Thursday, April 10, 2008

Al Qaeda Captures 140,000 US Troops in Epic American Military Disaster

“I had hoped that we were hurling a wildcat onto the shore, but all we had got was a stranded whale.”-- Winston S. Churchill, explaining the failed Anzio amphibious-landing operation in WWII Italy (Operation Shingle, January 22, 1944) to British parliament, "The Anzio Stroke," Closing the Ring, volume 5, The Second World War

Iraq: The World’s Largest Self-Sustaining Prisoner of War (POW) Camp with 140,000 American Prisoners

President George Bush and General David Petraeus recently announced the result of the year-long "surge" in the 5-year-old Iraq occupation: Our 140,000 troops are stuck there, indefinitely, effectively captured by al Qaeda as surely as if our troops were in a POW camp in a WWII movie.

Anzio: Iraq’s Precursor

Operation Shingle was the WWII Allied plan to mount a shock-and-awe assault using relatively few troops and relying on the Allied technological and doctrinal revolution-in-military-affairs (RMA) then known as amphibious warfare, landing behind the German “Winter Line,” beginning a highly mobile roll-up of all Italy, quickly collapsing the enemy, and triggering the liberation of all Europe.

The Bush-Rumsfeld plan for Iraq similarly relied on few troops, RMA, and shock-and-awe to take Iraq in a coup de main, quickly collapsing the enemy, and triggering the liberation and democratization of the whole Middle East.

However, WWII Anzio’s Major General John P. Lucas lingered on the beachhead, squandered his initial surprise, lost initiative, failed to secure mission goals, and bogged-down up to 110-150,000 troops trapped in a pocket of WWI-style, static, trench warfare with at least 4,400 Allied dead.

The current US figures for Iraq are a similar 140,000 troops and 4,000 dead, following a similar indecision, loss of initiative and mission, and immobile quagmire (house-to-house fighting in Fallujah, Operation Phanton Fury/Operation Al-Fajr (“The Dawn”), 11/7-12/23/04).

Iraq too was supposed to be a wildcat and turned out be a beached whale, stranded in the desert by the receding tide of nation-building hubris.

The WWII Germans mocked the hapless Allied troops trapped in the Anzio beachhead (despite the Allied navies' ability to rotate people in and out of the beachhead) because the Germans "imprisoned" their enemy without having to feed their "prisoners":

"Hello out there boys and girls at Anzio. How does it feel to be cooped up in the world's largest self-sustaining prisoner of war camp?"-- Axis Annie, WWII German radio propagandist

Al Qaeda similarly prevents our troops from leaving Iraq (if you believe Petraeus, et al.), so al Qaeda gets the benefits of imprisoning 140,000 US troops in Iraq without having the burdens to feed, clothe, house, heal, or entertain the US troops by building barracks or organizing USO tours.

Al Qaeda gets the benefits of imprisoning our troops in Iraq and sticks YOU with the $1-3 TRILLION bill.

Al Qaeda is laughing at us as long as we stay in Iraq and our president and generals announce that we cannot leave, effectively shouting our defeat from the mountaintop, proclaiming to the world that al Qaeda has captured 140,000 American troops in the world’s largest self-sustaining prisoner of war camp known as Iraq.

John McCain meanwhile plays into al Qaeda’s hands and insanely insists that “withdrawal is defeat” when staying is defeat and withdrawal is victory.

Update: McCain is proved wrong about staying to avoid an image of defeat, as al Qaeda declares that Petraeus' announcement of an inability to withdraw troops proves US defeat:

"Where the American invasion stands now, after five years, is failure and defeat," the voice on the tape -- supposedly that of Ayman al-Zawahiri -- said in the roughly 16-minute recording, which was posted Thursday on several militant Islamist Web sites. The tape referenced testimony by David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq, before Congress this month, when he said that further troop withdrawals in Iraq will have to wait at least another 45 days. ( "Al Qaeda declares 'failure and defeat' for U.S. troops in Iraq," CNN, 4/17/08 )
Bury the "but we can't leave because it will look like a US defeat" saw. The world knows that staying is the US defeat.

Captain Ron Paul will engineer our Great Escape, rescue our troops, and restore America’s global self-respect and heritage.

US Troops' First Duty Is to Foreigners?

US elite special forces’ “most crucial mission” is training foreign militaries?

Special Forces are needed to train small foreign units to quell terrorist threats within their national borders, Vice Adm. Eric Olson, deputy commander of Special Operations Command, told senators during an April hearing.

It's perhaps the commandos' most crucial mission, he said: "We know that we cannot kill or talk our way to victory." ("SEALs Face Recruiting Woes," Virginian-Pilot, 5/8/07, hat tip)

Our military exists as a US-tax-paid traveling bootcamp for foreign militaries?

Did someone re-write our military oaths when we weren't looking?

I thought our military's most crucial mission was to support and defend the Constitution:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Apparently, our leaders have no time to honor the actual military oath and are too busy misusing our troops as door-to-door personal trainers for the world, even if building up foreigners wrecks our own military preparedness:
Pressures on the SEALs -- and throughout much of the military -- worry retired Army Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, a counter insurgency expert and Vietnam War veteran. "We just cannot continue this without breaking the military, including the SEALs," he said in a recent interview with The Virginian-Pilot.
"As service men and women we all take an oath to defend and uphold the constitution. That oath doesn't expire the day we leave military service. It is an oath that we will take to the grave. Ron Paul is the only candidate that I can see really knows the meaning of the constitution and what the founding fathers wanted. I have never felt so passionate about a presidential candidate as I do about Ron Paul."-- US Marine Chad Clement (veteran) (more military endorsements of Ron Paul)

Captain Ron Paul took his officer's oath to uphold the US Constitution and knows that is the true and only purpose of the US military.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Nation-Building Abuses Troops

"No nation-building."-- Ron Paul

Deadly, endless, big-government nation-building continues to abuse our troops and weaken our military preparedness.

West Point sending cadets to NJ for taste of Iraq (Associated Press (AP), 4/3/08):
"Army Maj. Rebecca Patterson says cadets taking her "Winning the Peace" class will spend this weekend in Jersey City, 45 miles south of West Point and across the Hudson River from Manhattan.

"Patterson's class provides lessons on opening schools, fixing infrastructure, running elections and training police."
  • If foreign armies invade our country and put their generals in charge of our elections, the LAST word that springs to mind is "democracy." --- Note to nation-builders: A little Democracy 101, the military is NOT supposed to be in charge of democracy (that would be a banana republic junta), the democracy or republic is supposed to be in charge of the military.
  • If it is time to build infrastructure, then it is time to withdraw GI Joe and time to deploy Jimmy Carter with his Habitat for Humanity.
  • The Global Nanny State nation-builders will destroy America if we do have a major war and our soldiers learn too late that knowing how to "open a school" will not stop Russian bombers or Chinese human-wave attacks.
Stop misusing our and allied troops for Iraqi/Afghan reconstruction nation-building such as the "Operation Spark Plug" fiasco.

