TRANSCRIPT: Moyers hosts RON PAUL (R, Tx) on PBS's "NOW"

"NOW" (PBS) ^ | 10/04/02 | Ron Paul | Bill Moyers

[Askel5]

Skip to Ron Paul's comments

MOYERS:

Welcome to NOW. The animals spirits are in a worldwide frenzy over the threat of war in Iraq that has sent stocks falling through the floor again. On Wall Street, there's talk that America's economy could remain stagnant for years. But the strange thing is that in Washington no one seems especially bothered by bad economic news. The talk in Washington is all "WAR WAR WAR."

CHENEY (giving speech):

We realize that wars are never won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy. We will take every step necessary to make sure our country is secure and we will prevail.

PERLE:

The message is very clear: we have no time to lose and Saddam must be removed from office

BUSH:

We are moving toward a strong resolution. And all of us – and many others in Congress are united in our determination to confront an urgent threat to America.

MOYERS:

But before he takes out Saddam Hussein, the President wants a regime change in the United State Congress.

BUSH:

The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people.

MOYERS:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle took the President's attack as slanderous.

DASCHLE:

You tell those who fought in Viet Nam and in World War II that they're not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous. Outrageous.

MOYERS:

But what the President said was nothing compared to the campaign launched against Democrats across the country by the Republican Party … questioning their opponents loyalty and trying to make the campaign all about patriotism.

Advert Clips:

… Do you believe this is free speech, burning the American flag? The flag our soldiers carry into battle, the flag our children pledge allegiance to … the flag our nation salutes

… says not to deploying missile defense but now he's changed his tune … AGAIN. Says he's for the military … who's he kidding?

MOYERS:

The martial spirit has engulfed the mass media too. On the networks, viewers are being treated to a preview of the killing machines that could be used against Iraq.

Advert:

… this aircraft has got enough computers and enough "brains", I guess, that you can really focus on completing your mission …

MOYERS:

But as the talk of war grows, the voices of dissent are growing too. 150,000 turned out in London last weekend to protest the impending war …

Protest footage:

… one two three four … we don't want your oil war …

MOYERS:

And in Washington, these demonstrators marched on Vice President Cheney's resident. Official Washington wasn't listening. Most everyone is falling into line. But there are a few lonely voices of dissent, like Ron Paul's, and he's not even a democrat.

PAUL (clip):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit; one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with.

MOYERS:

With us now, from the House of Representatives is Ron Paul, Republican from Texas. Thank you, sir, for joining us. Have you heard anything this week that would give you second thoughts about opposing a war against Iraq?

PAUL:

No. And I keep listening carefully and read everything I can get. And, I see no new information. There's really nothing new – not only in the last two months – it's interesting that we've just been talking seriously about this for one month. But I don't think there's anything new in the last two months or two years. And, for that matter, maybe even twelve years.

When Secretary Powell was before our committee, he was very clear to us that Saddam's military is very, very weak and much weaker than it was when he was defeated twelve years ago. And, that sorta goes by everybody and they keep talking about presumptions: maybe someday he's going to get something and maybe someday he's going do this and he might build a weapon and he's trying to get these things … So, it's pretty vague, the accusations.

MOYERS:

Have you seen or heard anything from the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House to suggest that Saddam Hussein is planning an attack on the United States?

PAUL:

No, I see nothing imminent. He doesn't have an air force. He doesn't have a navy. He can't even shoot down … he didn't shoot one of our airplanes down in twelve years … and his army is 1/3 of what it was twelve years ago. So, you know, this fictions that he's Hitler and that he's about to take over the Middle East … I think it's a stretch.

MOYERS:

Let's take for a moment the Administration at its word and admit that it, that President Bush and others really believe that it's a potential threat that he can get serious weapon of mass destruction. What should we do about that if we really thought he was getting weapons of mass destruction?

PAUL:

Well, I think that President Kennedy gave us a pretty good idea of what we should do. He had to deal with some tough times. As a matter of fact, there [is precedence – he] had to deal with the Soviets. They had 50,000 nuclear warhead and they had tremendous power and they brought them 90 miles off our shore. And not once did we think that confrontation was a good idea. Matter of fact, we always stood strong, had a strong national defense, we worked on containment and we even negotiated.

