Answers to Ron Paul's Questions on Iraq From an Opponent of the War

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked – and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. 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 those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, 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 UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

Hornberger: Yes. Also, former Marine and former UN Inspector Scott Ritter is openly challenging the administration's thesis that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

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?

Hornberger: That fact doesn't support an attack on Iraq, making it easy for U.S. officials to forget it.

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?

Hornberger: Neither the president nor Tony Blair have produced any evidence to contradict that conclusion.

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?

Hornberger: Yes, but U.S. officials don't criticize their allies, even when they are headed by non-democratic, brutal military thugs.

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 UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

Hornberger: What better way to divert people's attention away from the chaos in Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar (remember him? He was the leader of the Taliban and a prime suspect in the 9-11 attacks) than to attack Iraq? And you can't deny it's a brilliant political strategy to galvanize wartime "support-the-government-and-the-troops" patriotism right around election time.

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?

Hornberger: Good question. Here's another one: Why was the FBI spending so much time and resources spying on bordellos in New Orleans and harassing drug users prior to 9-11 rather than pursuing the strong leads that pointed toward the 9-11 attacks?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US – and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

Hornberger: Yes. The U.S. government's attack will engender even more hatred and anger against Americans, which will engender more attacks against Americans, which will engender more U.S. government assaults on the civil liberties of the American people. As Virginian James Madison pointed out, people who live under a regime committed to perpetual war will never be free, because with war comes armies, taxes, spending, and assaults on the rights and freedoms of the people.

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

Hornberger: It's convenient to compare any target of the U.S. government to Hitler in order to make people emotionally negative toward the target. That's why federal officials called David Koresch Hitler before they attacked the Branch Davidians, including (innocent) children, with deadly, flammable gas at Waco. Remember that Hitler took over Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia and then had the military might to fight on two fronts against the Soviet Union, France, Britain, and the U.S. Iraq, on the other hand, has invaded no one in more than 10 years and, in fact, invaded Kuwait only after U.S. officials failed to give Saddam (their buddy and ally at that time) the red light on invading Kuwait. By the way, notice how they never refer to their targets as a "Joseph Stalin" even though Stalin was no better and possibly much worse than Hitler. The reason they don't is that Stalin was a friend and ally of Franklin Roosevelt and the U.S. government.

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress?

Hornberger: Yes, but since the Congress abrogated its constitutional duty in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Granada, Panama, and other invasions, interventions, and wars, the president and most members of Congress believe that the declaration of war requirement has effectively been nullified, which is similar to Pakistan President Masharraf's unilaterally amending his country's Constitution to give himself more power.

Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion?

Hornberger: No. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be obeyed regardless of public opinion. In fact, the Bill of Rights expressly protects the people from the visisitudes of public opinion. The Consitution prohibits the president from waging war without an express declaration of war by Congress. That's why both Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt could not intervene in World Wars I and II without a congressional declaration of war.

Hornberger: No. The supreme law of the land – the law that the American people have imposed on their federal officials – is the U.S. Constitution. We the people are the ultimate sovereign in our country, not the United Nations.

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?

Hornberger: I have not seen it, but it would not surprise me. As history has repeatedly shown, public officials in every nation consider it proper and useful to lie as a way to galvanize public support in favor of the war that they're determined to wage. Decades later, when people are finally permitted to view the files, the records inevitably reveal the falsehoods that led the people to support the wars. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which Congress enacted on the request of President Lyndon Johnson, comes to mind since it cost the lives of 60,000 men of my generation in the Vietnam War, including some of my schoolmates at Virginia Military Institute.

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

Hornberger: I didn't know that but it wouldn't surprise me. But when was the last time you saw high public officials worry about the welfare of American GIs? Vietnam? Somalia? VA Hospitals?

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?

Hornberger: It's impossible to know how many American casualties there will be, and you could be right about thousands of American casualties, given the urban fighting that will have to take place. On the other hand, American casualties could be light given the U.S. government's overwhelming military might and tremendous domestic dissatisfaction in Iraq against Saddam Hussein (many Iraqis will undoubtedly view American forces as liberators, given Hussein's brutal, dictatorial regime). From a moral standpoint, we should not only ask about American GI casualties but also Iraqi people casualties. After the Allied Powers delivered the people of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany to Stalin and the Soviet communists after World War II, those people suffered under communism for five decades, which most of us would oppose, but who's to say that they would have been better off with liberation by U.S. bombs and embargoes, especially those who would have been killed by them? I believe that despite the horrible suffering of the Eastern Europeans and East Germans, Americans were right to refrain from liberating them with bombs and embargoes. It's up to the Iraqi people to deal with the tyranny under which they suffer – it is not a legitimate function of the U.S. government to liberate them from their tyranny with an attack upon their nation.

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion 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?

Hornberger: Federal spending is now out of control, which means that taxes are now out of control because the only place that government gets its money is taxation, either directly through the IRS or indirectly through the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. My prediction is that they'll let the Fed do it, so that President Bush avoids blame for raising taxes and so that U.S. officials can blame inflation on big, bad, greedy businessmen who are "price-gouging." When you add the costs of the war and foreign policy in general, including foreign aid and bailouts to corrupt foreign governments, to the federal "charity" and pork that the members of Congress send back to their districts in an attempt to buy votes to get reelected, it doesn't portend well for the future economic well-being of the American people. After all, let's not forget how Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Empire – he made it spend itself into bankruptcy.

