We have come a long way since then, and have perhaps gone full-circle in many ways. I share many Libertarian concerns of the expansion of the U.S. government, excessive spending and the limitations placed upon civil liberties; not to mention our often tyrannical foreign policies. Indeed, the United States became the very empire its citizens died to defeat. People think I'm a big gov liberal, but the fact of the matter is that the federal government IS WAY TOO BIG! The War on Drugs is a fiscal and societal disaster, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are squandering our treasure. The IRS ought to be torn down and replaced with a simpler tax code, and the Patriot Act ought to make every single American extremely wary of what leaders know about our personal lives. Not to mention the militarization of government that has seeped into the media and saturated our culture. So when people say to me: "I just don't believe the federal government should expand! It's already too massive" I agree! The problem is that in this modern world, there are modern problems that require state intervention. Spying on Americans is not one of these exceptions. Drug abuse isn't either. Nor is Saddam Hussein or Ho Chi Minh! But to the people who believe the Public Option is some kind of government takeover and the onset of communism: should we not fight to end the excessive federal policies that actually hurtpeople? The War on Drugs fuels a culture of crime in the inner-cities. At least a million Iraqi citizens are dead because of the current conflict--not to mention the 4,339 dead American soldiers. But now you oppose a public health plan? A plan that will help your fellow citizens get the care they need? A report by the Institute of Medicine suggests that as many as 22,000 American citizens die annually due to the lack of an insurance policy--one that either could not be afforded or was cut by employers!And let us not forget that the Public Option is an OPTION! While the true Left wing of this USA would really like a single-payer system, it is simply not going to happen with this legislation. Big Insurance is the most powerful lobby in Washington, and certainly has great influence on the bill--in other words, the argument that people will be forced to take the government plan is bullshit. The truth of the matter is that most people will keep their private plans; plans, by the way, made more consumer-friendly due to other reforms that will be in the final legislation (including the preexisting condition issue and the ability to choose your own doctors).Though this is an expansion of government services, I want to tell you how the Public Plan is actually more economical and sustainable than the current system. You see, being private enterprise, Big Insurance seeks to charge as much as possible while providing as little as possible. I have no problem with capitalism (I am a Capitalist), but this is the reality of the basic operations of a firm. While this is perfectly acceptable in most sectors, health care is an entirely different beast. Since 2000, insurance premiums have nearly doubled! In 2007, the U.S. spent about $2.2 trillion on health care,* which comes out to approximately 16.2% of GDP--nearly twice the amount of the rest of the developed world! ** If you aren't worried yet, then you have read these numbers: by 2025, costs are expected to rise 25%; by 2082, 49% ! *** Oh, and did you realize that every GM vehicle is $1,525 more expensive because of employer-based health care coverage? Insurance is by far GM's biggest expenditure--even more than steel! ****And the numbers go on and on. This is the financial argument, and it is all tied to the Big Insurance practice of driving up costs for higher profit margins, and making up for their clunky and inefficient administrative costs. Medicare costs are skyrocketing because they are subsidizing these inflating premiums, and this must be replaced. The Public Option must establish a much simpler and transparent system that injects competition into this stale and unsustainable market. It is fiscally sensical and it is moral.But just any Public Option will not do. Next week I will tackle the question of "what must a Public Option look like in order to drive competition and cut costs?"Absorb it, discuss it, and hopefully support it. Leave your comments below.*Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditure Data for 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at: http://www.cms. hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage**Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Health Data 2008.***P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948****R. Wagoner, Testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, December 5, 2008.http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/05/gm-health-care-reform/my blog: http://www.theskyewire.com
Denison University 2011
*Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditure Data for 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at: http://www.cms. hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage **Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Health Data 2008. ***P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948 ****R. Wagoner, Testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, December 5, 2008. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/05/gm-health-care-reform/
Dear Friends,
As we reflect on President Obama's first 100 days in office, the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and the just passed budget, a staggering $3.4 trillion boondoggle, I wanted to share some good news with you.
As I write, H.R. 1207, my bill to audit the Federal Reserve, currently has 110 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. This piece of legislation is perhaps the most important of my career, and I thank you for your continued support in sending me back to Congress to fight for it.
A broad coalition of Representatives has joined with me in supporting your right to transparency at the Fed. For example, Rep. Tom Price (GA), head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (CA), former head of the liberal Progressive Caucus, have both cosponsored the bill. Americans from all over the political spectrum are demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve. And with good reason!
Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has operated without sufficient transparency or accountability to the American people. In fact, current law specifically excludes the Fed from audit or real congressional oversight. No government agency has such an utter lack of sunshine.
The Federal Reserve has created and dispersed trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis. Of course, I am among the most outspoken critics of the bailouts, but Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion of the TARP program, want to know where that money has gone and exactly how much has been spent.