So, I would say, if we were able to accomplish that with the Soviets, and we've been able to live with the Chinese and put up with so much danger in the world, we oughta be able to handle this guy that … there's no evidence that he has these weapons and that there's no evidence of that … and he hasn’t committed an act of aggression. I would think that if we really wanted to, we could handle him the same way we handled the Soviets.

We "won the cold war".

MOYERS:

Why are so many members of Congress lining up to want to go to war?

PAUL:

On our side, many Republicans will come to me and they'll tell me that, you know, that their mail is running strongly against the war. "But, you know, I just can't go against my President."

Now, I'm uncomfortable about that. I mean, I know President Bush and he's from our state and you know a bit about politics and you know how that works. And I don't like that but I still an obligation to my own beliefs, my own convictions, my promises and to the Constitution. So I have to do my best job in defending that position.

But there is a temptation to want to go along and feel good about being part of the party and not resist. And, I think it's interesting on the other side …

MOYERS:

The Democrats?

PAUL:

… the Democrats. Yeah, they're split. Now, the best allies I have now for trying to avoid a war comes from the more liberal Democrats. Which is sort of ironic, maybe, in a conservative Republican … so there's more allies from there [than from] leadership on the Republican side. And that …

I think there's a lot of influence behind the scenes for this war dealing with oil interests (and this would influence both sides of the aisle) and, as much as people want to admit it, I really think that Israel and our support for Israel has an influence in our overall policy …

MOYERS:

Do you think that, excuse me, do you think Israel wants us to take out Saddam Hussein so that Israel doesn't have to do it itself? Because Israel is threatened …

PAUL:

That's an interesting question. I think they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and I can't blame them. And when Israel went in and took out that nuclear reactor in the early 1980s, actually I was one of the very few Republicans who supported it! It's in their interest to deal with it.

No, I don't think it's so much that Israel wants us to do their work for 'em, it's that we don't allow them to do their work for themselves.

Because, even the Persian Gulf War may well have been better fought by Israel and moderate Arabs … and they could have taken care of Saddam Hussein a lot better than we did. Because that war is still going on.

MOYERS:

What are you hearing from your district? Your conservative district has sent you back to Congress year after year. Are your constituents [prepared to go to war, do they want to go to war]?

PAUL:

I would say I've had well over a thousand positive letters of support and probably six or eight negatives. So I would say they strongly support my position. "Do whatever you can to avoid the war!"

MOYERS:

You've been consistent in your conservative positions: you opposed abortion, you like low taxes, you want us back on the Gold Standard … what is your philosophical basis for opposing a war with Iraq?

PAUL:

Well, you know the [ ] historic definition … it's actually a Christian definition … of the Just War influences me.

It has to be defensive …
It has to be declared by the proper authorities
and you have to be willing to win the war

prompts me to look at what the founders said and they want us to declare the war. The responsibility's on the House and the Senate to make the declaration. And that we should win it.

Now, I get motivated by this because I'm old enough to remember World War II and all the other wars. And war is not good. And I know that since World War II, we haven't won any wars. So, the way we get into war is every bit as important as deciding whether or not to go to war.

And it seems like when we slip into war through the back door, we're less likely to win and the consequences seem to get out of control and the complications last a lot longer – just like the Persian Gulf War did. We didn't finish it. We had a humiliating defeat in Viet Nam. Korea, we've still occupied Korea for fifty years.

And, besides, I think it's human nature to really prefer peace over war. I think people will go to war when they know it's necessary. But I think when it's not necessary, they're very tempted to vote for somebody who advocates peace and a little bit more reasoning than to jump and leap into a war that may lead to some very serious consequences.

MOYERS:

I was in the Johnson White House when we pushed through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which President Johnson then used as a means of going to war in Viet Nam without officially declaring war. Are we seeing something like that here?