19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

Hornberger: Yes. And since these are UN resolutions, doesn't that mean that only the UN, not a specific member of the UN, has the legal authority to enforce them?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN 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?

Hornberger: Absolutely, and what does it say about the U.S. government's commitment to the rule of law?

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 Musharraf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

Hornberger: The U.S. government's commitment to democracy is a sham, evidenced not only through its support of brutal non-elected dictators who follow its orders but also through its support of ousting democratically elected leaders who refuse to follow its orders, such as Chavez in Venezuela or Allende in Chile.

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. 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?

Hornberger: I read a New York Times article on this just the other day. At the risk of modifying my statement above about not being surprised by anything anymore, I was stunned to learn that U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were supporting Iraq when it was using chemical weapons against Iranians. From a moral standpoint, how low can they go? And how hypocritical can they be?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran?

Hornberger: This is during the time that Saddam was a buddy of the U.S. government. I wonder why they're not just offering him money again to re-become a buddy, as they do with other dictators, such as Masharraf, the brutal army dictator who took over Pakistan in a coup and who was a strong supporter and close friends of the Taliban.

Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

Hornberger: No, it's highly hypocritical but it's effective with respect to those who refuse to believe that their federal government has engaged in wrongdoing overseas.

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

Hornberger: Yes, and wasn't that the preferred pretext of the Soviet Union when it committed acts of aggression during the Cold War?

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?

Hornberger: I suggest that we form a "Suicide Brigade" for all men over 40 who support sending American GI's into foreign wars. Their mission would be to blow themselves up on enemy targets, thereby bringing the war to a quicker conclusion. They've already lived their lives anyway, and their suicides would be helping to save the lives of younger American soldiers. My prediction: Not one single "hard-charger" will volunteer, but I would oppose drafting them into "service."

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

Hornberger: There is no moral argument. And here's one back at you: At what point does an unprovoked attack against a weak nation that kills innocent people go from being "war" to becoming murder?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

Hornberger: It doesn't, but we are now experiencing the consequences of permitting U.S. officials to ignore the Constitution for decades, especially with respect to the declaration of war requirement. Question back to you: Did you ever think you would live in a nation in which one man has the omnipotent power to send an entire nation into war on his own initiative and the omnipotent power to jail any American citizen in an Army brig for the rest of his life without the benefit of trial or habeas corpus?

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?

Hornberger: Absolutely. We are learning that our Founders were right – that an unrestrained federal government is highly dangerous to the best interests of the American people. That's the reason they required a Constitution as a condition of bringing the federal government into existence – they didn't trust unrestrained government and intended the Constitution to protect us from unrestrained government officials.

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?

Hornberger: Absolutely true, and such false and fake resolutions as the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" are shams that have prematurely snuffed out the lives of tens of thousands of American GIs.

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

Hornberger: Yes, but the brutal Army general who took over in a coup and who recently unilaterally amended his country's Constitution without the consent of the people or the Parliament, is now doing what Washington tells him to do, and that's the difference.

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Hornberger: Because they're afraid to take individual responsibility, both politically and morally, for their actions. This way, they can straddle this fence – if the war goes well, they can claim credit and if it goes bad, they can blame the president. It's called political and moral cowardice, a malady that unfortunately has pervaded the U.S. Congress for many, many years.

"By that kind of reasoning, our government can take any power not specifically denied to it in the Constitution. That's not true, Luis."

No one took anything away from anyone.

The President, in his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief, has to look to Congress for the funding to conduct a military campaign. Should congress decide to issue a formal declaration of war, then, and by the very constitutional role as Commander In Chief, the president, and only the president, can declare a victory, and the situation secured.

Now, the constitution specifically says that only congress can declare war, but that does not mean that it required the President to wait for an Act of Congress to set out our fighters to intercept a fleet of ChiCom bombers on its way to California, and then to secure ourselves, nor does it say that the US military can ONLY be deployed in the event of a declared war.

You are arguing in favor of Saddam Hussein being able to violate a document he himself signed, because it took away his ability, as the leader of a sovereign nation, to provide for the defense of his nation?

And against the US having the ability to do whatever their constitutionally elected government does in order to secure the nation after an attack on our soil, because the Constitution does not allow it?

I'm with you, captain!!
But before we go, could you show me our Congressional authorization?
Just for form's sake, you know.

To: exodus
See number 228 above. Let's roll, okay?

# 230 by MHGinTN

*************************

I have no problem with going to war, MHGinTN.

I don't care if Osama, Saddam, and other bad guys started it. I don't care if the United States caused the problems by betraying allies and playing at king-making.

No matter who's responsible for creating the danger, the fact is that the danger exists. If my son murdered someone, and that man's relatives came to exact revenge on my family because they couldn't find my son, I would kill them.

The same holds true with our problems with the Moslem nations who support terrorism. I don't care WHY you want to kill my people, I won't allow it.

