12. Open Letter to the Editors of Willamette Week

Portland Ron Paul Meetup group welcomes its newest member

(From left to right) Manuel, Alyssa, Steve M., Nadia, Ryan, that new guy,
Karen, some fella managing a crisis, Karl, Scott



"Modern journalism justifies its own existence by the great Darwininian principle of the survival of the vulgarest."
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

"A newswriter is a man without virtue, who writes lies at home for his own profit. To these compositions is required neither genius nor knowledge, neither industry nor sprightliness; but contempt of shame and indifference to truth are absolutely necessary."
- Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

As many of you know, the Portland Ron Paul Meetup group holds four weekly "Banner Brigades" across town during rush hour. At last Wednesday's event, a reporter for Willamette Week (our local, weekly circular) dropped in to interview the attendees. Click here for the online version of the article, which also appeared in the print version of Willamette Week.

Needless to say, local Ron Paul supporters were mighty displeased with the product. So this evening, I sent the following e-mail to the reporter and Willamette Week's editors.

- - - - - - - - - -

September 12, 2007

Mr. Zusman, Mr. Gillingham, and Mr. Leonard: Below, you will find my 'Letter to the Editor' regarding Mr. Leonard's article on Ron Paul in today's Willamette Week. An unfinished version with linked sources is posted in the online Comments section of the article (see http://wweek.com/editorial/3344/9536/).

QUESTION: This evening, I've read more than 25 responses from Ron Paul supporters regarding today's article by Mr. Leonard. With few exceptions (including myself, at this point), these people believe it was something of a 'hit piece' intended to de-legitimize and undermine Dr. Paul's campaign. They primarily base this conclusion on the following points:

1. The article's title of "Ron Co." is an apparent play on Ronco, a company perceived by many as a purveyor of cheesy infomercials, gimmicks, and cheap products -- a negative association.
   
   
2. The article's dismissal of Ron Paul's chances, along with an interesting selection of quotes that convey the idea that even Dr. Paul's supporters think "he has no chance" (not true). While the 'no-chance' mantra is standard boilerplate in conventional media stories on Ron Paul, it's not something I expected to see in Willamette Week.
   
   
3. Of the included quotes, one was taken out of context (Karl Huber's), and all were selected for use over substantive quotes regarding Ron Paul's track record, platform, and character -- I know because I spoke only of such topics in my time with Mr. Leonard. People participate in our group's activities because of their support for the ideas championed by Dr. Paul -- not because they see the Meetup as a social or singles club, which is the demeaning gist of your article. (Note: Mr. Huber's comment was a reference to the fact that Dr. Paul's supporters are not centrally organized or directed, but rather self-organizing and self-directed).
   
   
4. The article failed to mention that Mr. Leonard witnessed many positive reactions to our signs, while including the comment that, "Most motorists whizzed past, though there was an occasional driver flipping the bird." This statement not only misrepresents what happened during Mr. Leonard's visit with us, it also implies that our 'Banner Brigades' fail to prompt any positive responses from motorists. (Far
   from the case - see below for further details.)

One person summed it up by saying that the piece "is a deliberate and uncharitable falsification of what the reader's neighbors think. Politics is perception, and the author intentionally and willfully lied to create in the reader the impression that most of the reader's neighbors are hostile to Ron Paul. The intent can only have been to suggest that the reader, too, should adopt that posture. At least, I can't think of any other possible motivation."

In Mr. Leonard's defense, I don't know how much of the piece was his work, and how much was the result of the editing process -- and it's quite possible that some of the article's shortcomings were simply the result of honest error and oversight. So, personally, I'm willing to give Mr. Leonard the benefit of the doubt -- although this piece diminishes my confidence and trust in Willamette Week. Taken as a whole, the preceding points (and those raised below) seem to indicate a lack of concern by Willamette Week for objectivity and accuracy in its reporting.

So my question for you is -- why should Ron Paul supporters trust Willamette Week in the future? What reasons can you give us?

With each passing day, the Ron Paul campaign gains momentum, and its national grassroots base continues to grow. This campaign will continue to be one of the hottest stories of the 2008 presidential race, and our group's activism will continue to make waves locally. Unfortunately, Willamette Week may miss some great opportunities to cover this story, since this article has alienated many of Ron Paul's local supporters -- which means that securing interviews won't be an easy task for your reporters in the future.

If Willamette Week's intent is to sway public opinion against Ron Paul, I suppose that may not trouble you. But if you value journalistic integrity and 'scooping' your competition, you might re-consider your approach.

Sincerely,

Scott ...

- - - - - - - - - -

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
September 12, 2007

To the Editor,

I attended the "Banner Brigade" cited in Mr. Leonard's article, and I spent 10-15 minutes speaking with him about Ron Paul's unparalleled Congressional record in opposition to non-defensive US militarism, violations of our civil liberties, and state-corporate cronyism (i.e., Dr. Paul is an unflinching opponent of 'corporate welfare,' and has never voted for any measure that grants a special favor or privilege to corporate interests).