PAUL:

I think it's very similar. Because I see this as not assuming responsibility by the Congress. [But then] the Congress transferring its authority to wage the war and giving it to the President. So, it doesn’t tell the President to go to war but it's certainly granting him this authority to use force, to go to war, to win … if he feels like it. So, I would say that it's very similar and it may well have consequences similar to – maybe not quite so bad but could be even worse.

MOYERS:

Congressman … what do you think about the President's new policy of pre-emptive first strikes?

PAUL:

I think that is serious. In the committee today, as we were marking up this bill, those who were pushing the resolution worked real hard to say "This has nothing to do with pre-emptive strikes."

And I made a statement, I think I said: "This is what it's all about … is to establish and institutionalize the pre-emptive strikes."

Although, we have done that – off and on, in minor degrees – over the years, this one is much more open and more declared and a much bigger issue. And that's what this is all about – a pre-emptive strike.

I think that is so dangerous. And not only to us as a people and to our Rule of Law and our Constitution, but I believe that it will come back to haunt us because it has already started … because the Russians now say: "Aha, what you're doing is nothing compared to what we want to do … we want to go into Georgia and because you say there's terrorists, and the Iraqis are possible terrorists, that's why we want to go into Georgia and we want you to approve it."

And that's why they're looking to maybe give in a little bit to us if we ignore what they do in Georgia.

But what if China declares that they've just been attacked by some terrorist from Taiwan? They may move on Taiwan in the midst of a crisis in Iraq. And look at the confusion and the chaos and the hatred that exists between India and Pakistan. They both have nuclear weapons. Now, if the pre-emptive strike becomes institutionalized not only for us but for the world, that means that the next time the Pakistanis might commit an act of terror against the Indians, or vice versa, the Indians might just say: "This is the reason we have to go ahead … and besides, the Great Moral Leaders of the World, the people who set the standards is America and this is what they do"

And they will take our quotes and use it. They could take our legislation and use it. So, yes … I think what we're doing here in re-doing this policy has really changed things a lot and that is probably the thing that we should fear the most.

MOYERS:

Congressman Paul, September 10th – three weeks ago – you read to the House of Representatives 35 questions you said should be answered by the Administration before action was taken on this resolution for a war against Iraq. Have any of those questions been answered?

PAUL:

No … I guess, in bits and pieces … and I qualify that by saying I wouldn't get to ask them. You know, I probably … these couple days of opening debate and plus my amendment … I've probably had 12-15 minutes total and those questions wouldn't have been answered because they're more complicated and I would not …

I, once again, indicated they can best treat me by trying to ignore me. So, I wouldn't expect the Administration or the State Department to send me the answers.

MOYERS:

So, this debate, in your judgment, has been designed to reach a pre-conceived conclusion?

PAUL:

Well, the most important characteristic was: "Don't mess with the language." And "Don’t have a real debate but just sort of rubberstamp it"

"Give the people a chance to get stuff off their chests so that they feel like they’ve been debating it, but don't really expect to change anything or have any input because it's so important to keep the Coalition together – Republicans and Democrats, both in the House and the Senate, and the President – because they have made their decision on what to do and they cannot afford to take any extra time and tinker with the Language."

MOYERS:

I know you have to get back to your work there, Congressman Ron Paul. Thank you for very much for this time.

PAUL:

Thank you very much. Nice to be with you.

[Askel5]

Paul is not a Conservative

I fail to see what is not conservative in any of the positions he's taken here.

Our anxiousness to "nation-build" in Iraq and "liberate" the Iraqis smacks of the Clintonqesque "MORAL WAR" we waged in Serbia.

This is not too surprising, given the fact that great thinkers and strategists such as Brzezinski were absolute in their assertion that "in a microcosm [Kosovo] is a real test case of what the world is about to be"

Perhaps it is unfortunate that we allowed the Mad Bomber of Sudan to set the standard for a policy of "preemptive" strikes based on whatever feeling struck the Executive branch (which branch, by the way, is now possessed of the ability to summarily execute anyone -- at home or abroad -- it "feels" is a terrorist).

Perhaps we should have paid closer attention to the likes of Keyes who hearkened to the Founders and their own example of a just, properly declared and morally founded statement of one's intent to incur bloodshed:

---

In the great documents that our Founders used to justify their willingness even to go to war in order to assert their independence. I think we ought to take that very seriously because – at least in those days, I don't know about now, I think we're kind of … we've gotten really careless about wars these days, as some events, I think, even in recent times have proven.

