rn: Congressman Ron Paul (re: all having a piece of the truth!)


Jan Slakov

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:18:58 -0800
From: CyberBrook <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Congressman Ron Paul

I don't normally forward speeches by Republicans, or Democrats for that 
matter, but this called for an exception. Not everything in this speech is 
worthwhile, but there are enough nuggets to chew on. Here are some of them 
and the rest of the speech can be found via the link...

Congressman Ron Paul (Republican-Texas),
House of Representatives,
November 29, 2001
"Keep Your Eye on the Target"

... We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly 
4,000 innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia. ...

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. The Afghan 
people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is 
closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the 
Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to 
power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics 
with them. ...

Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous 
dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests. O'Neill then took a job as 
head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was killed in the 
9-11 attack. ...

It's important to note that in the same article, the author quoted Michael 
Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio 
Free Europe: "We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration and we 
have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other 
considerations, other values." This, of course, was a clearly stated 
position of our administration in 1990 as our country was being prepared to 
fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass 
destruction only became the issue later on. ...

Since we don't know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is 
hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain- 
Saddam Hussein- guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be 
attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for 
starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war 
against terrorism cannot be won in this manner. ...

The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of 
mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt that he 
has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, if that is 
the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that have 
similar weapons or plans to build them- countries like China, North Korea, 
Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World 
Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves, 
unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily 
for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the 
not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam 
Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United 
States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against 
him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even 
greater hatred toward the United States, and it's all so unnecessary. ...

Today, we're anything but a sleeping giant. There's no contest for our 
status as the world's only economic, political and military super power. A 
"sleeping giant" would not have troops in 141 countries throughout the 
world and be engaged in every conceivable conflict with 250,000 troops 
stationed abroad. ...

The President, in the 2000 presidential campaign, argued against nation 
building, and he was right to do so. He also said, "If we're an arrogant 
nation, they'll resent us." He wisely argued for humility and a policy that 
promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or declaring war against Saddam Hussein, 
or even continuing the illegal bombing of Iraq, is hardly a policy of 
humility designed to promote peace. ...

Rumsfeld's plan, as reported in Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper, lays out the 
plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey's support is crucial, so the 
plan is to give Turkey oil from the northern Iraq Karkuk field. The United 
States has also promised a pipeline running from Iraq through Turkey. How 
can the Turks resist such a generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and 
they bomb the Kurds, while we punish the Iraqis for the same, this plan to 
divvy up wealth in the land of the Kurds is hardly a surprise. It seems 
that Washington never learns. Our foolish foreign interventions continually 
get us into more trouble than we have bargained for- and the spending is 
endless. ...

It is safe to assume that the number of people directly involved in the 
9-11 attacks is closer to several hundred than the millions we are now 
talking about targeting with our planned shotgun approach to terrorism. One 
commentator pointed out that when the mafia commits violence, no one 
suggests we bomb Sicily. Today it seems we are, in a symbolic way, not only 
bombing "Sicily," but are thinking about bombing "Athens" (Iraq). If a 
corrupt city or state government does business with a drug cartel or 
organized crime and violence results, we don't bomb city hall or the state 
capital- we limit the targets to those directly guilty and punish them. 
Could we not learn a lesson from these examples? It is difficult for 
everyone to put the 9-11 attacks in a proper perspective, because any 
attempt to do so is construed as diminishing the utter horror of the events 
of that day. We must remember, though, that the 3,900 deaths incurred in 
the World Trade Center attacks are just slightly more than the deaths that 
occur on our nation's highways each month. Could it be that the sense of 
personal vulnerability we survivors feel motivates us in meting out 
justice, rather than the concern for the victims of the attacks? Otherwise, 
the numbers don't add up to the proper response. If we lose sight of the 
target and unwisely broaden the war, the tragedy of 9-11 may pale in the 
death and destruction that could lie ahead. ...

We have not done any better keeping our eye on the terrorist target on the 
home front than we have overseas. Not only has Congress come up short in 
picking the right target, it has directed all its energies in the wrong 
direction. The target of our efforts has sadly been the liberties all 
Americans enjoy. With all the new power we have given to the 
administration, none has truly improved the chances of catching the 
terrorists who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. All Americans will 
soon feel the consequences of this new legislation. Just as the crisis 
provided an opportunity for some to promote a special-interest agenda in 
our foreign policy efforts, many have seen the crisis as a chance to 
achieve changes in our domestic laws, changes which, up until now, were 
seen as dangerous and unfair to American citizens. Granting bailouts is not 
new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many takers to line 
up for handouts. ...

Only now are the American people hearing about the onerous portions of the 
anti-terrorism legislation, and they are not pleased. ...

The biggest problem with these new law-enforcement powers is that they bear 
little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly 
expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most 
of the provisions have been sought by domestic law-enforcement agencies for 
years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power 
over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously held 
civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of 
terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to 
detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil 
liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation. ...

The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is 
another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. ...

if we get to the point of returning to the draft, I have a proposal. Every 
news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper editorialist, and 
every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has never served in the 
military and who demands that the draft be reinstated, should be drafted 
first- the 18-year olds last. Since the Pentagon says they don't need 
draftees, these new recruits can be the first to march to the orders of the 
general in charge of homeland security. For those less robust individuals, 
they can do the hospital and cooking chores for the rest of the newly 
formed domestic army. After all, someone middle aged owes a lot more to his 
country than an 18-year old. ...

I see good reason for American citizens to be concerned...