In the early stages of the 2008 presidential race, much of the limited, conventional-media coverage of Dr. Paul's campaign has distorted and misrepresented his views. Consequently, I was concerned that Mr. Leonard might do the same in this initial coverage in Willamette Week. I'm happy to say this concern proved unfounded, as Mr. Leonard's brief statements on Dr. Paul's record and platform are accurate.

However, while Mr. Leonard deserves some credit for this, his article suffers from two shortcomings. First, Mr. Leonard's piece gives the impression that people either ignore our signs or "flip us off," which simply isn't true. I've attended several Banner Brigades to date, and the predominantly positive response has really surprised me. Based on my experience, I estimate that 10-15% of people respond in some way to our signs -- and of those, about 90% are positive, as people wave, honk their horns, give a thumbs up, and/or, yell encouragement out their windows. Mr. Leonard saw many such responses during his visit with us.

Second, the article implies that our activities are an isolated phenomenon, while making no mention of the building, quantifiable wave of national support for Dr. Paul. In addition to Paul's well-documented dominance of the Internet, he:

1. Consistently draws more people at public appearances than any other Republican candidate,
   
   
2. Has finished in the top three in 17 of the 23 straw polls held as of September 4th (which includes nine first-place finishes),
   
   
3. Has won three of the four post-debate polls run by the hosting network (including text-message polls in which users are prevented from voting multiple times),
   
   and
   
   
4. Is backed by an unmatched grassroots following, as evidenced by the existence of 886 Ron Paul Meetup groups consisting of over 38,000 members. The next closest candidate, Barack Obama, has only 68 Meetup groups with just over 4,200 members (see http://www.meetup.com/topics/polact/cand/).
   

Anyway, Willamette Week and Mr. Leonard, thank you for publishing a mostly fair (albeit somewhat misleading) piece about Dr. Paul and our local efforts in support of his campaign.

Scott Sutton
Portland, Oregon
ValueFreedom.blogspot.com

11. Ron Paul in the Fox den

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell (1903-1950)

"The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
- John Swinton (1829-1901), former managing editor of the the New York Times circa 1880

Regarding these YouTubes -- here and here -- of Ron Paul's electrifying performance in Wednesday's Republican debate, a friend wrote: "When they ask him questions, listen to someone in the background laughing. Did you notice?"

Needless to say, I did notice -- as did any attentive soul who slogged through this latest charade of a 'debate.' As expected, we witnessed a series of shameless and purposeful tactics intended to undermine Dr. Paul, including:

• The repeated, unfiltered, derogatory laughter of a miked attendee,
  
  
• The openly hostile, pre-meditated line of questioning, typified by Chris Wallace's "You're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?", and
  
  
• The post-debate coverage, where we saw the over-matched Hannity rudely attempt to 'educate' Dr. Paul on international affairs, as well as Colmes' dishonest dismissal of yet another Ron Paul post-debate poll victory (see http://dailypaul.com/node/1906).

Moreover, Fox attempted to "ice" Dr. Paul in both the debate and post-debate coverage. In the debate, his first question came after 30 minutes and, in some cases, after multiple questions had been asked of other candidates. And in the fourth consecutive post-debate 'round-up,' they interviewed Dr. Paul last -- or damn near last, despite the fact he's the only reason to watch these 'debates' at all -- and they know it.

The bias was so blatant that only a Faux News drone could miss it. (For further details, see this post.)

But you know what?

IT

JUST

DOESN'T

MATTER.

Not only did Dr. Paul sweep the floor with the Neo-Clones, but the bias and corruption of Faux News is apparent to anyone with a pair of ears and an active brain between 'em. And in the modern era, we're no longer beholden to the manipulations of state-empowering media sources. The establishment's grip on the minds of Americans erodes with each passing day, a process accelerated by every Ron Paul address, interview, quip, column, and appearance -- as well as each blog posted, truth told, lie exposed, sign painted, e-mail sent, banner hoisted, sticker seen, deception bared, piece written, rally held, t-shirt worn, myth debunked, sky-ad flown, falsehood challenged, brochure passed, yard sign planted, clipping read, YouTube made, question raised, mind opened, and pretzel eaten (well, maybe not the pretzels ...).

Wednesday night, in his few allotted seconds of camera time, Ron smoked the competition -- again -- and he dominated the post-debate poll with over 30% of text-message responses (and be sure to watch THIS and THIS). Even Mike 'Iron-Fist-of-Unity' Huckabee inadvertently praised Ron in his own post-debate interview ... twice! (See this clip.)

"I have great respect for Congressman Paul -- he's a man who has deep convictions, he stands by them, he doesn't care who likes him or who doesn't, and for that I appreciate him." - Mike Huckabee, September 5, 2007

"If you look at it, there's really one candidate of all of us who is substantially different than the rest of us; that's Congressman Paul." - Mike Huckabee, September 5, 2007

Ain't that the truth.