My problem is with the illegal actions of my government. War MUST be declared by Congress to be legal. We are a nation bound by the Rule of Law. That law is based upon the written Constitution.

I don't want my people killed by terrorists.

I also don't want to see our free society destroyed from within by illegal violations of the Rule of Law performed by my own government.

Make it legal.

Have Congress declare war.

Roscoe,

Thanks for the link (again)! I just took a quick look at it and I can already tell I'm going to enjoy reading that one. I agree the President has the power, however I think exodus may require a little more than the word of the Supreme Court and I'd like to hear what his reasoning is.

Regards,

Boot Hill

I don't care if anyone on this forum disagrees but it is my view, and I happen to be right, that W is doing more to take apart our country and our nation than 5 consecutive terms of Clinton could have done. Not that Clinton wouldn't have tried to do what W is about to attempt now. It's only that there would have been more dissent if Clinton tried it.

Let me see if I have this straight...Clinton would have attempted the same thing, but because Bush is trying it, he's doing "more to take apart our country" than TWENTY YEARS of Clinton, because more dissent against Clinton would have kept the nation from being "taken apart"?

I don't know how anyone on the forum could possibly disagree with that. </sarcasm>

Article II/Section 2 of the Constitution -

The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

The air force isn't mentioned here. Do you think that the Air Force shouldn't recognize the president as the commander in chief? After all, the constitution clearly states that he's the CIC of the Army and Navy.

The President is REQUIRED by the un-Constitutional War Powers Act to withdraw all military forces at the end of 8 months. We've been bombing Iraq almost daily since the end if the Gulf War, in violation of the War Powers Act .

To: exodus
"No one took anything away from anyone..."

"...Now, the Constitution specifically says that only Congress can declare war, but that does not mean that it required the President to wait for an Act of Congress to set out our fighters to intercept a fleet of ChiCom bombers on its way to California, and then to secure ourselves, nor does it say that the US military can ONLY be deployed in the event of a declared war..."
# 262 by Luis Gonzalez

*************************

I never said that the President didn't have the power and duty to respond to an emergency.

I'm saying that we are not in the middle of an emergency NOW. The emergency stiuation was over within days.

Congress had plenty of time to go over the facts, and issue a Declaration of War. It's been over a year, and Congress STILL hasn't decided whether we're at war or not.

Without that Congressional decision to make war, the President is acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the Executive branch.

Without that Congressional decision to make war, the President is acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the Executive branch

If he directs the Air Force to fly sorties, isn't he acting outside of the Constitutional limits placed upon the executive branch? How about the Marine Corp (although technically they're part of the Dept of Navy)

Saddam Hussein even asked permission of the United States ambassador to Iraq, and waited for her to give that permission BEFORE attacking Kuwait.

Presuming, for the sake of argument, that is a fact -- if "permission" of the US was so desired, why did Saddam refuse to evacuate Kuwait after the US withdrew it?

If you wish to invest in the idea that Saddam was April Glaspie's lapdog, when her higher-ups overruled her and pulled on the reigns, why did he resist?

Well and truly stated. The airforce began as an adjunct of the Army, if memory serves. You've posted the flaw in strict 'constitutionaism', yet I tend to agree that the vacuous brained Congress should be on record as having voted for the up-coming slaughter (and it better be a good one, with tremendous air cover to ground every scud in Iraq).

I'm struck by the lack of sovereign attention (We the People) to the facts of 1998, when the Congress bestowed the power upon sinkEmperor and the crooked _ _ _ _ k chose to slink away from striking appropriately. By inaction then, we are in more of an urgent situation now, but the American sheeple appear to be at a loss to understand this, if you listen to lil' tommy daschle and HUB Leahy.

To: exodus
"...You are arguing in favor of Saddam Hussein being able to violate a document he himself signed, because it took away his ability, as the leader of a sovereign nation, to provide for the defense of his nation?

And against the US having the ability to do whatever their constitutionally elected government does in order to secure the nation after an attack on our soil, because the Constitution does not allow it?..."
# 262 by Luis Gonzalez

*************************

I said that Saddam, as the sovereign of an independent nation, has the duty to protect his subjects from harm.

Saddam IS the law in his nation. ANY action he takes is completely legal.

I've said that OUR government is based upon the Rule of Law, with that law based upon the written Constitution.

Our President is not a sovereign. His decision IS NOT law.

He is limited by a written Constitution that says that he DOES NOT go to war without the permission of the citizens of his nation, in the form of a Declaration of War from the representatives in Congress.

exodus says: "[The President] is limited by a written Constitution that says that he DOES NOT go to war without the permission of the citizens of his nation, in the form of a Declaration of War from the representatives in Congress."

It does? Where does it say that? I mean where does it specifically say that?

Regards,

Boot Hill

To: exodus
Q: Where in the constitution do you find a requirement for the President to seek a declaration of war from Congress prior to going to war?
Regards, Boot Hill
# 263 by Boot Hill

*************************

There is no requirement for the President to seek permission from Congress to go to war.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 says that the power to declare war belongs to Congress.

The power to declare war is a Legislative power.

It is not an Executive power.

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.