And we go to war maybe without understanding what we ought to understand. Every time you go to war, you know -- a people like ourselves -- even if that war is conducted by others, even when it's conducted by a means where you're flying high up in the air and dropping bombs on people you don't even see and folks die as a result …

I hope we still understand that each and every one of us who has an opportunity to participate as part of the sovereign body of the people in this country: we are responsible for every life that is taken by America in war.

And we had better be awfully sure that what we're doing has a solid moral ground or we will stand before God bearing the stain and weight of every life taken in injustice that we did not oppose.

And I think that it's why our founders, being that they were – many of them, most of them, almost all of them, in fact – people of conscience and faith, felt that before you risked war, you better justify what you're doing in moral terms. You've got to state the moral premises and the moral principles that inform your heart.

And that's what they did in our Declaration of Independence. It's a statement of the moral justification of that assertion of independence at the risk of war. And, in doing what they did, they set forth the basic moral principles that then informed the later deliberations that led to our Constitution and are the practical foundation of our liberty.

And so those words in the Declaration of Independence – "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" -- are the basic premise of everything that, as a people, we claim to hold dear. Self-government and rights and due process and liberty and all these other unique hallmarks of the American way of life, they rest on that premise and that premise alone.

---

Alan Keyes

[Askel5]

Paul would call for an end to all U.S. funding of Israel, I believe, along with an end to U.S. funding of Egypt and the PLO via the U.N. Israel might collapse without U.S. welfare, and then pose no counter to Saddam.

I'm certainly a big fan of Paul's perpetual excoriation of our entangling alliances with the UN.

Can you source his stand on the funding of Israel?

[logician2u]

. . he avoids completely the dangers of WMD and terrorism.

Just as you avoid the danger of initiating a war against another sovereign nation. No matter how much we have been trained to hate Saddam Hussein, does he even compare to Hitler? To Mao? To Samoza, fer crysakes?

This war is all about geography, not human rights or democracy or terrorism or any other excuse that might be thrown up. Just as the last (unfinished) war was not all about jobs, jobs, jobs.

It's about oil.

[Askel5]

Paul liked when Israel used a "pre-emptive" strike.

He may even have approved of Reagan's strike against Moamar Ghadafi, for all I know.

The fact remains that Israel had the "DEFENSIVE" posture necessary to wage a Just War and obligated itself to exactly that offense necessary to remove the threat and "win" the objective it set out to meet.

We are not meeting that model.

[Fred Mertz]

This is good, an excellent post.

I only caught bits and pieces of Ron Paul this evening, but his words and principles are spot on.

[Askel5]

I know you don't want to embarrass yourself by holding up our pummeling of a third-world nation as exemplary use of ordnance.

They are giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Good point. In the current issue of Arab-Asian Affairs (edited by Christopher Story, publisher of "Perestroika Deception", "New Lies For Old", "Red Cocaine" and "The European Collective"), he addresses just this prong of the new 33-page policy statement on "preemptive strikes" penned by Ms. Rice:

---

[the policy states] that "we will not hesitate to act along, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively."

Terrorism would be fought by "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

However, the document had nothing at all to say about the consistency of this freewheeling policy. What about Cuba, on the territory of which the KGB first began training international terrorists outside Europe in 1966? What about Ireland, which has callously harboured the IRA and its controlled splinter groups of terror-revolutionaries for three decades, knowingly allowing the Soviet GRU controllers of the IRA to use Shannon airport as their uninspected drop shipment center for weaponry and personnel?

And what about exerting pressure on Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, himself, given his Government's "politically correct" and laid-back attitude towards the intolerable presence of Islamic centers where terrorism is glorified and revolutionaries are trained? The new "line" is riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisy (of which Mr. Blair does not have a complete monopoly in this context).

---

I think those are excellent "for starters" questions. The true measure of any man's integrity is his ability to CONSISTENTLY defend and act in comport with his convictions.