Where we go from here is anybody's guess, but two things are certain. One, our building momentum gets yet another bump from the latest Ron Paul Moment -- and two, the establishment's sleep grows increasingly restless.

Postscript: In his latest e-mail to supporters, Dr. Paul described the following post-debate scene:

"After the debate, many young people gathered around the stage to discuss our ideas and ask questions about them (and to have me sign their badges). My colleagues got no such response, and after a few moments, 'security' ordered me off the stage. Can't have any such demonstration of interest in liberty."

10. The foreign policy of other candidates

"If this phrase of the 'balance of power' is to be always an argument for war, the pretext for war will never be wanting, and peace can never be secure."

– John Bright (1811-1889), British statesman and co-founder of the Anti-Corn Law League

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
– H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

In Washington DC, conventional wisdom has long held that the US government should maintain an interventionist foreign policy to secure our "national interests" and ensure "stability" around the world. For many years, American politicians have invoked these vague rationales to justify a host of unwise and unseemly activities abroad. In a previous post, I described some of these routine practices, which include:

• The arming and funding of tyrants,
  
  
• Military occupation of more than 100 countries,
  
  
• Covert operations to manipulate the internal affairs of other nations, and
  
  
• Overt participation in foreign conflicts.

These practices foster deep-seated, anti-American sentiment, while diminishing the economic and civil-liberty prospects for future generations of Americans. Moreover, our hyper-interventionist foreign policy illustrates the 'Law of Unintended Consequences,' as past interventions produce results that were either unforeseen or unheeded by the planners -- complications that, in turn, serve as the rationale for future interventions. (For an illustrative piece on past American forays in the Middle East, see this sad but amusing clip from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.)

Of the current field of presidential candidates, only Dr. Ron Paul opposed the interventionist paradigm throughout the Clinton/Bush era. While forewarning of the consequences of modern US foreign policy, Dr. Paul consistently advocated a return to the principles of strength, neutrality, restraint, and federalism advised by the Founding Fathers (a forgotten tradition I'll address in my next post). In the eyes of most other candidates, all of planet Earth now falls under the jurisdiction of the US government, and the President has the authority to intervene abroad as he (or she) sees fit. In principle, none of the "top-tier" (i.e. media-anointed) candidates oppose the rise of the "Imperial Presidency," a trend that has eviscerated Constitutional checks and balances while centralizing power in the executive branch -- they simply differ over which one of them should be the next Caesar.

From what I've seen, the other Republican candidates endorse a belligerent foreign policy that would continue America's involvement in an endless series of wars. Regrettably, the leading Democrats aren't much better. As evidenced by the articles below, the media-anointed candidates in both parties accept the premises and practices of American interventionism, while limiting their public debate to questions about logistics and implementation, such as:

• How many troops should remain in Iraq indefinitely?
  
  
• Which thugs should the US arm and finance now?
  
  
• Which country should the US bomb or invade next?
  
  
• And, most alarmingly, which civilian populations should the US threaten with a nuclear attack?
  

Of course, one can learn just as much about a politician by paying close attention to what he (or she) does not say, as what he does say. For instance, to the best of my knowledge, none of the media-anointed candidates have:

• Called for a complete withdrawal from Iraq. If they broach this topic at all, they speak only of partial 're-deployment,' while making no mention of the 14 permanent military bases recently constructed in that country.
  
  
• Challenged the influence of special interests on American foreign policy -- most notably, the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) and the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
  
  
• Repudiated the doctrine of 'pre-emptive' war (i.e. aggressive war).
  
  
• Called for any reduction in global US meddling, occupations, or militarism. On the contrary, most stump for a more 'vigorous' and 'robust' foreign policy.

But perhaps most importantly, none of the other candidates acknowledge that US global interventionism is simply unsustainable in the long run. Eventually, all empires collapse of their own weight, and the United States is rapidly approaching the point of no return. Today, "defense" expenditures total over $1 trillion annually, and the national debt has soared to over $50 trillion (official debt plus projected entitlements; approximately $166,000 per American).

So the question is not IF the United States should retract its global grip, but rather WHEN will it do so, and under what circumstances. Will it be a time of America's choosing, under reasonably amenable conditions -- or a time when a draw-down is necessitated by fiscal, military, and/or logistical reality?

As awful as it is, the Iraq War is merely a symptom of the root problem -- America's hyper-interventionist foreign policy. Not only has Dr. Paul accurately diagnosed the problem for many years -- he's the only presidential candidate who confronts the issue while prescribing the only effective cure.

"Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always know the good guys from the bad guys, and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests always agitating for influence. Nothing could be further from the truth."
– Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, April 21, 1999

Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons: United and Interchangeable, by Philip Giraldi (former CIA officer and a partner in Cannistraro Associates)

• "(M)any of the leading candidates' advisers are graduates of the same school of thought, i.e., that the United States must use its military power to impose certain standards on the rest of the world. Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way."
  
