Congressman Ron Paul Talks Foreign Policy: New Face, Same Policy
Kathleen Wells: As a member of the U. S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee, what is your take on this issue of torture?
Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it's against the law - both our law and international law. So, we shouldn't do it. And I'm against it for personal, moral reasons. I think it's horrible. And for practical reasons, I think it's absolutely worthless. And if we are serious about getting information, if we use other techniques, we actually get more information.
Kathleen Wells: So, you do believe that we were committing torture in our interrogations in Guantanamo?
Congressman Ron Paul: I don't think the pictures I've seen were fictitious - the ones that were released a year or two ago. And, obviously, there are some more pictures of torture that they draw more attention to because they refuse to release them, which means that it must be a true indictment of what they were doing.
Kathleen Wells: What are your thoughts on President Obama's decision to release the torture memos?
Congressman Ron Paul: I think he is purely political. I think he has backed down on what he said. He was elected for change and it is the same old stuff and he is as much of a neo-con now as Bush was with this issue and other issues. The war has been expanded. He continues with not closing down Guantanamo. There is probably, for as most [sic] as we can tell, there is still secret rendition going on. We just moved some of this process overseas. We are not going to be aware of it in detail.
Kathleen Wells: You feel President Obama is a neo-con like Bush? You don't see a distinction between the two administrations?
Congressman Ron Paul: The tone is different, but the policies don't change. We are spreading the war. The war is expanding. We are not prosecuting those that committed torture. Guantanamo is not going to be closed down. So, no, I don't see [a distinction between Bush and Obama].
He [Obama] increased the DOD [Department of Defense] budget. We surely could spend some of that money at home where people are really hurting. But we increased the DOD budget, I think, by 10-percent. I can't see any significant change in foreign policy. The pretense in leaving Iraq was a mild pretense and I'm predicting that's not going to happen. There are going to be troops in Iraq throughout this administration, I'm convinced.
Kathleen Wells: Why are you convinced?
Congressman Ron Paul: Because I don't think anyone wants to face the difficulties that might ensue. The problems came from us being there and when we leave, the problems will probably accelerate a bit. And then they will blame leaving for [causing] the problems and, yet, the real problem was going in. So, I think the international pressure that we get from various allies will be so great that we won't leave. And just don't expect the policies to change.
It just goes along with what I have said for years. Foreign policy does not change with Republicans or Democrats. Overall, there is very little policy that changes. There is a lot of debate and a lot of rhetoric, but things continue as they do.
When Clinton was in, the Republicans condemned his Somalia problem. Bush said he wasn't going to be a nation builder and a policeman of the world and he gets in and he is worse. Obama says Bush is terrible and gets in and all of a sudden, guess who is cheering Obama on right now? People like [Senator] Lindsay Graham. The real hawks of the Republican Party are sorta enjoying this right now. They figure they are winning these fights.
Kathleen Wells: Can you give me your thoughts on former Vice President Dick Cheney's recent speech on interrogation techniques and national security?
Congressman Ron Paul: I [didn't] expect anything brand new. He ... just [tried] to defend what he had been doing and his involvement over the years. He'll keep saying that he saved many lives by torturing - which I don't believe for a minute.
I'm more likely to believe Matthew Alexander and his position on torture. Matthew Alexander was an official that was involved. He was in the Air Force, but he was over there and he carried out over 300 interrogations over there and was very, very successful. But [he] refused orders to ever participate in anything violent or anything that hinted of torture. That is the evidence - you can get more information, rather than less [without using torture].
I think the evidence is now coming out of people saying that the torture wasn't intended to get information. They got a lot of information from these individuals - these few, these three that are well known now. They got a lot of information from them before they were tortured. They were trying to get them to say that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in order to justify this illegal war.
Kathleen Wells: Elaborate on why you believe there is no difference between the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration?
Congressmen Ron Paul: In style, they are different. The tone is different and I think there is a benefit to that. But his policies don't change. Ultimately, policies win out. The strong statements against Iran are still there. And, right now, going through our committee (the Congressional International Relations Committee/the Foreign Affairs Committee), stronger sanctions will be put on Iran - just looking for another fight. And we have taken the position we will not allow them to proceed on any nuclear testing, even if it is within the law and even if it is done peacefully. We are not going to permit that. So no, that position hasn't changed.
