Posted on 02/10/2007 9:41:04 PM PST by freedomdefender
US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice was quizzed yesterday over the failure by the current US administration to present any form of solid evidence over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
During the questioning one Republican congressman, Ron Paul told the hearing "Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made against Iraq."
Paul went on to say "This sounds like Iraq, where accusations came first and proof was supposed to come later – only that proof never came because the accusations turned out to be false."
Thanks!
He committed political suicide years ago. He just found a good district to get re-elected in.
Ron Paul is EXCELLENT on most fiscal and small-government issues, but unacceptable on border issues and the War on Terror. He doesn't get it.
"Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made against Iraq."
Yea, and there was no evidence against OJ Simpson either!
Agreed
Too late.
And Reagan didn't?
Quite Welcome,,,It's a great site for info on all this mess that's going on in the world,,,great maps-n-pics of
these places...;0)
Well Ron, we don't have good spies in these very closed countries so we don't really know what they're doing with any specificity.
We didn't have "proof" that the Japanese were going to hit Pearl Harbor either.
And when you have that proof it will be too late. And this is a good example why you will never be President - thank God.
I think it's all about regime change, and until I learn differently, my opinion stands.
Because the last time I gave this administration the benefit of the doubt about WMD's, we ended up up to our necks in Iraq. I'm inclined to believe that Iran is pursuing nukes, but I'd better see some rock-solid evidence of that before we decide to make for Tehran.
Reagan was also duped by a democrat congress. Reagan's tax cuts, TEFRA, congress spent 2:1 in dollars collected from increased revenues.
So in other words it's okay for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?
It's clear BDS has totally destroyed your brain.
And just FYI, the only nation that the U.S. helped to develop nuclear weapons was Great Britain and that is because they were partners on the Manhattan Project.
Not what I said. In other words, it's not OK for us to be saber rattling and threatening to bomb another country under false pretenses.
BDS? I would say that Mr. Bush caused lots of this in America, considering his lack of intelligent leadership. According to his poll numbers, he's hardly number one on America's (or the world's) hit parade. Look it up. No need to throw insults, COEXER, this is supposed to be a conservative website, not just GOP.
FYI, I'll vote for Duncan Hunter if I get the chance, not for another RINO.
Ron Paul, a true American patriot. I'm from Texas and I can't love the guy enough. If he runs for president I will devote my time and energy for his campaign.
Asking for proof is no sin but rather a wise move congress should insist upon. The main problem is I do not believe a credible answer can come from the U.S. State Department. Intelligence gathering on foreign nations needs to be put under the oversight of the Pentagon and get the globalist/socialist in the state department out of it. Ron Paul is not the moron you think. It wasn't the U.S. who put Saddam's nuke program out of commission but rather Israel. Where Bush sends Condi in every single time to stop Israel from dealing with terrorism Ron Paul likely would let Israel do the cleaning up needed doing.
Next is the point Bush has not exactly been up front on Iraq. Actually he strayed way off course from what he said he believed when he ran against Gore concerning war and nation building.
Paul is one of the few in congress who sees our military as having limits in how much it can do and for how long especially with it's now limited numbers. So did Bush before he was elected and again he changed his own beliefs on that as well.
Ron Paul has called for something the Speaker of the House and SML should have done before ever sending troops to Iraq. He has called for a Declaration of War. A declaration of war is quite different than the Congressional Resolution authorizing use of force. Actually that type of resolution is highly questionable at best as to it being Constitutional. The Declaration of war though binds congress and the senate as well as POTUS to stand behind it.
A question could be put forth that IF Iran has nukes or is building such then why has not neither the GOP congress nor Bush increased our troops strengths since 1996 to deal with it then? Does that not seem just a wee bit strange to you?
I wish more members of congress would take their job as serious as this man. If you sit down and think about what he says and does it makes sense. I don't think he's giving anyone a benefit of the doubt. He ask hard questions that needs to be answered straight forward. Only congress can declare war and congress has a right to know.
Moderator:How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
Responder: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.
Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.
I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power.
Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power.
Uh huh and downsizing accomplishes that how? We are still at 1996 troop strength levels. Ron Paul has every reason to ask hard questions of this administration. So do we.
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.