  
• "(Hillary Clinton's) foreign policy advisers are a who's who of neoliberal hawks, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who famously believed that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was 'worth it.' Clinton is also being advised by Richard Holbrooke, who is reported to be close to Paul Wolfowitz ... (and) has been a supporter of the Iraq war."
  
  
• "(Giuliani advisor) Norman Podhoretz has called for a World War IV against Islamofascism, which presumably means a war against all Muslim countries until they surrender ... Fred Thompson is being advised by Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the vice president."
  
  
• "It is very discouraging to note that the advocates of the Iraq war, which is almost universally seen as Washington's greatest foreign policy blunder of the past hundred years, are continuing to play a major role in the shaping of policy for the next generation of political leaders of both parties."
  

Democratic Double-Speak on Iraq, by Ira Chernus (Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado, and author of Monsters to Destroy)

• "(T)he Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war ... while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time ... The Democrats currently topping the polls ... are proving themselves eminently qualified in doublespeak."
  
  
• "A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects US troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017 ... 'America must be the world's leader,' (Clinton) declared last month. 'We must widen the scope of our strength by leading strong alliances which can apply military force when required.'"
  
  
• "(Obama's foreign policy) delights neoconservative guru Robert Kagan, who summed up Obama's message succinctly: 'His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough.… To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States.'"
  
  
• "'Stabilization' is yet another establishment code word for insuring US control.... The top Democrats agree that we must leave significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq ... to prevent chaos and bring order and stabilization to that country -- as if US troops were not already creating chaos and instability there every day. But among the foreign policy elite, the US is always a force for order, 'helping' naturally chaotic foreigners achieve 'stability.'"
  
  
• "With an election looming, the Democrats portray themselves as the polar opposite of the Republicans. They blame the Iraq fiasco entirely on Bush and the neocons, conveniently overlooking all the support Bush got from the Democratic elite before his military venture went sour."
  
  
• "The outcome (of the election) will undoubtedly make a real difference, especially to the people of Iraq, but it's still only a dispute about tactics, never about goals, which have been agreed upon in advance. Yet it's those long-range goals of the bipartisan consensus that add up to the seven-decade-old drive for imperial hegemony, which got us into Vietnam, Iraq, and wherever we fight the next large, disastrous war. It's those goals that should be addressed.... Unfortunately, the leading Democratic candidates aren't about to take up the task."
  

Rudy Giuliani: Confused, Ignorant, or Deceitful? by Doug Bandow (former Special Assistant in the Reagan Administration)

• "Giuliani's plea for remaining in Iraq sounds an awful lot like the man who murders his parents and then requests public assistance for being an orphan. Yes, we blew up Iraq and the Mideast and created an awful mess. Yes, we opened Iraq to religious strife and immeasurably strengthened Iran's geopolitical position. Yes, we set the stage for regional Sunni-Shi'ite conflict. But now you have to support us as we attempt to clean up the mess. Otherwise things will get really bad."
  
  
• "(T)he American people understand what Giuliani does not: fighting an unnecessary war in a hostile land that is viewed unfavorably around the world creates more terrorists than it kills... Daniel Benjamin of the Brookings Institution told Congress earlier this year that 'the invasion of Iraq gave the jihadists an unmistakable boost. Terrorism is about advancing a narrative and persuading a targeted audience to believe it.' U.S. policies 'have too often lent inadvertent confirmation to the terrorists' narrative.' "
  
  
• "Is (Giuliani) prepared to conscript American young people if they don't share his enthusiasm for fighting the many wars he expects to wage around the world?The problem is not an insufficient military, but too many commitments. Why are U.S. troops still stationed in Germany, South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, and more? Giuliani doesn't say. Yet he wants the U.S. to guarantee the security of more nations. "
  
  
• "What is Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy? A bigger Army, Navy, and Air Force. Prosecuting the war in Iraq until liberal democracy emerges. Bombing Iran. Invading more countries to defenestrate bad regimes and suppress disorder. Attacking more countries to kill the additional terrorists created by his more frequent interventions. Confronting China and Russia.... George W. Bush already has done his best to bankrupt the nation and anger the world. Giuliani would go double or nothing. It's a gamble the American people cannot afford."
  

Democrats say leaving Iraq may take Years, by Jeff Zeleny and Marc Santora (New York Times)

• "Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years."
  
  
• "John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis."

The Democrats are Selling Out the Peace Movement, by Justin Raimondo (Editorial Director of Antiwar.com)

• "(T)he whole point of leaving Iraq – aside from stopping the killing, the senseless American sacrifices, and the billions draining out of the Treasury – is to ensure that we don't get sucked into a conflict beyond that country's borders."
  
  
• "When the rhetoric (toward Iran) really begins to smoke, they'll spark a shooting war by overblowing some border incident and framing the war question in terms of regaining America's 'honor.' Will we 'cut and run'? Or stand and fight? It's an argument the War Party always wins – until it comes out that the incident in question was either completely manufactured (as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident during the Vietnam War era), provoked by the Americans, or wildly exaggerated."
  