Are we to apply this new policy consistently? Will respect the rights of other nations to adopt our "moral" stand?

[FreeReign]

. . he avoids completely the dangers of WMD and terrorism.

Just as you avoid the danger of initiating a war against another sovereign nation.

Going to war is dangerous -- I never said otherwise.

Anyway we agree that Paul does indeed avoid completely the dangers of WMD and terrorism in his answer to Moyers question.

Let's go to the instant replay.

MOYERS: Have you seen or heard anything from the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House to suggest that Saddam Hussein is planning an attack on the United States?

PAUL: No, I see nothing imminent. He doesn't have an air force. He doesn't have a navy. He can't even shoot down … he didn't shoot one of our airplanes down in twelve years … and his army is 1/3 of what it was twelve years ago. So, you know, this fictions that he's Hitler and that he's about to take over the Middle East … I think it's a stretch.

[MissAmericanPie]

I object, I don't believe you are thinking this thru. Saddam got his rear handed to him in 1991, he knows better than to invest in troops and equipment again, they got creamed. And we have spy satellites and he knows we can watch a military build up. So the fact that his army and military equipment is kaput has no bearing on anything. His entire thrust will be towards weapons of mass destruction now.

He will want a small mobile army that can deliver the goods, scuds, surface to air missiles, etc. It's what you would do if you were in his position and had not given up your ambitions. He learned from his mistakes, now he's taking another route. Or do you want to gamble that all those "palaces" hold is grandma's quilting b's?

[austinTparty]

Actually, his stand on foreign aid to Israel is based on the libertarian/classical liberal (i.e. pro-free market) view against ALL "foreign aid" (or as Lord Peter Bauer put it: "government-to-government transfer"). This in no way implies a lack of moral support for Israel, nor a denial of the right of any private organizations, individuals or groups to fund Israel. Government-to-government transfers are nowhere near as effective as direct funding. In the case of Israel, their economy (market liberal to some degree) is far more robust than any of their neighbors. Rest assured that Israel would not collapse without U.S. welfare. In so many ways, they would be better off without US aid and all the strings attached to it.

[Askel5]

How disappointing I thought Ron Paul had more sense than this.

More sense than what?

• Standing by his principles (all of which appear here to be articulately defended and securely grounded)?

• Considering the ramifications of this policy if adopted as the "moral standard" of all nations?

• Representing the will of his CONSTITUENTS and abiding not only by his promises to them but his own moral convictions on the face of which convictions his constituents have re-elected him time and time again?

It's more than we appear to get from most these days. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who suckered me with a bait and switch ... promising one thing and delivering quite another based on some "pragmatic" consideration or "compelling" crisis or need to "play politics".

[Askel5]

Paul thinks that the Iraqi air force, navy and army are the biggest Iraqi dangers to the U.S.

Perhaps I'll wait to respond to you again until you've read the piece more closely.

Paul is making the point that there is NO Iraqi navy or air force to speak of, they have not shot down a single plane in the 12 years since we lost the Persian Gulf War and the army is a 1/3 the size it was when we fought them last.

[MissAmericanPie]

See #28

[Askel5]

It's about oil.

I would not be so hasty in this assumption, actually.

Oil may be the draw for many "on both sides of the aisle" as Paul so rightly points out but I don't believe it's the ultimate objective of the Russians whose "former satellites" like Bulgaria are only greasing the wheels for our intervention in Iraq.

I believe -- as with Serbia -- we are being used to effect the collectivization of the Middle East's "arc of radical Islam" just as NATO's transformation and inclusion of even Russia subsequent to abandoning its charter or its defensive nature, ended up collectivizing the security system of Europe as a matched set to the Euro economic collective already in place.

[Askel5]

Thanks for the great post on Paul's stand re: Israel.

Makes sense to me.

You agree too, Miss Pie?

[FreeReign]

So the fact that his army and military equipment is kaput has no bearing on anything.

Yes Paul gave us a non sequitor when asked a very important question.

[Askel5]

I've got to go finish the dishes I was doing when I caught the show (this is what I get for being good ...) keep an eye on the thread for me, if you don't mind. I'll be back.