Stop misusing our soldiers as Deputy Barney P. Fife.

Stop misusing our armored divisions to run the Iraqi economy.

America needs a president who knows the difference between a Marine and a schoolmarm.

Captain Ron Paul respects our troops enough to deploy them properly or not at all.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

US Officers: Iraq War WEAKENED Military

Senior Military Leaders Agree with Ron Paul.
Global Interventions WEAKEN Our National Security.
The Iraq invasion helped Iran and China at America's expense.

New Study Proves Ron Paul Correct Again:
Quote from "US military overtaxed by wars: Poll of officers," The Economic Times, 9 March 2008 :

Some 60 per cent of more than 3,400 active and retired high-level command officers polled said they believe the US military is weaker than five years ago, compared with only a quarter who said it was stronger and 15 per cent who felt the military was unchanged.

Asked if the war in Iraq has broken the military, 42 per cent said yes and 56 per cent said no. But 88 per cent said they agreed that the war has stretched the US military "dangerously thin."

And despite speculation that the US would be willing to engage militarily with Iran, 80 per cent said they believed that it was somewhat unreasonable or very unreasonable to expect the US military to wage another war somewhere in the world successfully at this point....

But many 37 per cent said that US rival Iran has gained the greatest strategic advantage from the Iraq war, compared with 19 percent naming the United States as the biggest beneficiary and 22 percent naming China.

Captain Ron Paul's prudent strategy of nonintervention (the smart way to be globally active) will make America strong again.

Monday, March 3, 2008

George Washington Endorses Ron Paul?

“Just come home.”--Ron Paul, Iowa Republican Debate, 8/5/07

“If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”--British King George III, 1783, speaking of George Washington when the king heard that General Washington would return to his homelife rather than stay in political power after his military victory

Relinquishing power to return home is what makes America great and different in the world.
  • George Washington was our Cincinnatus, a reference to the Roman republican leader who rose to fight when necessary and then returned home rather than seize power and make himself a dictator.
  • The Cincinnatus tradition is a central theme of American history. Americans named a major city after the idea that we as American minutemen are a nation of Cincinnati (the plural of Cincinnatus).
  • Leaving is also the key component to our Western cowboy heroes. The film is not over until the hero rides off into the sunset.
  • General Dwight D. Eisenhower initially favored the Cold War Marshall Plan and NATO alliance as the means to allow US troop withdrawals from Europe. Similarly, President Eisenhower tried both strategic nuclear weapons and CIA actions because these new methods promised to enable troop reductions. Eisenhower tried to be like George Washington and Ron Paul and just come home but Eisenhower’s attempt to replace one kind of intervention with other interventions ultimately bogged us down with more of everything for half a century.

Keep your word.

Honor your promises to the American people.

Iraq Timeline of Withdrawal Promises:

"You put your troops in, you pull your troops out."-- US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2005, the year he suggested withdrawing from Iraq in 2006

We have done our job.

It is time to honor American traditions and just come home.

John Wayne ("the Duke") walks off into the sunset in the John Ford Americana masterpiece The Searchers (spoiler ending):

How To Withdraw from Iraq Safely: Mahan Endorses Ron Paul?

"Retreat Hell! We're just attacking in another direction."-- Major General Oliver P. Smith, USMC, Korea, December 1950

A smart hawk wants to bring troops home safely and wisely as part of a carefully planned grand strategy to strengthen US national security.

Ron Paul’s “immediate” withdrawal is safe and steady with a glidepath to a soft landing which then allows us to strike an even stronger force posture.

Ron Paul will be inaugurated in early 2009, almost a year in the future. The common estimate for withdrawal is 1-2 brigades per month. Withdrawal might be complete by 2010, 3 years after the “surge” was supposed to fix everything in 3 months, 7 years after the re-invasion of 2003, and 20 years after the Iraq war began in 1990.

If we haven’t fixed Iraq after 20 years of military intervention, it probably wasn’t fixable in the first place.

How will President Ron Paul withdraw?

President Ron Paul gives the order and the military carries out the order. Do not insult our professional military by suggesting that the president has to micromanage how they do their job:

  • The military already should have withdrawal plans on the shelf and ready to go. After all, what would happen if a hot war started in Korea tomorrow? It is the military’s job to have contingency plans. That is why units have planning staffs. If they do not have plans ready, courts martial are in order.
  • The military has standard operating procedures for logistical movements such as a withdrawal. The formula is the Time-Phased Forces-Deployment List (TPFDL), nicknamed "tip-fiddle" or "tip-fid." Punch in the specifications and tip-fid produces spreadsheets of everything involved for smooth execution.
  • If you believe that American troops are dedicated and professional, you should not worry about “how” the withdrawal would occur (as if the army had never left anywhere before).

What would happen if tens of thousands of US troops suddenly withdrew from the rest of the world?

They already have, and you probably never noticed:

  • After the fall of the Soviet Union, something in the neighborhood of a quarter-million US troops left Europe. The sky did not fall.
  • We closed major bases in Asia-Pacific (the Philippines). The sky did not fall.
  • The Department of Defense had a half-million fewer people 10 years after the Soviet Union collapsed. The sky did not fall.
  • During the 2003+ Iraq war, Bush ordered thousands more troops to leave Europe. The sky did not fall. (Unfortunately, this smart move is being reversed.)

19 hijackers perpetrated 9/11 DESPITE the 1.4 million member Department of Defense (DoD). Taxing Americans for 2 million DoD personnel would not have prevented 9/11.

There are only about 140 first-generation, hardcore al Qaeda people left in the Pakistan area, plus a somewhat larger number of second-generation, pre-9/11 people. Now if only we could stop MAKING third-generation terrorists by trying to nation-build the world at gunpoint. Increasing the US military from 1.4 to 1.5 million is irrelevant because anti-terrorism is asymmetric and unconventional, not meant for standard military units.

