Sunday, June 24, 2007

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

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.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

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:

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?

2. Ron Paul speaks the truth

(Originally distributed via e-mail on May 22, 2007)

"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."
- Thomas Paine

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

Patriotism lies not in blind obedience to authority, but in the desire to search for the truth."
- Ramman Kenoun

Letter to the Editor of by Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, Mr. Scheuer is author of Imperial Hubris and Through Our Enemies' Eyes.
"Of the eighteen presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Mr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter."

"These holy cows of U.S. politics have long been off limits to debate, but Mr. Paul has now accurately identified them as the source of motivation for our Islamist enemies ..."

"The war we are engaged in with the Islamists is a long way from over, but it need end in America’s defeat only if Mr. Paul’s frank statements are ignored."
Ron Paul Said It by Llewellyn Rockwell
Mr. Rockwell is the founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.
"Plenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate. Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.

So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth."
Ron Paul Rocks! by Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D.
A retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, Kwiatkowski is reknowned for her courage in exposing the corrupt military-intelligence campaign prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"Seeing Ron Paul educate Wolf Blitzer earlier this week, after his astoundingly fantastic performance in the second Republican debate, makes me sorry I had lost my faith in the power of truth, the power of courage. I’m sorry that I didn’t believe in the possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power."

"Ron Paul is speaking truth to the whole world, with patience and patriotism flowing in equally generous portions."

"But far more than that, I am pleased to be humbled by each new day of the Ron Paul campaign – to witness the raw power of ideas and debate – after such a long hiatus of ideas and debate from the American political game."
Mr. Horton is the host of Antiwar Radio.
"This is Giuliani's shining 'Reagan debate moment'? When he is completely wrong and the statement he's denouncing and the man making it are 100% right?"

"So you see, foreign occupation – American foreign policy – is a 'major contributing factor' in creating terrorism today, just as it was in the years before September 11th."
Giuliani's Attack on Ron Paul Falls Flat by Jacob Hornberger, B.A., J.D.
Mr. Hornberger is the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
"As Ron Paul emphasized in last night’s debate, imagine if some foreign power — such as China — had done these types of things to the United States. Wouldn’t Americans experience anger and rage?"

"What Ron Paul’s participation in the 2008 presidential race is accomplishing is this: It is making people such as Rudy Giuliani think about things they’ve never thought about before and causing them to view the U.S. government and its long-time paradigm of empire and interventionism in an entirely different way. It’s also why he is engendering considerable discomfort among people who have long believed that the federal government is a deity whose foreign policies are beyond reproach."
On the Lighter Side (cartoon clip from 'The Family Guy')

1. Support Ron Paul

(Originally distributed via e-mail on May 18, 2007)

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because
it comprises and develops the germ of every other."
– James Madison in 1795

I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq
have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who
are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war."
– Dr. Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, September 18 2002


In Tuesday night's Republican debate, Congressman Ron Paul was predictably alone in making the point that Washington's interventionist foreign policy has long induced widespread antipathy for the US abroad. He urged Americans to make an honest effort to understand the causal link between
provocative US policies and the anger that prompts some terrorists to commit such horrific acts as the 9/11 attacks. By ignoring these connections and persisting with such policies, the US government needlessly imperils the American people in the future.

In a remarkable display of either willful ignorance or blatant demagoguery, Rudy Giuliani responded indignantly to Ron Paul's factual observation that US policies motivated the 9/11 hijackers, and he demanded that Dr. Paul retract his statements. To his everlasting credit, Dr. Paul did not.

Mr. Giuliani and other self-appointed thought police would do well to bear the following points in mind:
  1. To state that Islamic terrorists are motivated by both ideology and US interventionism is not a faulty or illogical position. On the contrary, there's abundant evidence for both as motivating factors, and the influence of these factors varies between individual terrorists. Al Qaeda is no exception, and their pre-9/11 statements plainly outlined their grievances with American foreign policy. Since 9/11, countless books, documentaries, and analyses (including the government's own 9/11 Commission Report) have detailed this history. While some media outlets have shamelessly portrayed Ron Paul's comments as somehow scandalous, the real scandal is that the other candidates uniformly ignore the role of US policies.

  2. There is no contradiction between an honest attempt to understand the motivating factors for terrorism and a condemnation of terrorist tactics. But in the lexicon of Giuliani and his fellow travelers, the former constitutes "blaming America" for 9/11. As Tom Woods recently wrote, "I guess detectives should bear that in mind the next time they seek the motive behind a murder. 'You’re looking for motive? Are you saying the dead man had it coming?'"
For the record, Dr. Paul has always supported focused efforts to pursue Al Qaeda operatives and bring them to justice, and he's one of the few members of Congress who have opposed US alliances with Islamic fundamentalists throughout his career.

The American people should know what the US government does abroad in our name, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who gives us the unvarnished truth. With respect to the motives of the 9/11 hijackers, Dr. Paul cited the US bombings of Iraq prior to 2001 in Tuesday's debate. However, Dr. Paul could also have mentioned other practices that he has steadfastly opposed throughout his career, including:
  • The Bush-Clinton embargo of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of over one million Iraqis, including more than 300,000 children.