H.R. 1207 will open up the Fed's funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility, and Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility to Congressional oversight.
Additionally, audits could include discount window operations, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks, such as the ongoing dollar swap operations with European central banks.
By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the H.R. 1207 would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve.
Times are tough, and we continue to hear a stream of bad news. But I will continue to stand up for you in Congress and fight for our American traditions, to protect our Liberty and for an Audit of the Federal Reserve.
Thank you again for your support. I could not continue my fight without you.
In Liberty,Ron Paul
If you would like to support Ron Paul or learn more about his campaign, log on to www.RonPaulforCongress.com
No, I'm serious! Dr. Ron Paul (I can't stop laughing!) said he can't buy a car because of uncertainty in the auto industry!
Found the YT link on the C4L site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtAkYtV5eZA. Watch the whole thing, but the most interesting part of the vid occurs around 1:36 to 1:52:
...so the sooner they go into bankruptcy, the better! That's the proper procedure; it would've done it a year ago or whatever -- if these companies would have declared bankruptcy, the good assests would have been bought up, and I wouldn't be so hesitant in buying a new car, which I need, because now, I don't know what the car companines are going to do. [italics his, underlined italics mine, bold underlined italics mine to empahise the phrase which he used a slightly lower tone]
Even though the irony of Dr. Paul needs a car and can't buy one because he's unsure of the auto industry's long run and how the current financial policy is affecting him are funny, the current financial policies aren't something to laugh at. I'm getting nervous since the low of gasoline in my area was around $1.45/gal circa mid-November, it's now $1.96/gal. Maybe Peter Schiff has a point about hyperinflation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8HRRQ6JkCw.
Yeah, I could've made a few Deal or No Deal or The Price Is Right jokes, but I know that it took me about 14 mos in 2005-6 to buy the used car that I have, and I hated the fact that someone had to cosign the loan because I didn't carry credit cards at the time! (I don't like carrying them, or having to worry about the interest payments! Stupid credit "economy!") So, I can understand Dr. Paul's frustration in his car-buying decision! Maybe The Suze Orman Show could help, but I don't know if Dr. Paul needs that kind of financial advice, but it depends on how bad his old car is doing.
As I said, something's really weird when Dr. Paul can't buy a new car.
Until later,
EMK
Watch the new obama movie by clicking here and PLEASE DON'T COMMENT UNTILL YOU'VE WATCHED THE WHOLE MOVIE. Be mature and open minded. Thank you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
I feel for ya, JimBO!
Ron Paul on DL Hughley, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uQBUQBIFkc.
Dealing with the hegemonous haters, "Live Your Life," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOFDaB1Sh20.
TTYL!
Nominating McCain was an extremely high-risk, high-reward gamble for the Republican party. The reward side was that McCain was by far the best chance the Republicans had of salvaging the 2008 election; Rudolph Giuliani was the only GOP rival even close to Arizona's senior senator in popularity. Romney or Huckabee would be down 15 to 20 points by this time in the campaign, and Thompson would in all likelihood have dropped out from sheer ennui by now. The press loved McCain, and he had substantial support among Democratic voters. With Obama and Clinton tearing each other up and expending their resources in the primaries, it looked like McCain had a real chance. If the economy had managed to keep running on fumes for another six months, McCain might have pulled the Republicans back from the brink of disaster.
But it looks now like the gamble has not paid off. Nate Silver, whom I trust, judges Obama to have about a 95% chance to win in November. And then McCain's high risk side comes into play. McCain was the Republicans' best chance to win, but if he loses anyway, the consequences of his defeat will be far worse for the GOP than any other candidate's loss would have been.
Word on the ground is most Republicans in PA are ashamed of McCain's irresponsible VP pick and lack of detailed explanations of his plan for America, so they prefer to lose with dignity voting for the right man than to shame themselves with the like's of Sarah Palin. They love their party too much to let it go to unqualified "Nuke and Fluke" and the Alaska drill, drill, drill. Remember it was in PA where many Republicans switched parties starting with a couple of MAYORS. They know that the Democrats will not make the stupid decisions which resulted in closures and takeovers. And that's a chance they are willing to take.
Post of green antiwar blog "Change for better world -"
- Ron Paul on November Ballot for President
- Cheney colleague admits bribery in Halliburton oil deals
- Insane Neocons Will Drive Us to War with Russia and Nuclear Confrontation
- Out of Touch: Cindy McCain's Monday Outfit Cost $300,000
- 5 Deeply Disturbing Things About Last Night’s RNC
- McCain operatives stole American Flags for a political stunt
- "Republican Flag Pins "Made in China"?
- Stop the greed at home too! Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