The glaring waste of continued Iraq deployment is evident in today's 3/3/08 military report from northern Iraq covering 12 million people in an area the size of Georgia:

"[The 1st Armored Division] Task Force Iron has been focused on three lines of operation: security, governance and economics."--Deputy Commander Brigadier General Tony Thomas, Multinational Division-North and the 1st Armored Division, Operating Base (COB) Speicher just outside of Tikrit, covering provinces of Nineveh, Kirkuk, Salahuddin, Diyala and the three provinces of the Kurdish Regional Government of Dohuk, Erbil and Sulimaniyah

  • Why is an armored division responsible for the economy? There is a reason that WWII General Eisenhower did not hurl thousands of economists onto Normandy Beach on D-Day, and likewise leaders should not hurl combat soldiers at economic problems. Even Pakistani dictator Musharraf is removing military officers from their poor management of civilian functions that hobbles the Pakistani economy.
  • A US general in charge of Iraqi governance a half-decade after the takeover is an odd lesson in “democracy.”
  • A US armored division is not for anti-terrorism, not for governance, and not for economics.
  • The misuse of our troops is causing morale, retention, and recruitment problems. We are losing high-quality people who leave the service. Others suffer PTSD or commit suicide. These policies weaken our national security for when we truly need an armored division.

America needs to get its priorities straight with a sound military strategy:

  • Use intelligence and special units to fight terrorists.
  • Keep conventional forces trained and ready to meet conventional threats.
  • Keep an unbeatable military.
  • America does not need a massive army. The Soviets had a large army and lost the Cold War. Occupying Asia is not America’s destiny.
  • Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan was an American officer who first led America to be a world-class naval power by theorizing that he who controls the seas controls the world. America can be the world’s most powerful nation simply by controlling the seas.
  • The US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. The US could cut its spending in half and still be the world’s most powerful nation.

Work smarter, not harder.

The Iraq withdrawal will be part of a global realignment that will make America stronger and more secure.

Captain Ron Paul’s “withdrawal” is simply advancing America to a stronger position.

Clinton-Bush Surrender America to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan

"Doesn’t it seem awfully strange that the Iraqi government we support is an ally of the Iranians, who are our declared enemies? Are we not now supporting the Iranians by propping up their allies in Iraq?"-- Ron Paul, Congressional questioning of Iraq commander General David Petraeus and US ambassador Ryan Crocker before the House Armed Services Committee, 4/9/08

It is time to stop surrendering our sovereignty and letting foreigners control our foreign policy.

Stop letting Clinton, Bush, McCain, and Obama take their marching orders from al Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists, and Madhists.

Reclaim our sovereignty.

Captain Ron Paul will do what is in America’s national interests.

Texas Soldiers Praise Ron Paul's Iraq Withdrawal Plan

Texas Soldiers at Fort Hood Praise Ron Paul's Iraq Withdrawal Plan.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Teddy Roosevelt Endorses Ron Paul?

“Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means.”--Ronald Reagan, who defeated our greatest enemy without war

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."--Theodore Roosevelt, "Rough Rider" war hero and commander-in-chief of the "Great White Fleet" who won a Nobel Peace Prize by ending a war in Asia (Treaty of Portsmouth)

Ron Paul's unbeatable military power speaks softly and carries a big stick.

Ron Paul knows that the key to US national security is a strong strategic capability. Paul reminds us that our fleet of nuclear ballistic missile submarines provides an iron deterrence. Any country that attacked us would invite massive retaliation and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

Remember that suicide terrorism is a weapon of the weak, the very weak such as lone individuals, and they are best defeated by intelligence and special units while keeping our major conventional forces free and ready to meet major conventional threats.

In fact, we look weak and foolish when we let a few cave-dwelling jihadists tie up our aircraft carriers and infantry divisions.

Countries are a different matter. Neither Hitler nor Saddam Hussein ever dared to use chemical weapons against the United States.

The purpose of the military is to enable the diplomacy.

Ron Paul knows what Roosevelt and Reagan knew, that the strong military enables successful diplomacy precisely so that you achieve your goals without war, as Reagan did with the Soviet Union.

The United States has the patience to talk because its negotiations are backed by the world’s most powerful military deterrence.

Captain Ron Paul’s strategic deterrence policy is in good company with that of Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt.

Economics Experts Endorse Ron Paul: Military Security Requires Financial Security

"What if we discover, too late, that we can’t afford this war-- and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?"--Ron Paul, 1/26/2005, warning us 3 years ago of today's recession, inflation, dollar collapse, and global credit crisis

"Ron the only one that I’ve seen in American politics that seems to have a clue."--Jim Rogers, Quantum Fund, on the US dollar, international finance, and the global economy

“Ron Paul is the real deal, a true statesmen and citizen politician in the traditions envisioned by the framers of our Republic.”--Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

"Great countries do not fall because they have a weak military. Great countries fall because they have weak economies and currencies."--Ron Paul, 2/5/08, Charleston West Virginia caucus

The mighty American Abrams tanks and aircraft carriers will turn to rusting hulks if we continue to ignore our finances.

Osama bin Laden's real strategy is not military or terrorist but economic and financial.
  • The British Empire thrived through its financial management which enabled it to outspend and outlast enemies. It collapsed when the economic burdens of its imperial overtretch collapsed its finances.
  • Ronald Reagan succeeded in bankrupting the Soviet system while avoiding too many imperial, nation-building drains on the United States.
  • Osama bin Laden's strategy to defeat the United States is the same policy that felled the British and Soviet empires, bankruptcy.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript. He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.""We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
Bin Laden loves it when America deploys thousands of troops around the globe on wild goose chases:
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
  • You can defeat the world's most powerful military by eroding the economy that funds it.
  • Soviet figher pilots were still some of the best in the world when their country simply dissolved beneath them.
  • The mighty American Abrams tanks and aircraft carriers will turn to rusting hulks if we continue to ignore our finances.

Deficit spending in the name of security RUINS our security:

We borrow $2 billion per day, increasingly mortgaging our children to communist China.

Have you helped Osama bin Laden today by demanding a domestic welfare state, global welfare state, or policeman-of-the-world "Global War on Terror" (TM)?

“The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and turmoil to our people.”--Ron Paul

Ron Paul's dual policies of foreign policy non-interventionism (the smart way to be globally active) and economic/monetary reform will defeat Osama bin Laden and save our economy.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who understands the global economic and financial forces necessary to achieve both military and economic security.

Rudy Giuliani tried to posture himself as "Mr. 9/11" but during debate seemed to not have even read the 9/11 Commission Report and did not know the CIA analysis that US presence in the Mid-East was an al Qaeda grievance. Ron Paul cited this official US government explanation but Giuliani embarrassed himself by saying that he had never heard of it. Giuliani has dropped out of the race, although he supports McCain, which should tell you something.

