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]

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

I cannot disagree more.

What WE'VE GOT, allegedly, are the moral principles which informed our Declaration and the foundations of individual liberty and justice which framed the Constitution we are now abandoning.

To blame this on "circumstances" is to negate entirely our appreciation of the Self Evident truths on which we must base our "moral" stands, in Word and Deed.

Anything less is to admit defeat at the hands of those who would bring us down to their level.

[Askel5]

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

Uh ... okay. What does Moyer's framing of the question have to do with the substance of Paul's reply and how is it that the question somehow negates the prong of Just War that is defending against aggression?

[rb22982]

Paul is spot on, with the sole exception he doesn't consider WMD and sponsorship of terrorism.

[logician2u]

. . we are being used . .

Now you've gone and changed the subject, Askel.

The radical Islamists would be ROTFLTAO, if that was permitted, knowing that another Arab nation was ripe for the picking thanks to Uncle Sucker.

I'll modify my statement slightly.

For us, it's all about oil.

[Askel5]

with the sole exception he doesn't consider WMD and sponsorship of terrorism.

But he does ...

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".

It was perhaps wrong of me to put "won the Cold War" in quotes but I find it ironic that -- where sponsorship of terrorism and the fomenting of WMD threats by rogue nations to the United States is concerned -- we appear to blythely be relying on the "former Soviets" who were responsible for both.

Clearly, we have not "won the Cold War" if it is we who have substantively changed our profile ... Russia's embrace of the "saving graces of Western Materialism" (particularly where our IMF payments, aid to clean-up their nuclear messes, etc. etc. are concerned ... based on the conceit that a nation still supplying arms to the Chicoms and 49 million dollar contracts to nations like IRAQ is somehow in need of our economic assistance and political appeasement).

This too is Mr. Story's point as regards the CONSISTENCY of the policy we are pursuing.

No one refutes the FACT that the Soviets increased by 1000% their support of the global network of terror in 1964.

No one refutes the FACT that the Soviets were primarily responsible for the organization, funding and sustaining of the terrorist training camps formed in Cuba in the wake of the 1966 Tri-Continental Conference.

It is passing strange that -- based solely on the "apartment bombings", the last of which were proven KGB "tests" -- we managed to BOTH excuse Russia's Mozdok war games in Chechnya as well as find legitimate their alliance with us as a partner in the War against the global terror network THEY conceived, sustained and glorified in up and until the eve of their "abolishing the IMAGE of the enemy" with perestroika's collapse of the evil empire like a cheap umbrella.

I would hate to think that the United States would be operating on Appearances instead of substance and disregard the very real possibility we're being played for fools. I am one who agreed absolutely with Reagan that indeed the Soviets were an Evil Empire. I find it hard to fathom that based on an economic collapse they STILL are milking to this day, that they actually experienced some perceptible metanoia. I don't see it.

Particularly given the neat way were were played to Russia's advantage in the Balkans, I think the question merits further investigation.

[rb22982]

Well, the Soviets are also somewhat rational, the radical Islams have shown time and time again they aren't. If Saddam thinks he's going down, he'll probably use any Ace he is holding. The soviets and ourselves knew that if one bombed the other, we could destroy each other several times over. In the case of Al-Queda and Saddam, they feel they're going down anyway.

[MissAmericanPie]

I'm not arguing that we don't have other enemies, but we need to deal with them one at a time. Your leaving out the most important equation in regards to Saddam, all of those leaders over there, from Kuwait to Saudi to Iraq, are caught in the trap of their own making.

In order to stay in power and keep their own people from eating them on toast, they controlled them with fundamentalism and religious zealotry that can just as easily turn on them as us. For years they have pointed away from themselves and towards the "Great Satan" as the reason for their people's woes. As far as the unwashed masses are concerned their only reason for existance is to defeat the Great Satan, and spread Islam for Allah. Any leader backtracking now will have the mob on his case.

In case ya'll are forgetting 9-11. We are just as intent on striking down the populace as the leaders over there, don't kid yourself.

[Askel5]

For us, it's all about oil.

You bet.

The beauty of this argument being that energy is quite rightly a subject of national interest and national defense.

I don't think that should blind us to the fact it's possible our "national interests" are causing us not only to squander our moral capital but entangle us in alliances and obligations that will not bear the fruit for which we're hoping.

I think it strange that -- even as we throw all caution to the winds where ready access to and extraction of foreign oil is concerned -- at home we appear bent on destroying utterly our ability to make use of our own reserves through the gamut of environmentalist legislation and prohibitions to offshore drilling as exacerbated by crises like the Valdez.