  • US financial and military support of oppressive regimes in the Middle East -- a roster of recipients that includes Saudi Arabia, Musharraf's Pakistan, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

  • The prolonged US military presence on the Arabian peninsula, which is viewed by Muslims as an unjust occupation of holy land.
In recent years, Ron Paul opposed the invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and the government's assault on habeus corpus, while persistently pointing out the inherent dangers and false rationales of each. While this record alone sets him apart from the field, Dr. Paul is further distinguished by his long-standing call for a return to America's traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism and independence. Ron Paul is the only major party candidate who has consistently challenged the prevailing bi-partisan foreign policy of global interventionism that not only fosters widespread resentment of the US, but also impoverishes future generations of Americans while habitually involving US troops in perilous situations that have nothing to do with national defense.

As other presidential candidates mouth expected platitudes and compete for the title of "Best Monday Morning Quarterback" in Iraq, Ron Paul focuses on the ill-conceived policies that make such debacles possible in the first place -- for example:

  • Congress' 60-year abnegation of its vital constitutional responsibility to vote on a declaration of war prior to military operations.

  • The pervasive influence of special interests on American foreign policy -- interests that place primacy on their own financial and ideological agendas, rather than the defense and security of the American people.

  • Chronic US meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, including such covert operations as the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup to install the Shah of Iran, US support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the present-day proxy war in Somalia.

  • The presence of US military personnel in over 140 countries (including the construction of 14 permanent bases in Iraq, a development that Dr. Paul raised in the debate)

As exemplified by Giuliani's high-handed behavior, establishment politicians and their media enablers adhere to a self-imposed speech code that forbids open discussion of our disastrous foreign policy. But so long as that policy persists, it's only a matter of time before the next Vietnam or Iraq.

Ron Paul is a decent and honorable man who has always spoken truth to power. He deserves our support.

For more information, go to and

In Peace, Liberty, and Good Will,

Scott ...

PS - Since the mainstream media ignores Ron Paul or treats his candidacy with a dismissive sniff, the Internet remains the primary resource for people who wish to learn more about his record. In coming months, I will e-mail Ron Paul news and views to this distribution list. If you're not interested, feel free to exercise your Constitutional right to hit your Delete button, or let me know and I'll gladly remove you from the list. :-)

Ron Paul Interviews

Interviews with Dr. Ron Paul:

Debate Appearances

Video of Ron Paul's comments in each presidential debate:
June 5, 2007 - Manchester, New Hampshire

May 15, 2007 - Columbia, South Carolina

May 3, 2007 - Simi, California

Friday, June 1, 2007

The candidates on foreign policy

Note: This page is a work in progress.

Dr. Ron Paul

"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."
Dr. Ron Paul, US Foreign Policy and NATO's Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo, April 21, 1999

"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, US Foreign Policy and NATO's Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo, April 21, 1999

"The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefit to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily."
Dr. Ron Paul, A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, September 9, 2002

"I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war."
Dr. Ron Paul, War is a Political Mistake, September 18, 2002

"Already, the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had."
Dr. Ron Paul, Iran: The Next Neo-Con Target, April 7, 2006

"(K)eeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There's no better way to support the troops ... It's disconcerting that those of us who never believed the justifications given for our
invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops!"
Dr. Ron Paul, Support the Troops by Ending the War, February 1, 2007

"I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002, and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial 'Iraq regime change' legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay."
Dr. Ron Paul, Bring Our Troops Home Now, July 12, 2007

See also Ron Paul on foreign policy during the Clinton years.

Barack Obama

"Never has it been more important for America to lead wisely, to shrewdly project power and wield influence ... In every region of the globe, our foreign policy should promote traditional American ideals."
Barack Obama, speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, July 4, 2004
(see Barack Obama on Foreign Policy)

"There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."
Barack Obama, July 27, 2004 (see Meet Barack Obama by Eric Ruder)

"(T)he US should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran."
Barack Obama, September 25, 2004 (see Barack Obama and the Clash of Civilizations by David Peterson)

"After the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the US military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'"
Barack Obama, November 22, 2005 (see O-Bomb-A and the War Party by Justin Raimondo)

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan ..."
Barack Obama, August 1, 2007 (see Obama as the New Kennedy: And Not in a Good Way …, by Justin Raimondo)

"(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.'"
Ira Chernus, Democratic Double-Speak on Iraq, July 22, 2007

Hillary Clinton

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and
security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security."
Hillary Clinton, Floor speech on S.J. Res 45, October 10, 2002

"We must widen the scope of our strength by leading strong alliances which can apply military force when required and promote our values."
Hillary Clinton, January 22, 2007 (see Democratic Double-Speak on Iraq by Ira Chernus)

"As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table."
Hillary Clinton, February 14, 2007 (see MoveOn Whitewashes Hillary’s Iran Belligerence by Norman Solomon)

John Edwards

"(Congress) should clearly endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed
by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
John Edwards, Senator Edwards says Congress must be clear on Iraq, September 19, 2002

"Saddam needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution."
John Edwards, Vice-Presidential Debate Transcript, October 5, 2004

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table.
Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
John Edwards, January 22, 2007 (see The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War by George LaKoff)