Is It Not True?
Questions On Iraq From A GOP Congressman

Ron Paul is an M.D. and a Republican Member of Congress from Texas

(Editor's Note: Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul read the following to the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002.)

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. 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 there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and 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 U.N.'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 U.N. 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 United States? 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 one-fifth the size of 12 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 United Nations 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 U.S. 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 U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. 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 United States. 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 U.S. 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?

14. If you don't think Mommy will say yes, you go and ask Daddy...

35. see question 14, no public support...

Incase you didn't know, the President took us out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty this past summer. The issue was that treaties are the law of the land (so says our constitution), and in order to sign one, the president must get approval from congress. It is presumably true that the opposite would be the same, the President would need approval to leave a treaty (or, in other words, throw out a law). This President didn't think so. His reasoning (believe me, I'm getting to the point of this post) was that the ABM treaty had a clause in it that said in order to leave the treaty, 6 months notice must be given to the other signators and thats all. So, he fulfilled that part.

Here's my point. Yes, according to international law, the President did everything necessary to leave that treaty. But, he is constitutionally required to seek approval. The thing is, it's not completely clear if he had to, but most reasonable people would agree if you need approval to join, you need approval to leave.

Anyhow, that's one example of this administrations disrespect for our Constitution. The second example I have, which is about this thread, is that war can only be declared by the congress. He's doing everything necessary in regard to the UN to go into this war, but he's doing nothing in regard to the Constitution, which I do believe he took an oath to serve and protect.

*Puts flame suit on*

***WARNING: THESE COMMENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT ALL OF THE VIEWS OF THE POSTER ACCURATELY. THE POSTER IS SUFFERING FROM A CASE OF EXTREME LAZINESS, AND WOULD RATHER POST A DIFFERENT PERSON'S COMMENTS FOR NOW RATHER THAN TYPE OUT HIS OWN***

Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War ClichesBy John Hawkins

10) Why Is The U.S. Going To War With Iraq And Not North Korea? Let me answer that question with some questions. Why did we go to war with Hitler during WW2 and not Stalin immediately after? Why is Milosevic at The Hague today while Castro is still living in a palace in Cuba? Why is it that Mexico and Canada are in NAFTA, but Britain is not? For that matter, why are we going to invade Iraq and not France? Simple, they're different countries, different situations, and they require different tactics to deal with them. If you don't know what the differences are, it's not because there are no differences, it's because you're not sufficiently informed. If you do want to find out more about the differences, here's an editorial I wrote about the subject. If you don't want to learn more about it, but you want to keep claiming that we should be threatening to invade N. Korea and not Iraq, then go ahead. That's like putting an "ignorant and proud of it" stamp on your forehead and it should warn sensible people that they don't need to waste time paying attention to you.

9) Attacking Iraq Will Just Create More Terrorists: Setting aside the fact that many people in the Middle-East hate Saddam and would be pleased to see Iraq become a Democracy, the idea that going after terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations will create more terrorists leads to circular logic that works like so...

1) Terrorists kill Americans!

2) We've got to do something about the terrorists who want to kill us! Let's kill them and go after the people that sponsor them!

3) No! We can't do that because it'll only create more terrorists! Let's pretend the problem doesn't exist and work on socializing our medicine, raising taxes, and creating a liberal talk radio network!

4) Terrorists kill Americans! (Repeat ad infinitum).

Furthermore, history has provided us with plenty of evidence that you can win wars finally and completely without creating more adversaries. Ask Japan, Germany & what the heck, even Carthage about that -- if you can find any Carthaginians.

8) It's A Rush To War: Let's see if we can break down this headlong "rush to war". The Gulf War was in 1991 and Saddam has ignored how many UN Resolutions ordering him to disarm since then? 14? 15? 16 -- even I can't keep up with all of them and we're working on ANOTHER one as we speak. Bush himself has been talking about disarming Saddam incessantly for a full year. He has even gotten a new congressional resolution and went to the UN, neither of which was really necessary in this case. None of this has made any impression on the "rush to war" folks who would probably be screaming "it's a rush to war" even if Bush piddled around until his hair turned fully grey (I'd give him about three years the way he's going).

7) We Must Let The Inspectors Work: The problem with that is that obviously inspectors DON'T work. If inspections did work, then Saddam would be disarmed by now because the inspectors spent seven years puttering around Iraq and the only thing they could confirm when they left in 1998 was that they hadn't found all of Saddam's weapons. Even if they hadn't previously failed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a few hundred inspectors, some of whom look to have been compromised by the Iraqis, are not going to be able to completely disarm a police state the size of France that's doing everything in it's power to thwart them.

6) Bush Is A Nazi/Fascist: The very fact that we have these anti-Bush protests proves Bush isn't a Nazi or Fascist. If Bush were what these people claim he is, they'd all be dead, starving to death in some gulag, or chained to a wall while a group of guards took turns bouncing nightsticks off their rock hard heads. Here's a little recommendation for these people crying "Bush is a Nazi" -- spend less time watching "Hogan's Heroes" reruns and more time cracking open history books that'll teach you what the Nazis were really like.

5) We're Going It Alone/Being Unilateral In Pushing For War On Iraq: Currently our "unilateral" attack is supported by Australia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. By the time it's all over, there will likely be at least another half dozen nations that publicly agree to an attack and there are probably a good 6-10 Middle-Eastern nations that are helping us out privately while they condemn us publicly (to keep their people happy). Since simply having one country with us would mean that we were no longer being "unilateral" or "going it alone," I'd say having 22 nations with us means that we can we safely say that this will be a "multilateral" invasion.