While it might be a case of exhausting others' oil before our own, it's possible that in the process of asserting our rights to others' resources, we may not end up preserving our own nation long enough to enjoy our long-range planning in this regard.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

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

I think you misunderstand my comment--I was referring to our accurracy in our military as meeting the "Just War" requirement that the war solution isn't worse than leaving the status quo. And, of course, success against a 3rd world country applies well to Iraq.

Regarding giving aid and comfort to our enemies, to my knowledge, the IRA is not currently allied with the al Qaeda. If it is, we'll get them, either with the help of Ireland or without.

Cuba has been opposed by the US for almost 50 years, through a blockade and sanctions, and has not conducted a successful terrorist action. If they were to harbor al Qaeda anywhere other than Guantanemo Bay, I expect we'd come after them.

The UK, under the surprising Tony Blair, has supported us via intelligence and military forces. Although they have had tolerance toward Islamic centers, it is unlikely these centers are not being monitored by MI.

This is a war. We must fight the enemy wherever he is found. We need consistency in our goal, although the method can and should vary depending upon the circumstances.

[MissAmericanPie]

That all sounds real good, but the fact is, we are taxed to the point there is not much left for "private donations" in any amount that would help float Israel's boat. So we have to go with what we have for now.

Sure I would love a change, but I'm not for putting the cart before the horse. In other words, I'm not for cutting funds to Israel while taxes are so high that private donations would be too small an amount to do any real good.

[Askel5]

Well, the Soviets are also somewhat rational, the radical Islams have shown time and time again they aren't.

The rational Soviets of whom you speak asserted absolutely that "the revolution makes no sense without terror".

I spent yesterday reading Claire Sterling's "THE TERROR NETWORK" from 1980. Sterling appears to have been somewhat the liberal and obviously would have liked to restrict her treatment of terrorism to the old guard far right terrorists (like those who, along with the Soviets, helped terrorize the state of Israel into being). Instead, she focuses plainly on the real scourge: Soviet-sponsored terrorists.

Which groups included ABSOLUTELY the Arabs ... from well into the first half of the 20th century.

Judging by the flyleaf, this book was roundly applauded by the right when it came out. The research is impeccable. The conclusions are sound and the facts are plain: Soviets sponsored the bulk of global terror and the purpose of terror was to terrorize ... causing government to end up draconian entities actually ripe for being overthrown.

Makes sense. This was precisely the intent of the terror instigated by the Narodnaya Volya or "People's Will" who birthed the Bolsheviks:

---

It should be noted that not only did the terror campaign demystify Russian rulers in the eyes of the people but it also caused the Government to overreact.

From 1879 onwards, the Imperial Government introduced a stream of extremely harsh counter measures meant to prevent terror, but which had the effect of alienating moderate groups in Russia.

In the long run this made it impossible for the regime to ever secure the support of moderately conservative and liberal elements in Russian society; so it was left to fall, isolated and alone, in 1917.

--- Richard Pipes

---

[Disclaimer: I'm no more a Pipes fan than a Moyer's fan but his facts as contained in this piece are incontrovertible.]

This has been the model of leftist terror for nearly four decades now ... "liberation" on a scale and with such bloodshed that governments overreacted and the desired revolution and toppling of legitimate governments was effected.

If we know this to be true, I think it behooves us to proceed with absolute caution and in perfect comport with those founding principles which distinguish our nation from all others.

Summary execution -- at home and abroad -- of anyone the Administration deems a terrorist does not appear to fit that bill.

Another quote from the current issue of Arab-Asian Affairs:

---

Shortly after 9/11, George Bush Sr. was reported to have ruminated in public that a "prohibition" on CIA assassinations should be removed since it tied the United States' hand in the face of its enemies. In August 2002, ABC News briefly posted a news report, attributed to Reuters, that the White House had announced with zero fanfare that, with immediate effect, certain individual whom President Bush or other high-level members of his Administration have designed as terrorists, are subject to summary execution by Homeland Security operatives, US Intelligence officers, or in some cases, by US military personnel.

The Presidential Directive applied to both US and foreign citizens, both within and outside the United States.

The announcement was made as silently as possible -- late one Sunday evening, from the President's Texas home, in Crawford. Citing security considerations, top Bush Administration officials afterwards declined to comment on the new Directive. No subsequent references to this contneitous decision have been made or are likely.

---

Frankly, I was surprised to read this when my issue arrived last week. I had missed this somehow. Searching on the internet, I found a copy of the original Reuters story but very little in the way of discussion.