  
• "The ugly truth of the matter is that the Democrats' capitulation on the Iraq war funding issue was rationalized by the pork ladled out to compliant 'antiwar' lefties in Congress. Bribery, in short, in the form of tax dollars handed out to favored interest groups, enabled the party leadership to whip the 'antiwar' faction into line. Pork trumps principle, every time: that's life in the Imperial City, and it's part of the reason why this war is dragging on in spite of the fact that it's wildly unpopular."
  
  
• "Anyone who believes the Democratic party leadership is committed to getting us out of Iraq, and out of the business of world-saving, democracy-exporting, neo-colonialist base-building, is living in a dream world. The party Establishment is in cahoots with the War Party, and not only on the Iraq issue. The neocons, for their part, are just as comfortable supporting Democrats as they are Republicans."
  
  
• "The neocon project is all about creating a reliable ally in the region, a base from which to wage new wars of 'liberation' – and ensure American control over much of the world's dwindling oil supply. What the Democrats are promising, therefore, is to be more successful at being imperialists than their incompetent Republican rivals. This is a distinction without a difference, one that is certainly not worth either voting for or even passively cheering on in the name of 'change.'"
  

9. Ron Paul for the Long Haul

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
— Mahatma Gandhi

"The presidency is now a cross between a popularity contest and a high school debate, with an encyclopedia of cliches the first prize."
— Saul Bellow

About Ron Paul's Fundraising

On July 15th, the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd quarter fundraising totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field, Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him:

• 3rd in total receipts for the quarter
  
  
• 4th in total receipts to date
  
  
• 3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)

Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second highest percentage). This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch."

Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary reason when he asked rhetorically, "why should (military personnel) want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see Why the US Military Loves Ron Paul).

Why, indeed -- President Paul would bring them home now.

The Ron Paul Buzz

As anyone familiar with the Ron Paul campaign knows, official fundraising figures tell only a small part of the story. This campaign is a genuine grassroots movement, driven primarily by the independent efforts of Dr. Paul's enthusiastic supporters -- a wide-ranging constituency that includes disenfranchised anti-war Democrats, traditional conservatives, Constitutionalists, anti-corporatists, free traders, libertarians, Christians, Hindus, atheists, druids, hobbits, wizards, and a host of others. Although a seemingly disparate group, these people share a genuine concern about America's ongoing slide toward authoritarianism, empire, and bankruptcy.

This building wave of support takes many forms -- from the proliferation of Ron Paul Web sites, blogs, and merchandise, to public 'banner brigades' and pamphleteering, to private conversations and e-mail threads -- and some estimates assess the economic value of these independent activities at more than $10 million per quarter.

No candidacy has generated more buzz than Ron Paul's, and the following statistics prove the point:

• "Ron Paul" recently topped Technorati's search-term rankings for an unprecedented stretch -- current rank #2 (Technorati is the leading authority on Internet media usage).
  
  
• RonPaul2008.com draws more traffic than any other candidate's Web site.
  
  
• On YouTube.com, the Internet's most popular video site, the Ron Paul channel has over 22,000 subscribers, which is 13,000 more than the second most popular candidate (Obama).
  
  
• And on Meetup.com, more than 25,000 people comprise 560 Ron Paul Meetup groups, which makes the Good Doctor the most popular Meetup source in the political category. The next candidate, Obama, is a distant second with 5300 members in 68 groups.
  
  Notes: All statistics reflect current numbers as of July 23, 2007. Also, for those who don't know, Meetup.com is the most popular Internet site for people with common interests who want to organize events and activities with one another -- consequently, it's the most commonly used online resource for coordinating political activities.
  

Some commentators say this interest and support is illusory, perhaps even the product of a centralized Internet effort led by the Ron Paul campaign. Yet, the Paul campaign has only spent $600,000 to date, while other candidates have already burned through tens of millions. Although Paul's campaign staff is growing, it doesn't even have the resources to provide timely responses to the flood of incoming e-mails (I speak from personal experience here), much less oversee such a sustained, widespread, technologically-sophisticated endeavor.

The skeptics also ignore an obvious question -- if it's so easy to jerry-rig Internet statistics, why haven't other, better-financed campaigns done the same? (Answer: It's not easy and, in many cases, it's simply impossible.) While I personally don't know of anyone who spends their time spamming online polls or repeatedly Googling their favorite candidate's name, I have no doubt such people exist in the ranks of most political movements. And given the evident enthusiasm of Ron Paul supporters, it's quite likely that a greater percentage of his backers might attempt to do such things.

That said, I believe there are more plausible reasons for Ron Paul's "online success" -- most importantly, the Internet is the primary source of information about Dr. Paul. As early as last fall -- two full years before the election -- the conventional media and major-party establishments had already anointed the top six Republican and Democratic candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama, & Edwards). Since then, countless opinion makers have informed Americans that these six politicians complete the list of 'viable' Presidential options. In other words, no need to look further -- we've done your thinking for you.