Willard "Mitt" Romney tries to posture himself as "Mr. Economy" but (despite his personal business accomplishment) Romney does not understand macro-economics. In this interview, Romney seems not to understand the host Mark Larsens' point about tax policy and seems not to know what M1 is (a money supply measure) or what VAT is (Value Added Tax, a serial sales tax), because the 1% does make sense in this context (Update: Romney has dropped out of the race, although he supports McCain, which should tell you something.):

Ron Paul, the real Mr. Economy and Mr. Main Street

Congressman Dr. Ron Paul started as a small businessman (ran his own medial practice) and is now a monetary expert who served on President Ronald Reagan's gold commission and now serves on economic/finance committees overseeing the Federal Reserve and the world's largest economy.

A Financial Bomb Worse than any Terrorist Bomb Yet Seen

Ron Paul understands that financial dangers arise from both warfare and welfare, with wars and entitlements accumulating over $9 TRILLION in gross debt and unfunded liabilities up to $50-70 TRILLION (depending upon the time frame), which is several times the total size of our economy.

Comptroller General of the United States David M. Walker explains the huge problem that no presidential candidate except Ron Paul will discuss:

Mega-investor Jim Rogers, who co-founded Quantum Fund with George Soros, explains the international financial crisis, the danger of the Federal Reserve, the threats to the US dollar, and how Ron Paul is the only one with "a clue":

Finance experts hail Dr. Paul:

“We need a plan that stimulates savings and production not more of the reckless borrowing and consumption that got us into this mess in the first place. Ron Paul’s plan is the only one that amounts to a step in the right direction. If you want meaningful change - for the better that is - Ron Paul is the only candidate capable of delivering it. The others merely promise to continue the failed policies that are at the root of our current economic problems.”--Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital Inc, and a frequent guest on CNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg Television. He is often quoted in major financial publications and is the author of the book Crash Proof.

“Ron Paul’s economic plan is the real thing – a plan. It’s not just a band-aid designed to ‘stimulate’ the economy in an election year. It’s a fundamental agenda for real and lasting change, making the US economy more vibrant and competitive, and removing barriers to advancement for all Americans.”--Donald L. Luskin is Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC and contributing editor to the National Review Online and He is also a frequent guest on CNBC, and the author of two books: Index Options and Futures: The Complete Guide and Portfolio Insurance: A Guide to Dynamic Hedging.

Captain Ron Paul will achieve both military and financial/economic security.

Ron Paul--Real Solutions for the Real Economy

Reagan Staffer Endorses Ron Paul

Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan Mr. Douglas Bandow Endorses Dr. Ron Paul for President of the United States in 2008:

"Doug Bandow is a political writer and the Robert A. Taft Fellow with the American Conservative Defense Alliance. He has been widely published in leading newspapers and periodicals, and is the author of several books – including, most recently, Foreign Follies. Mr. Bandow served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a senior policy analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign."

Captain Ron Paul was there at the beginning of the Reagan Revolution and is Reagan's closest heir:

It can be morning in America again if you vote Captain Ron Paul.

CIA Officers Endorse Ron Paul

“Dr. Paul has done a tremendous service to the American people.”-- Michael Scheuer, Chief of the (Usama) Bin Laden (UBL) Issue Station (codenamed “Alec Station”), CIA Counterterrorist Center (CTC)

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi endorses Ron Paul:

"Philip Giraldi is a former officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who writes regularly on intelligence and foreign policy issues. Mr. Giraldi is a partner in an international security consultancy Cannistraro Associates, a contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine and a fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance."

Foreign Affairs Congressman Dr. Ron Paul introduces the chief CIA Osama bin Laden hunter Michael Scheuer to explain how Clinton-Bush policies played into bin Laden's hands and how Dr. Paul's non-interventionism defeats al Qaeda:

Captain Ron Paul wisely sees that we must know our enemy to defeat our enemy.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

A President who Cannot Be Fooled: Ron Paul

Iran and Iraq: Ron Paul Passed the Commander in Chief Tests with Flying Colors

Alarmists beat the war drums over an alleged Iranian radio message during a 1/6/2008 naval incident in the Persian Gulf's Strait of Hormuz. Ron Paul stood out as the most skeptical voice of reason with the most historically informed answer (1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident) at the 1/10/2008 Fox News Republican debate in South Carolina. Once again, history proved Ron Paul right when shortly thereafter the US Navy acknowledged that the threatening "Iranian boat" message might have been a "Filipino Monkey" hoax, from hoaxers well known to Gulf sailors for decades, according to the Navy Times. The government inappropriately had combined possible hoax audio with video of Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats and too many potential presidents eagerly rattled sabers with inflammatory rhetoric about the "gates of Hell."

This was not the first time that statesman Ron Paul was the voice of sanity and master of logic while others rushed to ruinous war under mistaken assumptions.

Hillary Clinton tried to justify her vote for the Iraq war by claiming that everyone was fooled by faulty intelligence. George W. Bush tried to claim that all the other countries' intelligence services were wrong about Iraq too.

Ron Paul was not fooled. Paul saw the same evidence that Clinton, Bush, and Blair saw but only Ron Paul interpreted the intelligence correctly.

September 10, 2002


Speech by Congressman Ron Paul

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 invade 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 US, 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 indicated 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 cite 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-Iraq 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 any 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?

Watch Congressman Ron Paul explain the true Iraq situation to Bill Moyers on October 4, 2002:

If only we had a President Ron Paul in 2002.

A smart hawk wants a smart president.

America needs a president who can interpret complex intelligence reports correctly.

America needs a president who cannot be fooled on the vital decisions of war and peace.

America needs Captain Ron Paul.

Religious Endorse Ron Paul

Defeating Dictators and Communists the Ron Paul Way

"America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force."--Ron Paul, 9/4/2002

People of all faiths have cause to support the strong, non-interventionist foreign policy of Dr. Ron Paul, a man of faith.

Ron Paul judiciously recognizes just causes such as World War II after Pearl Harbor yet wisely discerns the false prophets of misguided war.

A Day of Mourning for American Christians

Why did Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church oppose the 2003 Iraq war and judge that it did not meet the moral standards of Saint Augustine's Christian Just War Theory?

Christians will fight but have a moral duty to support ONLY just wars.

"Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine."--Ron Paul, 9/4/2002

Christian Just War Theory requirements include:
  • Competent authority: Ron Paul warned that, under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war and undeclared wars are more likely to be careless and costly--and history proved Ron Paul right.
  • Just cause=real and certain danger: Ron Paul warned in 2002 that, while Saddam Hussein was no saint, the administration’s specific pre-invasion "slam dunk" claim’s about Iraq were in fact not sufficiently verified as real or certain--and history proved Ron Paul right.
  • Proportionality: Ron Paul warned that the known danger (or potential threat) of third-world Iraq did not merit a full invasion and occupation by the superpower USA and that there were better, cheaper, and more ethical ways to achieve our rightful security--and history proved Ron Paul right.

"Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. . . . Evidently I have been reading from a different Bible. I remember something about “Blessed are the peacemakers.”"--Dr. Ron Paul, on Christian Just War Theory, "Why Are Americans So Angry?" speech, 6/29/2006

Non-Intervention: Religion rejects coercion except in self-defense:

  • Christian principles of free will and moral agency reject coercion and support Dr. Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.
  • The Mormon Church (of Jesus Christ) of Latter-day Saints (LDS)’s principle of the law of the land supports Dr. Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy.

Dr. Ron Paul believes in being active in the world, traveling, trading, and communicating with people. He also teaches that we will have disputes but the most effective way to negotiate with people is to respect their laws and their right to their own laws in their own lands.

Mormon missionaries used their non-interventionist respect for the laws of the land to bring religion to those trapped in the East German communist dictatorship of the 1980s Cold War.

How did the LDS talk the atheist communists into building a religious temple behind the Iron Curtain and allow lines of pilgrims for days on end?

"Respecting the laws of the land. Yeah, it's an article of faith. . . . Well, you know, what we had to do — it really was important — is we had to build a reputation that we were trustworthy and that we would stay within the boundaries of the law. And I think, too, we had to convince them that we could help make their people better citizens of their nation. And that's one of the things we often speak. The church is very careful — in terms of missionary work in particular, but especially with temples — that we never sneak in the backdoor. Once we've established the right relationships with the leaders of the nation and can convince them that what we have to bring to their people will make them even better citizens of their community, there's usually an opening, yeah."--Robert Millet, LDS member and scholar, on “Inside Mormon Faith,” Speaking of Faith radio show
That, my fellow smart hawks, is successful foreign policy, smart foreign policy, frugal foreign policy—Dr. Ron Paul’s kind of foreign policy.

Ron Paul unites people of faith the world over: Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other faithful support Captain Ron Paul’s wise and moral foreign policy--and that goodwill helps keep America safe.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

"Finish the Job" Scam Weakens America

“A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on the earth.”--Ronald Reagan, "A Time for Choosing" speech, 1964

"When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end."--Ron Paul, Republican presidential debate, South Carolina, 5/15/2007

Strengthen Our Military and Improve US National Security by Stopping Aimless, Endless Government Missions

Ron Paul will finish the job
. . . but first learn to recognize the fake "finish the job" claims.

  • No one wants to be a sucker so do not fall for the old “finish the job” scam.
  • Here is how it works: You get roped into doing one job but the goals keep changing and the mission keeps growing.
  • Presto, you have enslaved yourself to a perpetual burden.

"We have guided missiles but misguided men."--MLK

Almost 2 Decades of NEVER Finishing a Job

NATO was made to defeat the Soviet Union so you might think that NATO would disappear after the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991. Quite the opposite, NATO will soon be DOUBLE the size it was at the end of the Cold War. NATO started the 1999 Kosovo War, is now fighting a war in Afghanistan, and its expansion is starting a new cold war with Russia, destroying Reagan's greatest accomplishment.

Bush-Clinton-Bush's lazy foreign policy has overstretched our military and harmed US national security by wandering all over the world, starting in 1990 Saudi Arabia and Iraq which created the anti-American al Qaeda but did not finish the Iraq war, starting but not finishing jobs in Somalia which created the road to 9/11, starting 1990s Balkan wars instead of stopping al Qaeda, starting a 2001 war against Afghanistan instead of stopping al Qaeda, ousting the Taliban (who did not attack us) but allowing al Qaeda (who did attack us) to escape, then starting a new 2003 war in Iraq before finishing the Afghan war, then suggesting a war with Syria, then suggesting a war with Iran, and recently suggesting a new 2008 war in Pakistan by sending US Special Forces into that large country whose population is over half the size of the United States'.

The Iraq War rationale first was ousting Iraq from Kuwait in 1990-1991, then regime change through a Shiite uprising, then abandoning the Shiite rebels to Saddam, then no-fly zones, then oil embargoes, then regime change again in the The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338), then UN resolutions and inspections, then WMDs, then regime change again to depose Saddam, then killing Saddam's sons Uday and Qusai, then capturing Saddam, then convicting and executing Saddam, then an Iraqi constitution, then elections, then reconstruction, then civil war, then anti-terrorism, and then a front against Iran.

The initial jobs (ousted from Kuwait, UN resolution enforcement, WMD check, regime change, Saddam's capture, constitution, elections) were completed years ago.

We could have just come home in victory several times.

Yet we remain.

  • We convert victory into defeat, tragically remaining long enough to create new problems.
  • We keep hearing that we have "turned a corner" but turn a corner three times and effectively you have gone in a circle.
  • "The surge is working" or "we are winning" plays the the carrot-on-a-stick trick, always "winning" but never won.
  • "Stay the course" means "Stay." Period.

"Surge" "success" = cannot leave, need more reinforcements

Here is an example of how the troops are fulfilling their tactical assignments but the policy is broken:

Colonel Wayne Grisby gave a 2/4/08 pres conference on "the surge" in Madain qadha (part of Baghdad province), 3rd Brigade Combat Team (3rd Infantry Division), Operation Marne Anvil, Marne summer offensives.

Col. Grigsby literally said "we are kicking the extremists' butt" but concluded that his "Sledgehammer" Brigade should be replaced by a fresh, new US/Coalition brigade PLUS he called for 2-3 companies of Iraqi reinforcements to prop-up his area.

The reinforcements need reinforcements.

The purpose of the surge is to achieve local reconciliation and allow us to withdraw, so why would a commander report success yet not only reject troop reductions but actually call for yet more reinforcements (the opposite of the mission goal)?

Sisyphean Deja Vu

2008: "We have a lot more to do still out here."-- Col. Grigsby, 2/4/08, after almost a year of "the surge"

2007: “Obviously, we have still more work to do.''-- George Bush, 6/14/07

2006: “We’ve been at it for a while. There is going to be more work to do."-- White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, 12/1/06

2005: "We've made progress, but we have a lot of -- a lot more work to do."-- George Bush, President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 6/28/05


Update 4/9/08: Does this also sound familiar:

"I think we have made progress in stabilizing the country, but that progress is extremely fragile, highly reversible, and made even more fragile by the current socio-economic environment."

It sounds like Bush or Petraeus on the Iraq "surge" but it is U.N. envoy Hedi Annabi after his Security Council briefing on our still festering nation-building fiasco in Haiti leftover from Bill Clinton's 1994 invasion.