Bush OK's Summary Executions Of Some Designated As Terrorists 
8-12-2002 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a surprise move sure to raise 
outcries from foreign governments, civil liberties 
groups and others, The White House today announced with 
little fanfare that effective immediately, certain 
individuals whom President Bush or other high-level 
Administration members have designated as terrorists 
are subject to summary execution by either Homeland 
Security operatives, U.S. intelligence operatives, 
and in some cases by U.S. military personnel. 

The presidential directive applies to both U.S. and foreign 
citizens, both within and outside the United States territory. 

The White House gave notice of the new policy in as quiet a 
way as possible, making the announcement late Sunday 
evening from Crawford, Texas. The unprecedented move is 
thought certain to generate a firestorm of protest from 
numerous quarters. 

It's possible I missed the discussion somehow on FR but searches of "execution", "Bush / execution | summary | terror" brought up nothing on the story.

Having subscribed to a couple of Story's publications for several years now, I know for a fact he edits meticulously and will even reissued an entire mailing for a minor mis-cite in one issue. A most trustworthy source.

So ... if anyone can dispute Story's account or the Reuters story as posted here (taken from a chat room dated that day with a comment "Does anyone have a problem with this?"), I would sure like to see it.

I know there was lots of talk about and support for taking a page from Israel where the ready assassination of terrorists was concerned but I hadn't realized there had been a presidential directive in this regard.

As much as I too would sorta like the freedom to act thus, I'd always been somewhat proud that it was not our national policy to do ... regardless that it's probably true it was a "hypocrisy is the compliment paid to virtue" sort of thing.

[Askel5]

We need consistency in our goal, although the method can and should vary depending upon the circumstances.

I am not a moral relativist.

Nor am I a Calvinist (or one of their pragmatic progeny) who believe that the ends justify the means.

I believe actions have consequences and the unleashing of evil actions will have consequences that cannot be accounted for in advance by Good Intentions or the Best-Laid Plans.

[Askel5]

[Disclaimer: I'm no more a Pipes fan than a Moyer's fan but his facts as contained in this piece are incontrovertible.]

I believe I'm mistaken here ... I think it's Daniel Pipes I have a problem with.

(Better to err on the side of the disclaimer, however, as bad at names as I am ... )

[Int]

bump for the Brave

[Forgiven_Sinner]

We need consistency in our goal, although the method can and should vary depending upon the circumstances.

I am not a moral relativist.

Nor am I.

Nor am I a Calvinist (or one of their pragmatic progeny) who believe that the ends justify the means.

Nor am I, nor do I.

I believe actions have consequences and the unleashing of evil actions will have consequences that cannot be accounted for in advance by Good Intentions or the Best-Laid Plans.

I agree. I'm not quite seeing how your points above relate to my comments or the war on terrorism. Do you NOT want to defeat those who attacked our nation on 9/11? Do you think some of the means President Bush has selected to fight the war on terror are wrong? Please be clearer.

[nunya bidness]

In the current issue of Arab-Asian Affairs ...

I had to cancel my subscription because the paperboy kept throwing it in the bushes.

Kidding aside. You rock.

[Senator Pardek]

I think it's Daniel Pipes I have a problem with.

Of course you do - he has eloquently pointed out how the worship of Satan Allah will destroy the West. First on their list? Catholics.

It's gonna be fun watching you wimps get exterminated. My kind fights back.

[nunya bidness]

It's gonna be fun watching you wimps get exterminated. My kind fights back.

Drunks? If you're not with us your [hic] agin us. Would you like to be on our mailing list?

You bastard. I love you man...

Where's my keys?

[Askel5]

I agree. I'm not quite seeing how your points above relate to my comments or the war on terrorism. Do you NOT want to defeat those who attacked our nation on 9/11?

You're damn right I do.

I prefer to do it on our terms, not theirs.

I refuse to "stoop to conquer" by adopting the immoral means and premises of our enemies. If we ourselves abandon the self-evident truths of our Declaration, the clear framework of our Constitution (by which our Constitutional Republic was intended to operate) or the Judeo-Christian heritage from which we derive our concept of a Just War, we have no business seeking to "nation-build" in our image for the just and moral nation for which so many Americans have died to preserve for our progeny will no longer exist.

This is precisely the predicament Ron Paul is addressing with our newly-minted "preemptive strike" policy. If the United States is staking that as a "moral" policy, on what grounds will we protest another sovereign nation's invoking it?

[Senator Pardek]

Har! Wrap your man hooks around my hairy mole-filled backed, you bastard!