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.