UN troops fired on starving poor rioters on 4/8/08 and Haitian insurgents demanded the end of the UN occupation.

Stay in Iraq for almost a decade more (2017-18) and you might have the same result that we see today after 14 years of nation-building in Haiti.

The US Joint Forces Command in fall 2006 conducted the "Urban Resolve 2015" training exercise for urban warfare in Baghdad Iraq in 2015, as part of its planning for perpetual, low-intensity warfare in city slums worldwide.

Iraq commander General David Petraeus dodged questions in his 4/8/08 Congressional testimony, eerily repeating the UN's Haiti talking points by calling Iraq "fragile and reversible," admitting that "extremists" are enjoying a surge of their own, and refusing to leave Iraq before the indeterminate "when the conditions are met," indicating an open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq for a thousand years.


Anyone who believes that there is a clear job to finish also might have bought swampland in Florida or have a receipt for the Brooklyn Bridge.

The Real Business-as-Usual Plan: NEVER Finish the Job

Expanding permanant military bases for the globalist welfare state is the same as growing government for the domestic welfare state (see last video below).

  • George Bush might declare yet another, arbitrary "mission accomplished" and reduce troops before he leaves office to look good for the history books but there is no end in sight and Bush pushed for another Iraq-style Congressional resolution to legitimize an attack on Iran.
  • Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic frontrunners refused to guarantee an Iraq pullout by 2013 (a decade after the 2003 re-invasion) and Hillary authorized a new war in Iran.
  • Barack Obama did not bother to vote against the Iran resolution and declared himself ready to invade Pakistan (apparently, "change" is invading a new country).
  • Willard "Mitt" Romney demands another 100,000 troops to throw more American lives into the global meatgrinder.
  • John McCain betrays Bush's original 2003 policy promise that withdrawal=victory (set up an Iraqi government and leave ASAP) and instead insanely insists that "withdrawal is defeat" (wrong, staying=defeat, withdrawal is how you know you have won, as the doughboys of General John "Blackjack" Pershing's American Expeditionary Force (AEF) who came home after WWI know). McCain recently spoke fondly of a 100-year Iraq occupation and guarantees you more wars, PTSD mental illnesses, and crippled veterans:

The United States is building several, large, permanent bases in Iraq:



President Ron Paul will truly finish the Iraq job by 2010 to finally end the 20-year Iraq War, 1990-2010.

Captain Ron Paul will save America from the endless burdens of dangerous imperial overstretch and the bottomless pit of the globalist welfare state.

Ron Paul keeps America strong.

Interventionists Take Marching Orders from al Qaeda

“They are delighted that we are over there.”—Ron Paul

The interventionists and nation-builders take their marching orders from al Qaeda.

Osama bin Laden has been playing them like a fiddle. Bin Laden’s "briar patch" strategy was to provoke the United States into an overreaction. Al Qaeda was a small rabble that had been rejected in Algeria and Egypt and had a difficult time getting at American targets (the "far enemy"). The United States crashing around the Middle East like a bull in a China shop plays right into bin Laden’s hands:
  • Increases global Anti-Americanism
  • Increases terrorist recruitment
  • Increases the spread of al Qaeda cells (Iraq, North Africa)
  • Increases American targets, serving up small units of US soldiers to al Qaeda on a platter

The interventionists’ policies fuel, market, and fund the growth of terrorism.

The CIA considered that bin Laden's 2004 video might have been reverse psychology to re-elect Bush and guarantee continued war:

CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush’s policies – including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists. (Parry)

Chief of the CIA Osama bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer confirms that the adminstration's current interventionist policy is HELPING al Qaeda:

It is time to pull the rug out from under bin Laden.

Ron Paul is Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare.

Captain Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy foils bin Laden’s strategy and reduces the terrorist threat to America.

Ron Paul explains terrorism and how to stop it:

Friday, January 4, 2008

Iraq: Welfare Queen of the Globalist Nanny State

Pay Your Tithe to Your Welfare Queen, Iraq

“The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and turmoil to our people.”--Ron Paul

Today’s globalist interventionism and nation-building take all the worst aspects of the welfare state and magnify them at the global scale.

It is not America’s job to wipe the nose and collect the garbage for every fratricidal, dysfunctional country in the world.

The US Army is not Batman but current policy misuses the US Army to fight crime in Iraq even after the Iraqi murder rate in Madain qadha is less than recent US murder rates in Washington DC or other major American cities.

Iraq has not been pulling its own weight.

Since 2002:

  • Iraq’s oil production FELL.
  • World oil prices DOUBLED.
  • Iraqis attacked EACH OTHER.
  • Iraqis attacked AMERICANS.

An Iraqi soldier has opened fire on American troops, killing two and wounding three others, US and Iraqi officials have said [Capt Rowdy Inman, 38, and Sgt Benjamin Portell, 27, killed in action the day after Christmas, December 26, 2007]. (BBC)

You are footing the bill for all this ethnic cleansing and financial mayhem--and your money might even be funding the insurgents who kill Americans.

Iraq shows small signs of progress when pressured but lapses to old ways as soon as you turn your back.

Iraq will not stand up on its own until we remove the crutch and end the dependency.

Enough is enough.

Captain Ron Paul knows that the best impetus for Iraqi self-sufficiency and prosperity is for America to leave and concentrate on American national security.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

POW-MIA Endorse Ron Paul

POW/MIA leader endorses Ron Paul at the "Veterans for Ron Paul" rally yesterday in Des Moines, Iowa.

"John Holland, a co-founder of the Rolling Thunder organization which lobbies in support of POW and MIA American soldiers, told the audience about Congressman Paul’s long record as a champion for veterans’ causes." (Ron Paul 2008 - Hope for America)

Police Endorse Ron Paul

Police Praise Ron Paul's Domestic Security Policies

"American Cops Applaud" Ron Paul--Jim Kouri, CPP, fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police

"I urge all police officers and concerned citizens to contact their congressmen and ask them to support Rep. Paul's bill."--Deputy Sheriff Dennis Wise, president of the American Federation of Police.

Jim Kouri writes:
While most of the politicians vying for their party's nomination for President of the United States pay lip service to the nation's law enforcement officers, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is actually doing something to earn the respect and gratitude of America's cops, according to many police officers and organizations.

For example, the American Federation of Police -- with well over 100,000 members -- recently praised Ron Paul for introducing a bill [HR 3304] that would help cops obtain topnotch body armor that would withstand rounds fired from most firearms. . . .