How and why this happened exactly is a topic for another day. (Hint - Follow the money.) The important point here is that each of the Anointed Candidates has received regular, daily coverage since that time (and, in some cases, for several years now). Although Dr. Paul has benefited from a smattering of media attention since his 'blowback' exchange with Giuliani in May, people who are curious about Paul's track record and platform must turn to the Internet. The conventional media is most unlikely to begin covering Dr. Paul on a regular basis, no matter how much traction he gains.

Consequently, Ron Paul's supporters must assume the task of spreading the word. Fortunately, many of us are happy to do so, and when people first learn of Dr. Paul's track record, they typically want to know more. As regular readers of this blog know, Ron Paul challenges US foreign policy on a refreshingly honest and fundamental level -- a level of inquiry wholly absent from most political forums. And Dr. Paul's forthrightness doesn't stop with foreign policy, as he applies the same intellectual rigor to issues involving civil liberties, health care, immigration, education, our fiat-money system, and so on.

Reading Tea Leaves

Now, I'm not a political analyst, and things could certainly change in a hurry -- but given the current landscape, some future developments seem rather predictable:

First, Ron Paul's Jeffersonian liberalism will give him a significant advantage over his pro-war, neoconservative competitors. While the other candidates vie for the support of the modern Republican base, Ron Paul provides the only real alternative for any traditional conservatives who remain in the party. Without Ron Paul, each GOP debate would be a brain-dead echo chamber.

Perhaps more importantly, Dr. Paul will appeal to those Americans who long ago abandoned politics because the big-government statism of the two major parties was hostile to their values. With recent voter turnout in presidential elections hovering around 50%, this may be a surprisingly large block of potential voters. For Ron Paul supporters, the key will be finding these people and telling them about Dr. Paul -- a simple, mass-marketing numbers game.

Second, due to this ideological edge and campaign realities, we'll witness a steady whittling of the Republican field in coming months -- a thinning that recently began with Jim Gilmore's exit from the race. With the exception of Ron Paul, the other candidates have spent their funds like drunken Congressmen, and the 'second tier' has little to show for their binge. Most of these campaigns suffer from anemic fundraising, a moribund Internet presence, and lackluster crowds (certainly nothing approaching the numerous crowds gathering on Ron Paul's behalf, as documented here, here, here, here, here, and here). By next spring, the existing field of contenders will be reduced to a Final Four -- Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul.

Third, Ron Paul is in this race for the long haul -- at least until next September's Republican convention. Thus far, the Paul campaign has run a frugal operation, relying primarily on the efforts of grassroots activists. These efforts are steadily snowballing support, as evidenced by Dr. Paul's three-month ascent from anonymity to 3% in national polls, and that figure will continue to rise at the rate people learn about our candidate. As Jennifer Haman pointed out, Ron Paul leads in the polls of those who have heard him speak. In the meantime, the campaign is shrewdly storing its dry powder -- mounting millions to be meted out at judicious points throughout the campaign.

Only time will tell what the future holds for Ron Paul's presidential bid -- but for now, there's great cause for optimism.

8. The principled anti-war candidate

"When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often can be done only through terrorism, a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world. But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well."
— Dr. Ron Paul, April 21, 1999

As a conscientious and consistent critic of American militarism, Dr. Ron Paul has no peer in the 2008 presidential race. From the habitual warring of the Clinton administration to contemporary belligerence towards Iran, Ron Paul has stood fast and often alone against the martial zeitgeist of our time.

In the 1990s, Dr. Paul:

• Opposed the widespread deployment of American troops in non-defensive, unconstitutional wars.
  
  
• Challenged the false and flawed rationales for such deployments as those in Kosovo and Bosnia.
  
  
• Voted against the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made 'regime change' the official policy of the US government — a measure that Dr. Paul correctly predicted would lead to open war.
  
  
• Opposed the brutal embargo and repeated bombings of Iraq.
  
  
• Advised Congress that US policies needlessly anger many people around the world, while repeatedly forewarning of terrorist 'blowback.'

In the years prior to the invasion of Iraq, Paul:

• Opposed the pending conflict on moral, practical, and political grounds.
  
  
• Refuted the 'evidence' that served as the Bush administration's casus belli.
  
  
• Voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which Dr. Paul accurately described as giving the president "the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared."
  
  
• Apprised Congress and his constituents of the ugly, expected consequences.
  

And since the invasion, he has:

• Voted against all bills for further funding of the war — a minimum requirement for any candidate in Congress who claims to be 'anti-war.'
  
  
• Advocated US withdrawal, while pointing out that continuing American involvement in an unjustified, unwinnable war is no way to 'support the troops.'
  
  
• Explained the pernicious influence of neo-conservatives on US foreign policy.
  
  
• Called for a thorough investigation of the Bush administration's fraudulent campaign for war.
  
