Posted on 04/11/2006 2:18:50 PM PDT by kenn5
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives
April 5, 2006
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state, friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for national security reasons, urge the same invasion?
(Excerpt) Read more at house.gov ...
Right.
Because the whole idea of a grave threat to national security and the risk of thousands or millions of people dying is a complete myth concocted by neo-conservatives in their mind-control oil schemes.
No one on earth has ever threatened each other or hurt each other or blown up each other. It's just something that we neo-conservatives made up for our wicked schemes.
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero.
Ron Paul lost me long ago, this just verifies it.
Not to me
I'am surprised. He is normally praised around here for speaking up when it's not politically correct. Boy is he stepping out on a limb on this one. I don't agree with him here but it demostrates how the tide is turning for Bush.
I wonder. Does Paul consider Iran's threat to wipe Israel off the map not genuine or does he simply not care?
Of course not. Those corpses at Halabja were just a neocon myth, right? The IAEA was mistaken when it sealed up those two tons of uranium, right? Saddam was just trying to talk al Qaeda out of attacking the U.S. when he met with them, right?
It isn't the "neocons" who are beating the war drums over Iran, Ron, it's the Iranians themselves.
The Saddam docs.....still dreaming about those "missing" WMD's eh? Ron Paul was right on Iraq, and is right on Iran.
The Saddam docs.....still dreaming about those "missing" WMD's eh? Ron Paul was right on Iraq, and is right on Iran.
The Saddam docs.....still dreaming about those "missing" WMD's eh? Ron Paul was right on Iraq, and is right on Iran.
yah
Poor long suffering, misunderstood Mullahs...
Neo-cons own Bush. They get what they want.
He probably thinks that Iran doesn't really want to wipe out Israel. It was just a conspiracy myth concocted by Karl Rove and his neo-conservative oil buddies to create as much war and death as possible. Remember, no one in the history of the world ever threatened the US, but the neocons made it up so they could invade the whole world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.