4) It's All About The Oil: I have personally written two editorials (here & here) debunking this...I hesitate to call it a theory because even the people shouting "war for oil" can't really explain what they mean by it. Usually the fuzzy thinking goes something like this,

"Iraq has oil -- we use oil -- so, it must be a war for oil! Oh gawd, the bugs are crawling under my skin! Protesting the war and LSD don't mix! Get them out! Yarghghghghghgh."

Yes, they have oil -- which they already sell to us. If we wanted more, we could simply have the sanctions lifted. Remember folks, bumper sticker slogans, even ones that are repeated over and over, do not an argument make.

3) There's No Proof That Iraq Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction: To believe Hussein doesn't have WMD, you have to believe that after the inspectors left in 98, Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his WMD and then decided that he'd lose billions of dollars in oil revenue because of the sanctions rather than tell anyone about it. Of course, that makes absolutely no sense and I've never heard anyone even try to come up with a credible reason why Saddam would do that, but hey, who says anti-war arguments have to make any sense?

I could mention the fact that Saddam has refused to let his scientists and their families leave the country or even give private interviews, the defectors who've talked about Hussein's WMD, all the rockets with empty chemical warheads on them, etc, but why shouldn't I just point out that the inspectors have actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas? That's no big secret, it was widely reported -- then promptly ignored.

Despite all of this common sense and evidence, there are legions of gullible & ill informed people claiming that there's no proof Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Come on, if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. But don't worry about giving me all of your money because the Easter Bunny will pay you back -- I promise!

2) Dissent Is Patriotic: The anti-war protestors tend to get very defensive about their patriotism which is understandable given that they're going to rallies run by communists that sometimes feature flag burning, people waving Iraqi flags, people with cute little signs like, "bomb Texas, not Iraq", etc. So they love to claim that the very fact they're dissenting makes them patriotic. Of course, that's the biggest load of kaka I've ever heard -- which by their standards, makes me patriotic simply because I disagree with them.

Disagreeing with someone else does not make you patriotic. If it did, I could say, "America is the greatest country in the world" and you could reply, "No, it's a festering rat hole that I hope sinks into the ocean" and that would make you patriotic. To the contrary, dissent does not equal patriotism and in a free country like the US, it doesn't even take any courage to dissent. You want to impress me? Take your dissent to N. Korea or Iraq & protest against the governments in those countries and see how long you last. No, that still won't make you patriotic, but it would make you brave or stupid depending on how you look at it.

1) You're A Chickenhawk: This line of reasoning horse puck goes like so,

"If you haven't been in the military then you have no right to advocate war since you won't be risking your life. Furthermore, if you do advocate war, you should immediately sign up for the military."

Well, if you're anti-war and you really believe that only people who're willing to risk their lives should have a say, then shouldn't you be throwing yourself across one of Saddam's bunkers in Baghdad about now? Saddam can always use some more human shields.

Furthermore, if we take this whole "chickenhawk thing" to it's logical conclusion, aren't these peaceniks advocating a "Starship Troopers" style America run & voted on by the military? After all, it's essential that the President be able to declare war. So wouldn't that mean that every President would have to be a military man unlike that "chickenhawk" FDR who took us to war in WW2 despite never having been in the military?

This is a flighty idea for silly peaceniks who'd rather argue about people's right to have an opinion than the actual issue itself. Considering the extremely weak anti-war position they'd have to defend in a real debate, I'm not sure that I can blame them for trying to skirt the issue.

Just have to wait and see, what else can you do anyway? Speculation just raises ruckus and lordy knows anyone taking calculus doesn't need any more ruckus in his life....

Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined Saddam Hussein's challenge to a televised debate, Tim Dowling exclusively reveals what could have happened had they met

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first televised debate between George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein, live from United Nations headquarters in New York. We will begin with a brief opening statement from each of you.

Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome my evil friend to the UN, one of the great American institutions for the propulsion of freedom throughout the world.

Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in today's debate we may find some common ground between the Iraqi people's commitment to peace and human progress and America's desire to destroy the Middle East.

Bush: Do I answer that?

Blair: No. The first question is quite simply this: do you have any links with al-Qaida?

Bush: I do not.

Blair: The question is for President Saddam.

Saddam: As I told Mr. Tony Benn clearly and simply, if I had links with al-Qaida and I enjoyed those links then I would not be ashamed to tell the world, but since I am ashamed to tell the world of this, it follows that I have no such links.

Bush: Neither do I.

Blair: The second question is for Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush, if America and Iraq were to go to war tomorrow, who would win?

Bush: That's easy. America, right?

Saddam: Even I knew that one.

Bush: That's because the great United American States of America are on the side of rightliness and Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil made up of Iraq, North Korea and ... how many are in an axis? Three?

Blair: I think you're allowed as many as you like.

Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France.

Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that Iraq is not part of any Axis of Evil.

Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania?

Blair: Let's move on. Saddam, are you willing to destroy your stockpile of Samoud 2 missiles in accordance with UN weapons inspectors' orders?

Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq possessed these so-called weapons, we would never destroy them, but since we do not have any such weapons, we are happy to comply, even though these nonexistent weapons certainly do not exceed the proscribed range of 150 kms. I've tested them myself, and we don't have any.

Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr. President, is there any way that Saddam Hussein can avoid war, and what steps must he now take in order to reach a negotiated solution?

Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough.

Blair: The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work on it over the weekend.

Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature.

Saddam: OK.

Blair: Sorry, but I'm not sure that "disarmature" is a word. I defer to the UN Keeper of the Dictionary, Mr. Richard Stilgoe.

Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means, "the action of disarming" according to the OED.

Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off.

Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it.

Bush: Too late.

Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an anagram of 'Demands a Sushi'?

Saddam: Yes, I've heard them all.

Bush: I don't eat sushi. Is there a fish option?