  

Some presidential candidates protest select instances of militarism if the opposition party occupies the White House — but dutifully support such actions when a member of 'their' party calls the shots.

Some candidates criticize the Bush Administration's 'mis-management' of the US occupation — despite their role as advocates and enablers of this elective war and others.

Some candidates now chastise the administration for its Iraq propaganda campaign — despite their active participation in spreading alarmist falsehoods during the march to war.

And some candidates carefully calibrate their rhetoric on foreign policy to suit the particular views of each audience.

But not Ron Paul — the principled anti-war candidate.

!!! NEW PAGE Ron Paul on foreign policy during the Clinton years NEW PAGE !!!

"An autocratic system of coercion, in my opinion, soon degenerates. For force always attracts men of low morality, and I believe it to be an invariable rule that tyrants of genius are succeeded by scoundrels ... This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how I hate them! War seems to me a mean, contemptible thing: I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. And yet so high, in spite of everything, is my opinion of the human race that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the nations not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the Press."

— Albert Einstein, The World as I See It (1931)

7. Ron Paul on US foreign policy

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1801

"[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force ... She might become the dictatress of the world."
-- John Quincy Adams, 1821

Throughout his tenure in Congress, Dr. Ron Paul has advocated a return to the non-interventionist foreign policy espoused by America's Founding Fathers. Ron Paul has consistently challenged the bi-partisan promotion of global interventionism, while pointing out the inherent negative consequences of such practices as:

• US financial and military support of foreign governments and factions -- a long list of beneficiaries that includes such odious characters as Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, Osama bin Laden, and the House of Saud.
  
  
• Habitual involvement of US troops in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with national defense -- engagements that alienate and enrage those against whom the US government positions itself.
  
  
• The maintenance of US military bases in more than 130 countries around the world -- a global presence that dilutes this country's capacity for genuine defense, and does nothing to dissuade those who view the US as a rapacious, militant empire.
  
  
• Widespread covert operations to engineer Washington-mandated outcomes in other countries -- including activities unknown even to those in Congress, as illustrated once again by the revelations surrounding the CIA's international network of torture prisons.
  
  
• The use of economic sanctions to effect 'regime change' in other countries -- measures that rarely impact ruling elites, but often inflict great suffering on those they rule.
  
  
• Deference to special interests who benefit from interventionism -- perhaps best illustrated by the scores of Capitol Hill lobbyists who curry favor on behalf of the military-industrial-congressional (MIC) complex and foreign governments.

Our interventionist foreign policy has contributed to:

• A $9 trillion national debt -- an unchosen and ever-growing obligation to be borne by future generations, with potentially dire ramifications for their economic well being.
  
  
• A crisis in civil liberties -- a predictable result of militarism, as demonstrated throughout history.
  
  
• An unchecked executive branch -- a decades-long development with ominous implications for the future, perhaps best exemplified by Congress' abnegation of its constitutional war-making authority.
  
  
• Incessant military conflict since World War II -- an unavoidable consequence when a country's political class holds no principled opposition to the deployment of troops in non-defensive pursuits.
  
  
• Unprecedented anti-American sentiment abroad -- an ironic state of affairs since some people maintain that interventionist policies are needed to engender international goodwill toward the US -- yet interventionism, not "isolationism," is the primary cause of such antipathy.
  
  
• The peril of terrorism -- largely inspired by US actions in the Middle East.
  
  
• The mounting loss of innocent lives -- a reality that should mortify decent people everywhere.

Ostensibly, an interventionist foreign policy was required to combat communism during the Cold War -- but 18 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, an open and thorough re-assessment of American interventionism is long overdue.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate with the courage, knowledge, and honesty to initiate this vital discussion with the American people. While the other candidates accept interventionist premises and practices (including those who oppose this particular war), Dr. Paul expounds a fundamental alternative. Perhaps Americans will condone a continuation of the status quo, but we deserve to hear about the costs and consequences of maintaining this course, as well as the reasons underlying the advice of the Founding Fathers.

Below, you will find one of Dr. Paul's congressional addresses on the topic of American foreign policy, which he delivered in the House of Representatives prior to the vote on the Iraq War Resolution of 2002. Of this speech, Dr. Paul wrote the following in his book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom:

"Since I was against the foreign policy that was leading us into war once again, I needed to be something more than a mere critic; I also needed to state once again what the alternative was. Here, I make the case for a new approach by outlining what exactly we support in the way of foreign affairs."

As the drums of war again beat loudly, I hope you will take a moment to read and consider Dr. Paul's thoughts. For the text, go to:

A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, by Dr. Ron Paul, 2002
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090502.htm

6. Statement against the 'surge' in Iraq

On February 14 2007, Ron Paul delivered a House address in opposition to the proposed 'surge' in Iraq. (Excerpts below -- full text here)

"The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel."

"Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?"

"Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades, our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East."

"For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting 'our' oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now, Iraq will be left in a mess -- implying the implausible, that if we stay, it won’t be a mess. Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed, and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!"

"There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today."