Like I said before, the war is not winding down in Iraq. The violence is increasing. And war is expanding into Afghanistan, sending more troops there. And now we are taking on Pakistan. And, actually, the whole Pakistan thing is just a reflection of a very, very flawed foreign policy of ours. Because we chase the Taliban around and some go into Pakistan and we urge the public government there to do this and that, we are just working very hard to have another war in Pakistan.
Kathleen Wells: What would you be doing differently if you were President? I know you were a Presidential primary candidate.
Congressman Ron Paul: I would bring the troops home. I'd just bring them all home. I'd bring them home from Korea. I'd bring them home from Germany. Save hundreds of billions of dollars and that would be a real boost. In order to stimulate the economy, I would immediately suspend the income tax for everybody.
The money we get into the hands of the people - that would cost less money than these hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts that go into the pockets of the privileged who then get to take their retirement benefits and all their bonuses. I would do it a lot differently.
Foreign policy, though, would be the big thing. Just move away from that. Take off the sanctions and start trading with Cuba. Not just talk about it, but go ahead and do it.
Kathleen Wells: And Iran?
Congressman Ron Paul: I would treat them like we treated the Soviets. We talked to them. The Soviets had 30,000 nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to bomb anybody. They deserve a little bit of protection for themselves. They have nuclear weapons to the north, to the south, to the east, and to the west and all they do is get beat up. There are a bunch of bad people over there, but there are a bunch of bad people all over the world.
Khrushchev wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the world and he claimed he was going to bury us, too. Even guys like Ronald Reagan talked to him and we worked things out. Their economic system collapsed.
What we ought to do is pay more attention to the goals of Osama Bin Laden. He said, "We will bring you to your knees through your bankruptcy because we are going to drag you over here and we will drain you and we will eventually bring on an economic crisis in your country." Right now he is winning. Right now the Iraqis are closely aligned with the Iranians. The Shiites are winning. The Sunnis are on the run. We've weaponized the whole area. More guns sent over there by the American taxpayer. The Sunnis are all armed. It's just a very, very ridiculous foreign policy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
a statesman with common sense. no wonder so many are in denial.
I give Obama a lot of credit for the positive tone and I hope that he facilitates peace. However, if you forced me to bet, I would say that, by the end of Obama's time in office, Obama will look far more like Bush than he looks different.
TARP. Ron Paul would have let the zombies die. They will die anyway, no matter how much money we give them.
Obama is talking about leaving Iraq on Condi Rice's timetable. Ron Paul would bring all US troops home around the world. Save all that money. If we did that, then people around the world would overthrow dictators and reject bin Laden. No reason for mainstream foreigners to hate America anymore.
Obama is escalating in Afghanistan, killing innocent people. Ron Paul would have used Lettres of Marque to hire bounty hunters to get bin Laden immediately after 9/11. No need for immoral inflationary wars. Look up Lettres of Marque in the Constitution.
And the economy would be exploding with productivity if Ron Paul was president. Massive cuts in spending and taxes = booming economy. I'm not talking about the trickle-down crap that Reagan and others sold like snake oil. I'm talking about seriously downsizing DC.
Civil liberties, torture, etc., etc. Obama is a politician. Ron Paul has never compromised and never will.
Haters need not worry. Freedom and small government were buried more than 100 years ago. Mainstream politics wins, and we all lose. God help us.
What it is that appeals to thinking Americans, is the message, not the man. Ron Paul has done nothing more than to passionately present an idea - individual freedom. I don't see how you can be a resident of these united States without having a strong reaction to the ideas of individual freedom. Individual freedom is the mainspring of human progress. And that is why Ron Paul is so great. He is great because he has boldly and unrepentantly trumpeted the ideas that ignited an age of revolution.
rc42 The first library was private, running on private donations, subscriptions and fees. Schools were privately or locally funded until the early-mid 1900s. Many utilities are still privately owned, Puget Power, Tennessee American Water Company, etc.. Here's a quote from Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, the pamphlet that inspired the American Revolution:
"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. ... It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government
Dr. Paul is the ONLY honest man in Washington D.C. (congress/White House) etc.
Althouth I am a "leftist-librul", I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul - except one point:
Ronald Reagan didn't talk to Khrushchev, but to BRESHNEV.
Nevermind.
I don't completely agree with Dr. Paul, but I definitely respect him. He walks the talk. I wish we had more elected representatives that did that.
