See other Editorial Articles
Title: Ron Paul: Fixing What’s Wrong With Iraq
Source:
Texas Straight Talk
URL Source: http://www.house.gov:80/paul/tst/tst2007/tst052107.htm
Published: May 21, 2007
Author: Ron Paul
Post Date: 2007-05-21 19:20:16 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 261
Comments: 19
May 21, 2007 Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war. More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq . According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States . As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq , fulfilling the first objective of the authorization. With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, what is the legal ground for our continued involvement in Iraq ? Why has Congress not stepped up to the plate and revisited the original authorization? This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq . Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
Ron Paul is simply wrong. The first two of those claims
are false and the concern wasn't just about Iraq attacking the US at that
moment in time ... it was about Iraq being a source of WMD to terrorists or
engaging in terrorism itself. The ISG concluded that Iraq had not given up
its ambition to possess WMD. The ISG concluded that Iraq had surreptiously
maintained materials and knowledge that would allow them to quickly
reconstitute chemical and biological WMD quickly, once UN oversight and
sanctions ended (which would have been the logical outcome of a clean bill of
health in 2003 by the UN). The ISG concluded that Iraq went to considerable
trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities just before, during and
even after the invasion that were thought related to WMD. There had to have
been a reason for doing that. The ISG said they had what they consider a
reliable source saying that WMD materials were moved to Syria right before the
war. The ISG said they could NOT resolve the question because it had become
too dangerous for ISG members to continue pursing the question. That binary
sarin shell that turned up after the war as an IED is alone proof that Ron
Paul is wrong about Iraq having NO weapons of mass destruction. Ron Paul
is equally wrong that there was no al-Qaeda activity. A Jordanian court
convicted about a dozen admitted al-Qaeda for a plot that, if successful,
would have killed tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US
embassy in Amman. And those terrorists admitted they were funded and sent on
their mission by al_Zarqawi, who met them IN BAGHDAD BEFORE THE WAR. And there
are plenty of other indications that al-Qaeda were present and active in Iraq
before the invasion ... and that Saddam's government was aware of it. At one
point, a member of al-Zarqawis terrorist organization was captured and Saddam
personally ordered his release even though the Iraqi security officer who made
the capture said he believe the man was guilty of the reason they had arrested
him. Finally, Ron Paul is wrong about Iraq not having been a threat.
Saddam agreed not to even research WMD in exchange for our stopping our forces
from taking his whole country in the First Gulf War. Period. What sort of
leader will Ron Paul be if he's not willing to hold those who make agreements
responsible for abiding by those agreements? Terrorists don't need significant
quantities of WMD to wreak great havoc on lives, property and economies. Ron
Paul should pay special attention to the statement of David Kay of the ISG
when he said that Iraq was more dangerous than anyone thought in terms of
being a source of WMD materials and knowledge to terrorists. Ron Paul should
pay special attention to the fact that even before we invaded afghanistan, al-
Zarqawi was relocating from Afghanistan to Iraq. Ron Paul should wake up to
the fact that al-Zarqawi plotted and funded an mass casualty attack on Jordan
and the US embassy in Jordan BEFORE we invaded Iraq. And he met the would be
terrorists in BAGHDAD. Ron Paul is severely deluded when it comes to
foreign policy. In previous speeches he has made many equally nonsensical
statements. For example, when arguing that we should not have invaded
Afghanistan, he said "The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin
Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi
Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much." My response to that is the
Taliban were enough of a sympathizer that they were willing to go down with al-
Qaeda rather than turn bin Laden over and kick them out (or actively fight
them like the Saudis and Pakistanis did). They were sympathetic enough that a
child of the Taliban leader married a child of bin Laden. Their relationship
was close enough that the Taliban had allowed al-Qaeda to openly set up
training camps through which tens of thousands of would-be terrorists passed
(something neither the Saudis or Pakistanis did). And finally, they were
sympathetic enough that Iraqi documents showed communications with the Taliban
after 9/11 (but not the Saudis ... not the Pakistanis). Another example of
his supreme naivity is a statement that "There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi
Arabia, and they have paid a high price. They're all dead. So those most
responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of." In order for
that attack to take place, many months of preparations with the support of
many more plotters than just those 19 occurred. In fact, we know that many of
the hijackers did not know the true plan. That makes them patsies of those who
did ... and many of them were not on those planes. And those are the people
that are MOST responsible for the attack. Furthermore, we know that many a
suicide terrorist is essentially brainwashed by the organizations and leaders
that send them on their murderous missions. THOSE organizations and people are
the ones MOST responsible for those missions." He also said "the
predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political
and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi
government, we have ignored that country in placing blame." This is simply
false. There is no evidence that the Saudi government was involved in this
attack or aware that it was going to take place. And the response of the Saudi
government after 9/11 has been a strong crackdown on al-Qaeda activities in
their country. What would Ron Paul have had us do? Attack a country that was
not the place that bin Laden had his training camps? Attack a government that
was not friendly with bin Laden? And you want to make this man President?
Ron Paul has said "It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein- that is the job
of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban- that is the
business of the Afghan people." Then one can only presume that had Ron Paul
been President in the late 30's and early 40's, he would have steered a strict
isolationist path and not involved us in the squabbles in Europe and the Far
East. He would have said, *it's not our job to remove Hitler -- that is the
job of the German people*. And where would we be today? Indeed, one wonders
what sort of President Ron Paul would actually make with an attitude like
that? With attitudes like that, do we really want to listen to what he has to
say about Iraq?
Did you write that whole post all by yourself?
.it's called copy and paste.. bullshit points.. from some ridiculous rightwing pinhead ..
Classic boiler room operation. I wonder if they get pens, keychains, and coffee mugs like the rest of us working stiffs?
I betcha :P
#13. To: Zipporah (#12)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no
al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States .
#8. To: BeAChooser (#2)
#9. To: Dakmar (#8)
#11. To: Zipporah (#9)
#12. To: Dakmar (#11)
Replies to Comment # 12. 
End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.