Rep. Ron Paul appears to be popular with many US cops. "He's never found it necessary to force police officers to stand with him for photo opportunities the way other presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton do," said New York Police Officer Edna Aguayo. . . .

"It's a joke how these cops are used as props during election campaigns. But Ron Paul doesn't pay cops lip service -- he actually works to help them enforce the law," said another cop forced to pose with Sen. Clinton during one of her staged "rallies."
Captain Ron Paul humbly gets the real domestic security job done.

Veterans Want Iraq Pullout

Iowa veterans and servicepersons held mixed opinions but many favored an Iraq pullout to achieve US national security.

Vietnam veteran Harold Price, VFW Post 5256, Keokuk, Iowa:

"We don't believe in being in Iraq," said Price. "It's another Vietnam." Although respectful of the fragility of the situation he said "There's just no end to it. I would like to see, and I think the other officers would, a gradual pullout. "Don't keep sending them back to Iraq when it's a lost cause."

Vietnam veteran Pat Brimeyer:

"We've had a high proportion of misuse of our [National Guard and Reserve] units here in Iowa. This bogus war is not what these units were set up to do, nor what the members volunteered for."

18-year-old Iowa National Guardsman Cory McKevitt, Okaboji, Iowa:

"I want to get this war over - that's my main thing," he said. "We went over there, and did what we had to do, and now we just need to get out."

Commander Bill Gartner, VFW Post 2099, Carlisle Iowa:

"I think most veterans understand - especially war veterans - that war should be the last resort," said Commander Gartner. "Diplomacy is probably first. Communicate. Make it work and be truthful about what you do."


These military people know that diplomacy or withdrawals can improve US national security, especially when the main objectives of going in (remove Saddam Hussein, check for WMDs) were completed years ago.

They did not mention Ron Paul by name by they often affirmed his policies.

More than 300 veterans formally have endorsed Ron Paul for president in the 2008 election.

A smart hawk knows to get everything possible from inexpensive diplomacy, make clear exit strategies before you go in and stick to them, and leave as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary backlashes.

Captain Ron Paul has the answer for these military folks and will achieve US national security at low cost.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

How To Stop Terrorists from Following Us Home

"No amount of military might used abroad does us much good if the American people are not safe in their own communities."--Ron Paul, January 7, 2002

Unfortunately, the government all but rolled out the red carpet for the 9/11 terrorists:

Some of the 19 September 11 hijackers were allowed into the country despite carrying fraudulent visas and being questioned by customs agents, the commission said. (CNN)

The government fails to issue valid visas carefully, spot invalid visas, monitor expirations, or enforce existing laws.
  • Anti-terrorism does NOT require a trillion-dollar "Global War on Terror" (TM) with thousands of American dead across the world.
  • Anti-terrorism does require simply NOT inviting terrorists into our country (visas).
  • Anti-terrorism does require simply enforcing the immigration laws that already were on the books before 9/11.
  • Denying a visa costs "pocket change" and has a historically low casualty rate.
"We must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is flawed logic:
  • Being there adds trouble: Osama bin Laden's stated reason for terrorism is that we are over there: "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula . . . The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post." (1998 fatwa)
  • Being there weakens us: Our forces over there strip our defenses at home (guarding Iraq's borders instead of guarding US borders).
"So we don't have to fight them over here" is achieved most easily by:
  • Not INVITING them into our country.
  • Putting our border patrol on OUR border, not IRAQ's border where they are now.
A smart hawk wants to focus efforts where they will do the most good.

Ron Paul knows that any new law should focus on foreigners, not Americans, on illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants--and should focus specifically on likely terrorists.

Captain Ron Paul's focused anti-terrorism strategy led the way in restricting Saudi visas and seeks to strengthen immigration/visa laws against terrorist states:

Bush-Cheney Opposed Nation-Building

Ron Paul remains prudently consisent in his sound foreign policy while other politicians unfortunately flip-flopped.

Captain Ron Paul will strengthen US national security by restoring a sound American foreign policy.

Reagan Rejected Nation-Building

“For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”-- John Winthrop (1588–1649) on America, quoted by Ronald Reagan in his farewell address

What would Reagan do?
What would Reagan NOT do?
  • Reagan was tough on defense but with our greatest enemy the Soviet Union he re-opened trade, fed the Soviet people with American wheat, negotiated historic arms reductions, and avoided war.
  • Reagan supported rebels in Nicaragua, Angola, and Afghanistan but did not attempt to invade, occupy, or nation-build any of these countries.
  • Reagan used up to 3 aircraft carriers against Libya (its 3 million population about the size of Connecticut’s) to counterattack or capture terrorists but did not regime-change, invade, occupy, or nation-build this terrorist state.
  • Reagan with the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) invaded and occupied the tiny island of Grenada (population 95,000) on October 25, 1983 but the main US combat unit left only 9 days later.
  • Reagan with Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF) occupied one city in Lebanon, Beirut, 1982-1984, but did not occupy the rest of the small country (population 3 million) and did not nation-build. Even this limited peacekeeping effort cost 265 American lives and Reagan at the end of his presidency told Pat Buchanan that Beirut was his greatest regret.

Today, Iraq’s population is 27 million and Afghanistan’s population is 32 million, so Bush’s current attempt to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan is population-wise like Russia or China trying to occupy and nation-build Texas and California into their image (how successful would Russia or China be?). Iran’s population is 70 million. Pakistan's population is 161 million. Those 4 countries (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan) combined almost equal the United States in population.

Reagan was a smart enough hawk to avoid nation-building foreign countries. Reagan’s only idea of nation-building was to reform and revitalize our own country by remembering our first principles of liberty and limited government and thereby be that shining city on the hill.

“The moral way of government is the practical way of government.” “We meant to change a nation and instead we changed a world.”--Ronald Reagan, farewell address

“We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people, and have them want to emulate us.” “We do have a lot of goodness in this country and we should promote it—but never through the barrel of a gun.”--Ron Paul, CNN Republican debate

“For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”-- John Winthrop (1588–1649) on America, quoted by Ronald Reagan in his farewell address

Friday, December 28, 2007

Lincoln Endorses Ron Paul?

Abraham Lincoln proposed Ron Paul's peaceful method of ending slavery, compensated emancipation (paying to free the slaves).

"In the mere financial or pecuniary view, any member of Congress with the census tables and Treasury reports before him can readily see for himself how very soon the current expenditures of this war would purchase, at fair valuation, all the slaves in any named state." --Abraham Lincoln, "A Message to Congress Requesting a Joint Resolution on Compensated Emancipation," March 6, 1862

It is nice to see Lincoln validate Ron Paul's position but unfortunately Lincoln did not follow through effectively.