I have panned through these comments and have a few suggestions. For those who seem to really take issue with Ron Paul and his "ideas," I can't figure out what is so upsetting about them? If you study Austrian economics and some of his libertarian philosophies, he has been absolutely 100% consistent with what he believes. Second, Ron is a Constitutionalist! He can end wars and balance the budget but he will only act upon what the Constitution says that "he can do!" Social Security and Medicare, two government programs that he personally despises, will never be eliminated because there is too much popular opinion in the Congress to keep them going. It is not within his powers in the Constitution to unilaterally eliminate these programs. The absolute last point I want to make is that it appears to me that Americans are afraid of actually being "Free." The idea of "freedom" and taking responsibility for your own actions (FOR INSTANCE, GOING BANKRUPT IF YOU SCREW YOUR CORPORATION UP!) seems frightening to too many people and that can be the only reason why his ideas have not caught on. And finally, we are not a DICTATORSHIP. Obama should relinquish his power back to Constitutional levels. Our founding fathers rebelled against a powerful unitary executive but here we are in the United States celebrating this fact. Truly pathetic!
Great post.
If Ron Paul thinks McCain would be doing what Obama is doing now, his head is farther up his behind than previously believed.
Wow, you must know McCain very well...
if you want to get technical:
McCain and Obama both voted for the FISA act.
They both voted for the Stimulus Plans.
They both voted to keep certain gitmo docs private.
This list goes on and on about the similarities between McCain and Obama in their congressional voting records as well as after Obama became president. Just look at what the president pushes and what McCain votes for. They might not always be aligned but more often than not you can be sure they will be.
here's an example of Bush/Obama sameness/s
http://www
ron paul did not support McCain for president.
It just appears to me that there are some people who are unable to look past the D or R and the personalities to the real issues. While these people are so engrossed in the phony left-right rhetoric, the nation continues along an unsustainable path to collapse. Thanks to the very few voices like Ron Paul, those of us who see through this charade to the rot in Washington have a voice. Remember, while your attention is diverted by the liberal vs. conservative crap, the policies that really affect you go uncriticized. It takes some critical thinking see this and not everyone is capable. Some people just want to feel a part of a team, but really don't care about issues. A glaring example of how this works is listening to the 'conservatives' now railing about out of control spending: did this issue not matter the last eight years? How about the 'liberals' who railed about the immoral wars during Bush: what has changed that this issue no longer matters? You see now that these people don't really care about the issue as long as their team is winning!
Well said! It's about like pro wrestling.
To all the naysayers: Give Ron Paul's ideas a chance! It is quite obvious that trying to be SuperCop to the world and to solve every problem at home will bankrupt this country. We can't depend forever on loans from China and Japan.
Do we have to become as desperately broken as the former USSR before we reverse course?
The USSR collapsed because of epic levels of fraud by the people in charge.
Sounds to me like what we get when we listen to conservatives.
It appears we do have to become desperately broken. The money we spend here and there and yon is mind-boggling. But we don't tax to pay for our unending spending sprees. We just want to have tea-bag parties. China and Japan buy our debt (so far) and the American people actually finance our enemies in the Middle East by our increasing reliance on their oil. Just amazing to me. A lot of foolishness would stop, if we were to tax "as we go". We might be out of this war if we had been forced to pay for it---instead, it is all just part of the federal deficit. We should be taxing for health care, education, infrastructure, environment, research and development of alternate energy sources while maintaining oil development on American soil. I am by far not an anti-tax person. Americans should be taxed fairly for the programs they demand by their government.
i am amazed how many people say they voted for obama and are now disapointe
"it takes planning and time so things dont fall to c**p when we leave.its been less than 6 months"
obama said he would get out of Iraq the first day and then 6 months and then 16 months and then by 2011 and now it's 2011 but we will leave 50,000 troops there. check back tomorrow for the latest withdraw date.
i tried to post a video but the mods must not have liked it????
"now dissapointed in obama werent actually voting for obama you were voting against mccain."
you got me there.
Ron Paul is the GOP pet "libertarian," created by Tom DeLay's crooked Texas gerrymandering. Republicans do not take Ron Paul seriously, and neither should anyone else. If the problems of American empire were in Ron Paul's lap, Ron Paul's "principles" would evaporate more rapidly than George Bush's "surplus."