5. Ron Paul on 'preemptive' war

(Originally distributed via e-mail on June 9, 2007)

"(A) war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday
in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any
place in the world, is subject to an American invasion without cause."
– Dr. Ron Paul, March 2002

"A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single;
and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang."
– Benjamin Franklin, 1785

In Tuesday's Republican debate on CNN, the candidates were asked "What's the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?" Ron Paul responded by saying:

"I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We, in the past, have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just-war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security! I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption ..."

These are not the carefully parsed words of a calculating politician maneuvering for position in tomorrow's polls. On the contrary, these are the words of an honest and conscientious man.

While most presidential candidates openly endorse the doctrine of 'preemptive' war, Ron Paul has been a principled and vocal opponent of aggressive violence throughout his tenure in Congress. In this 2002 interview with Bill Moyers (11-minute video), Dr. Paul discusses preemptive war and just-war theory, along with the false rationales for invading Iraq. For those of you who remain ambivalent about the bi-partisan acceptance of preemptive war, I urge you to consider the following points:

1. By practicing preemptive war, the US government has squandered whatever moral authority it had in the eyes of the world. It's pure hypocrisy to commit aggressive violence while condemning the aggression of others.
   
   
2. A world that accepts the doctrine of 'preemptive' war is a world destined for endless, open-ended conflict.
   
   
3. If the American people condone such deadly power in the hands of the US government, what evidence is there that the political class can be relied upon to wield that power judiciously? In the months before the invasion of Iraq, many congressmen willingly repeated the administration's propaganda for war, while making no effort to include contrarian authorities in congressional committee deliberations. As for those who knew better or harbored doubts, only a few raised their voices while others remained silent. No one should be trusted with the power to wage aggressive war, and such common sense was only validated by the craven, dishonest performance of Congress prior to the invasion of Iraq.
   
   
4. In a nuclear age preceded by a century of heretofore unimagined carnage wrought by unscrupulous politicians, I, for one, am aghast that such an evil doctrine is even considered debatable by many of my countrymen.

Stop the madness. Support Ron Paul.

4. Ron Paul's record during the march to war in Iraq

In chronological order, the following list consists of addresses Dr. Paul delivered in the House of Representatives prior to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq:

• Statement in Opposition to House Resolution on Iraq, December 19, 2001
  
  
• Before We Bomb Iraq ..., February 26, 2002
  
  
• Why Initiate War with Iraq?, March 20, 2002
  
  
• Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?, June 24, 2002
  
  
• Arguments Against a War in Iraq, September 4, 2002
  
  
• Questions that Won't be Asked about Iraq, September 10, 2002
  
  
• Can We Afford this War?, September 24, 2002
  
  
• Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?, October 3, 2002
  
  
• Statement Opposing the Use of Military Force in Iraq, October 8, 2002
  
  
• Unintended Consequences, November 14, 2002
  
  
• Another United Nations War?, February 26, 2003
  
  
• The Myth of War Prosperity, March 4, 2003

3. Ron Paul's "Questions that won't be asked about Iraq"

(Originally distributed via e-mail on May 28, 2007)

"It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare."
– Mark Twain

"I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider
the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man."
– George Washington

On October 10 & 11, 2002, the United States Congress overwhelmingly passed the Iraq War Resolution. This resolution authorized "the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." With this act, Congress gave the president the power to wage war at his discretion, thereby relinquishing its Constitutional responsibility to debate and vote on a formal declaration of war.

Prior to this vote, most American media coverage uncritically echoed the Bush administration's casus belli -- most notably, that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), posed an imminent threat to the US, and was complicit in the attacks of 9/11. However, a few intrepid souls (including Iraq weapons inspectors and US intelligence veterans) challenged these assertions throughout the march to war. In a hostile environment rife with militant hysteria, these people patiently exposed the flaws and falsehoods in the government's propaganda.

Of the current field of presidential candidates who were in Congress at the time, only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Iraq War Resolution. As the administration's case for war unraveled, some of the other candidates attempted to exculpate their support of the resolution by invoking such excuses as the Bush administration 'fooled us all' and 'everyone believed that Hussein's regime had WMD.' As the record shows, such claims are patently false.

Adding his voice to the small chorus of dissenters, Ron Paul delivered a series of addresses in the House of Representatives in the months before the Iraq War Resolution. At a time when it was politically unpopular to do so, Dr. Paul persistently confronted and disputed the administration's case for war. Below, you will find the text of one such address, as well as links to each of the others. With these statements, Ron Paul exhibited undaunted honesty and integrity, perhaps the rarest of all virtues in our nation's capitol.

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough,
we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us.
Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
- Carl Sagan

Questions that Won't be Asked on Iraq, Dr. Ron Paul on the floor of the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

"Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked -- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
   
   
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
   
   
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
   
   
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
   
   
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
   
   
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?
   
   
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
   
   
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
   
   
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
   
   
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?
    
    
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States - and who may again attack the United States - and using them to 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?