Regards.

[Askel5]

While it's in my clipboard ...

Politics are meant to open the door to what theology and philosophy decide upon as a code of right behaviour. "This is the good life," says the thinker; "it leads to happiness and to God." "Very well," says the politician, "we must adopt it and extend it for the benefit of all." The assumption here is that the thinker is a Christian moralist, and the politician is an honest man. It is a bold assumption.

That politics have gone off the Christian standard is all too evident. In fact, having slid away from the ethics of the Gospel, politics now excuse themselves from observing any sort of ethics at all. At one time morality was not a private duty as it is now: it was a public standard. Public and private affairs were integrated; there was a unity. Today there is no such reflex check-up: whatever people do in their own houses as regards social relations is their affair; politics, whether national or international, are run on a basis of expediency.

Religion, for example, may not enter into the questions of public policy.

"It isn't the slightest use applying evangelical principles in our dealings with those who are opposed to us," says the politician, "we wouldn't be understood."

And the awful part of it is that this is true.

Once one side refuses to play, all the others begin to cheat. What used to be at least a recognition of the spiritual realities has been replaced by exclusively material considerations. The only things which count for anything in international relations are power and threat and bribe. The idea of trust between nations is laughable.

Children growing up in the modern world may be excused if they imagine that patriotism's finest expression is the savage bravery of the hater.

For them diplomacy is nothing more than the ability to outwit an opposite number by underhand means. Eventually it must come to this, that a nation's well-being is assessed by the degree to which it has been able to eliminate its rivals, whether in trade or in the field. It is the ugly story of the master race, the Herrenvolk.

The State and the Soul

[MissAmericanPie]

I agree that this is Ron Pauls stance on Israel. I don't know enough about private donations covering Israel's needs.
But private donations sans government strings and government taxing everyone blind in one eye would be a good thing for Israel and us.

Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at this moment. So until it changes, we have to go with what we got.

[FreeReign]

Perhaps I'll wait to respond to you again until you've read the piece more closely.

Paul is making the point that there is NO Iraqi navy or air force to speak of, they have not shot down a single plane in the 12 years since we lost the Persian Gulf War and the army is a 1/3 the size it was when we fought them last.

Oh yes he is making that point, but he making that point when Moyers asks about the dangers of Sadaam attacking the U.S.

Perhaps we need to replay the exchange in slooow motion for you to read the piece more closely.

MOYERS: Have you seen or heard anything from the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House to suggest that Saddam Hussein is planning an attack on the United States?

PAUL: No, I see nothing imminent. He doesn't have an air force. He doesn't have a navy. He can't even shoot down … he didn't shoot one of our airplanes down in twelve years … and his army is 1/3 of what it was twelve years ago. So, you know, this fictions that he's Hitler and that he's about to take over the Middle East … I think it's a stretch.

[logician2u]

It is very hard for any of us to imagine being in the position of Saddam Hussein, or any other head of state on either side.

But consider this.

What does Saddam Hussein, or for that matter the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or the other Emirates along the Persian Gulf covet that we have? Our freedom of worship? Our pool of skilled labor? Our weapons of mass destruction, possibly, but not much else.

Just out dollars, so they can continue to live the good life until the wells run dry.

Now, what do Americans covet in that region of the Middle East? Their crime-free cities (made that way by strict enforcement of Islamic Law, outside Iraq)? Their government-provided health-care? Their cuisine?

None of the above -- it's their oil. For all most of us care, the whole Arab population could go poof! and as long as the oil kept flowing everything is A-OK.

Is it in Saddam Hussein's best interest to damage the United States, a major source of his oil revenue as well as, once the embargo is lifted, food and medicine for his population? Of course not. He's a materialist through and through, not a religious extremist like members of Al Qaeda. He likes palaces, pretty girls, western booze and all that too much to go out in a blaze of radiation, which he knows would be the outcome if the scenario you and others imagine were to ever unfold.

There have been plenty of other bad guys since the end of WWII who have been dealt with, usually being deposed by their own people.

Hussein is just not the threat to our country he's made out to be. We have many other potential enemies with not only the will, but the means, that deserve more attention.