The only way one can gauge a representative's principles is through their voting record. His 20+ congressional voting record shows without any doubt that he is the most principled individual in Congress.
There's no question about that.
october2009 is right. Sorry Ppossom but Obama is the example of what you speak. Ron Paul has been in Congress for a couple decades and his voting is consistent with his speech. Obama on the other hand made numerous promises on the campaign and is already breaking many of those. Sorry 6 months is plenty of time to pack up and get out of Iraq - so is 12 months - so is 18 months. But Obama is leaving 50,000 Troops there and then sending tens of thousands to Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of bringing them home. That constitutes broken promises in my book.
I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and I hope he runs in 2012 when I will vote for him again.
ron pauls ideas are based in a make believe world.it seems he thinks we sould be isolationi
Police, fire, libraries, schools, parks and public roads are funded by local city and state taxes... Federal Income taxes don't fund those things. You should know this.
Federal Income taxes are used to pay back the national debt + interest to the Federal Reserve Bank.
Basically, the Federal government has a bank account... Their bank account is always in the red (negative). The Federal Reserve Bank loans money to our Federal government to spend. Our Federal Income taxes are transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank.
The Federal government doesn't pay for our State's police, fire, libraries, schools, pars and public roads.
As a matter of fact, our interstate highways are funded by a federal 18 cent tax per gallon of gasoline.
I suggest you google all of this and do your own research.
Completely Agree October.
The Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional and the 16th amendment was never ratified by the states. If you just read the 16th amendment you know that the American people would never accept such a fascist amendment. The only reason people pay their taxes is that there is a criminal organization known as the IRS.
They have the authority to storm into your house with guns blazing and seize all of your assets without out a warrant or a trial. This is completely unconstitutional. The only reason Americans pay taxes is their fear of the IRS condemning people they see fit. If you notice a lot of the elitists in Obama's cabinet never bothered to pay taxes until they were nominated to their posts and put under scrutiny. Even in the IRS tax codes state that it is a voluntary tax but they will never outright admit that.
I'm amazed how ignorant some of these comments are about Paul. I don't use the word "ignorant" to sound like a jerk. It's just appalling how misinformed so many of us are by the big media, big political parties. They act like they have different viewpoints, but in the end, they are all corporatist and interested in preserving the status quo. Do some real research on what Paul's views are and the evidentiary support for them.
Yeah, really. Nobody's read the "Ron Paul Newsletter" to learn all about RP's... interestin
Where do you come up with "ron paul's ideas are based in a make believe world"? Seriously where?
If Ron Paul thought we should be isolationists he'd use the word! He says we should avoid forming military or other entangling alliances BUT we should trade and be friends with all nations. That is not isolationist. That is simply being prudent and wise.
As far taxes goes well the poster before me responded soundly to your comment. But yes we could do away with Federal Income Tax and be just fine. Our nation didn't have a Federal Income tax for the first 100 years and did quite well. If we did away with it now and cut necessary spending in Washington DC (which could be done by bringing all troops home) we wouldn't need the income tax to fund the wars/military spending overseas.
It is that simple and could be implemented in our very REAL world. Not the lala land you speak of.
Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?
http://www
I used to think that too, but I thought I'd give him a fair chance so I read his book 'the revolution'. Now I'm on board. It makes sense.
You call him an isolationist, but he is an non-interv
I'd challenge anyone to read 'the revolution'. The conclusion I came too is we are currently living in lala land.
RON PAUL 2012 - RON PAUL For PRESIDENT 2012 -
Don't Blame Me - I Voted for RON PAUL!
Google The Obama Deception
RON PAUL for President 2012!!!
I should have written in Ron Paul instead of voting twice for Obama. But Ron Paul did not do well at all. Yet he is the only one who is making any sense on foreign policy. What a shame the Obama administration is ....Obama is brilliant at speeches and PR but not only does he make no changes in foreign policy but knows nothing of economics.
RP did ok in the primaries. He got over a million votes and did better than any challenger except Huckabee.
The problem is that some of RP's message caters more to the left and moderates (end the insane drug war, fresh approach to foreign policy and civil liberties etc) and there arent any leftists and only a few moderates in the pro war neo con Repub Party.
So I think RP has more support in the general population (at least among the informed populace, and those not blindly partisan Democrat) than in Repub primaries which are mostly open to only registered repubs
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