Lincoln made Lincoln controversial. States began seceding between Lincoln’s election and inauguration because those states knew his policies from the presidential campaign and considered his plans unacceptable (even though Lincoln had no plans to completely end slavery any time soon).

Too Little Too Late

Lincoln’s 1849 compensated emancipation plan was only for the District of Columbia (not for any state), his 1862 plan was nominally universal but intended only for the border states (not for any Confederate state, but a payoff to keep slave states on the Union side), and other 1862 compensated emancipation plans only for the District of Columbia (not for any state) were only $300 or $500 per slave, with only half of the latter going to the owner and the other half to the slave if the freed person emigrated.

The problem was a failure to offer the right price to the right people.

Even “overpaying” an 1861 New Orleans prime male slave price of $1,381 each for all 4 million slaves would have cost only half the price of the Civil War.

Then add the priceless savings in human life, both black and white.

Critics charge that today Bush is pursuing military solutions for political problems and Lincoln similarly pursued military solutions for political and economic problems.

  • Iraq War = almost 4,000 American dead
  • Civil War = over 600,000 American dead
  • Civil War relative to today’s population = over 6 million American dead

There is nothing pro-American about killing 6 million Americans.

Today's pundits and politicians who ridicule peaceful options for avoiding the Civil War are truly frightening and dangerous to US national security in their crackpot, cavalier disregard for killing today’s equivalent of 6 million Americans to implement their policies.

Such people are unfit to "dog-sit," much less have anything to do with public policy.

Thank goodness that Captain Ron Paul’s sane, steady statesmanship is based on his strategic, thoughtful study of history and economics.

Strengthen Intelligence by Cutting Bureaucracy

Rube Goldberg Alarm

“Homeland Security . . . it’s a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it’s unmanageable.”—Ron Paul, 2007 presidential debates

Ron Paul will streamline intelligence into a “lean and mean” intelligence machine.

Clinton-Bush wasted resources before 9/11, and wasted even more after 9/11.

The intelligence services before 9/11 were a sprawling mess that ignored information on the planned terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center while wasting FBI resources on ridiculous items such as landlord-tenant disputes.

Adding the additional Homeland Security bureaucracy on top of the existing mess immediately after the 9/11 attacks was as stupid as trying to create an independent Air Force right after Pearl Harbor would have been (thankfully, the Air Force did not separate from the Army until 1947, 2 years after WWII was safely over).

Instead, Homeland Security has made America the laughing stock of the world with color-coded days, duct-tape shopping lists, $300,000 of anti-terrorism money spent on air-conditioned garbage trucks in Newark NJ, the Hurricane Katrina FEMA emergency-response debacle DESPITE advance knowledge of that threat, and a new federal law that has Americans TRAINING WITH STUFFED ANIMALS.

CIA/FBI continue absurd misuse of intelligence assets:

Apparently, the FBI is not that concerned about domestic terrorist sleeper cells after all.

White House, Pentagon, and Homeland Security Unconcerned about Repeated Bombings of New York City since 9/11

New York City has been bombed at least 3 times after 9/11 but Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino "said that there was no initial sign of any link to terrorism" (Reuters).

Thank goodness, these were just regular, everyday bombings and not the bad, terrorist kind of bombings.

"We're treating it as if it were an incident of vandalism."-- Army spokesman Paul Boyce, Pentagon, on the 2008 bombing of an Army recruitment station in NYC ("Small explosion hits New York's Times Square" By Emily Chasan and Walker Simon, Reuters, 3/6/08 )

  • Bomb the US Army in the heart of America's Big Apple and the Pentagon puts it on par with throwing toilet paper in trees on Halloween's Mischief Night.
  • Surrender your income and your Constitutional rights in a fool's bargain "to be safe" while the government simply redefines bombings of American cities as "not terrorism."

Does that mean al Qaeda in Iraq's bombings are not terrorism but merely vandalism?

Contrary to popular belief, as early as 2002, Bush seems bored with the initial reason for invading Afghanistan, argues that the al Qaeda terrorists are not that threatening any more, and he is not that interested in catching Osama bin Laden:

“I just don’t spend that much time on him, to really be honest with you.”-- George W. Bush, on NOT trying to catch Osama bin Laden, 2002 press conference

How effective are all the new surveillance powers and the billions of dollars spent on security in "The Global War on Terror" (TM)?

Australian "Chasers" TV comedy show drives an Osama bin Laden double straight through security checkpoints to within minutes of Bush's hotel at the 2007 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Sydney, Australia:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-- Published by Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, 1759

"Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty. ... In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected."-- Ron Paul, US House of Representatives speech, "What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?," 1/26/05

It is Ron Paul who wants to stay focused on stopping and catching terrorists--but to do it the smart, Constitutional way:

“I know there’s radicals there and I know they will attack us.”--Ron Paul, CNN interview, 1/6/08

"Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function of the federal government-- to provide for national security-- has been severely undermined."-- Ron Paul, US House of Representatives speech, "What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?," 1/26/05

US intelligence needs to streamline back to basics.

The United States a century ago already was a world power with a global empire before the FBI, CIA, etc. even existed, so those organizations obviously are not necessary for the United States to be a world power.

The original Constitution provided for all the intelligence services that we need:

  • Public information, much good intelligence is from open-source (non-secret) materials such as media reports, university studies, or government reports. The problem is not access but properly analyzing the wealth of easily available information.
  • Military intelligence, which today would specialize in National Technical Means (NTM) such as spy satellites and air-land-sea reconnaissance and electronic surveillance.
  • State Department, which is a natural source of Human Intelligence (HUMINT), both official through other governments and unofficial from embassy staffs mixing with locals.
  • State police and militia (now National Guard under Governor's orders), counter-espionage and disaster response within the states of the United States, in cooperation with federal information.

Anything more just gets in the way or causes blowback from failed interventions abroad.

Captain Ron Paul sensibly knows that we best achieve US national security when the "foreign intelligence" services actually do foreign intelligence.

Veterans Endorse Ron Paul

Letters from veterans support Ron Paul

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Nolan Ryan Endorsed Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Political All-Star

Baseball legend Nolan Ryan of the Houston Astros was honorary campaign chair for Ron Paul's Congressional race.

More fun facts about Captain Ron Paul's early life (the Astros uniform might be from a Congressional team):

Vietnam Veteran Endorses Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul as a 1960s Air Force and ANG flight surgeon literally cared for our Vietnam War era servicemen. Ever since, Congressman Captain Ron Paul has worked hard to see that our veterans get the care they earned in service to our country.