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.

[Senator Pardek]

"hairy mole-filled backed"

I must be Irish!

[nunya bidness]

You are so a Macuser.

[Askel5]

Do you think some of the means President Bush has selected to fight the war on terror are wrong?

Yes ... as elucidated above.

Additionally, I believe the harping on the need to "nation-build" or liberate the Iraqis (as we liberated the Serbians) from their dictator all are indications that we are padding our case for war with elements absolutely outside the parameters of a Just War.

Finally, assuming we did invade Iraq on the basis of his being a dictator or engaging in the production of WMD, do we then have the backbone to pursue those who supported, sustained and supplied him with the cash, armaments, military advisors and bioweapons expertise that made him the threat he is?

Do we confront Russia?

Do we hold Russia accountable for their support of Saddam in the last war we now seek to "finish"?

It would seem unfair and inconsistent not to go to the source of Saddam's ability to threaten us.

[Senator Pardek]

Gutless - but I expect that from the cult of "turn the other cheek".

[dcwusmc]

You know as well as I do that Iraq poses a clear and CONSTANT direct danger to Israel. MOST of the Arab/Muslim states do. I can't think of anyone better suited to take down Saddam or anyone having more justification. WE, on the other hand, appear to be more bent on "Nation Building," or empire building, to the detriment of our direct war on terrorists. Therein lies the difference. I tend to very much agree with Dr. Paul on this.

IF (and given the hysteria right now, it's a BIG IF) there is full and reasoned debate on the subject and the motivations are correct and precedent is not established, then I would have little or no heartburn about taking Saddam Insane down. BUT NOT UNTIL THEN. Right now, though, Congress seems to want to give Dubya ITS powers to declare war. That is wrong and ill-thought out.

[Consort]

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.

Paul is talking convention warfare and Bus has stated several times that we are fighting a new and different kind of war. Does Paul have Attention Deficit Disorder?

[Askel5]

Hell hath no fury like a RIGHTEOUS Christian Soldier, Pardek.

Without a doubt, four decades of gramscian-marxist revolution has rendered many Christians a bunch of "peace and social justice" pansies who faint at the mere mention of any but the honeyed passages of Scripture (suitable for use to sweeten the sting of "Humanitarian" research on excess, already-been-killed human lives).

I simply have too much respect for my father and others in the military around whom I was reared to believe that politicians should be sending them into war based on "feelings" or some kind of nationalistics "social work" where we jump around the planet deciding which nations we'll Fix based on what Ziggy B believes is the pragmatic cluster of Self-Interest necessary to catalyze our "morality" in some areas but not others.

To wit ... Clinton's rushing into Serbia on the basis of as-yet unproven genocide while ignoring entirely the bodies that floated out of Rwanda like logs. A badass troop of boy scouts could have taken on the machete wielding savages killing thousands. I fail to see how we managed to pull out of a nation where desperate folks were BEGGING the UN Belgians to please kill them with machine guns knowing the certain horror and diabolically primitive deaths that awaited them.

Again, it's a matter of Consistency. If we are going to play the Self-Interest card ... by all means, let's play it and make no bones about it.

I see no reason to dress it up in terms of "moral" purpose ... particularly given the means we seek to employ in the process.

[Askel5]

Bus has stated several times that we are fighting a new and different kind of war

And what about this "new and different" type of war justifies a "new and different" type of United States?

[Senator Pardek]

You're in America now - speak English.

These monsters have Catholics at the top of the list - and all of your theories involving Bushes and Kissinger won't change that.

The only thing that will wake you up is a suitcase nuke in Rome.

[Senator Pardek]

And it will happen in the next ten years.

[Askel5]

I'm glad you bring up the "Holy War" aspect of this engagement against "Islam".

If we cannot win it with an absolute respect for and reliance on sound Christian principles, we have no basis taking on "Islam" in the name of Christianity.

[SteveH]

Great post. Ron Paul == great patriot.

[Consort]

And what about this "new and different" type of war justifies a "new and different" type of United States?

The US is changing — for better or worse — every day. Yes, a "new and different" US is in the making, for better or for worse....with the help of average Americans. Don't let wishful thinking blind you.

[Askel5]

Yes, a "new and different" US is in the making, for better or for worse....with the help of average Americans. Don't let wishful thinking blind you.

I realize that our demographics are changing, we are a welfare state, we have abridged -- perhaps forever -- the so-called "God given" constitutional rights of our citizenry and have abandoned our Constitutional Republic in favor of the "democratization" model which communists have recognized for a century as the ideal means by which to exploit the "will of the people" in service of tyranny.

It's no secret I can't get past the shock and horror that is knowing we not only consider abortion to be the "vital" linchpin of our population control at home and abroad, but we now presume the right to make utilitarian best use of the "Excess" human lives we manufacture like widgets to supply the demand of the Economically Fit for children they can purchase to spec.

(Given the support of the director of the NIH for human cloning, I suspect that too shall become the law of the land soon enough.)

But regardless how many in this godless nation believe that truth is a matter of "Majority Rule", I still see no evidence that the Self Evident truths on which this nation was founded have changed ... which self evident truths included the fact that all men are created equal.

If I am blinded somehow to this inconceivable development, please point out for me the "new and different" self-evident truths on which our policies now are based so that I may get with the program as have you.

I would like them articulated as clearly as were the self-evident truths on which we based our original independence and claim to the moral authority to wage war.

[secretagent]

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?

Yes. He has the traditional libertarian view:

Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support Al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end?

A non-interventionist foreign policy has a lot to say for itself, especially when one looks at the danger and inconsistency of our current policy in the Middle East.

source

I'd like to add another point. We currently plan to help North Korea build two nuclear reactors. Yet Bush called North Korea one of three nations in the "Axis of Evil", along with Iran and Iraq.

So we spend billions of dollars to invade one evil nation, Iraq, because it might have or soon acquire nuclear bomb material. Meanwhile we actively help another evil nation, North Korea, acquire nuclear bomb material.

[Askel5]

Excellent point.

Thanks very much for the link.

[Askel5]

I have to go vote and run to work but I'll leave you with this in the hopes you understand where I'm coming from. It's an excerpt from Keyes's appearance at Free Republic's Treason Rally.

I am one of those who believes we are absolutely correct to apply to the Republicans the exact standards with which we so rightly excoriated the Democrats.

Why? Truth, by its very nature, does not change.

---

... you know something my friends, if we keep going the way we're going, persisting in the path that we have persisted in … then we, the very country that more than once in this century has saved the world from the shadow of the worst evils will no longer be there in the 21st Century to save the world from the shadow of evil.

And worse than that … we won't save the world from that shadow because we will be casting it.

We don't get it, do we? We are either going to continue to be the country that holds before the world those ideas and standards of godly justice and liberty and decency for which so many of our patriots died or we are going to turn into that power which plunges the world into a maelstrom of evil like nothing we have ever seen.

I frankly don't think that for American there will be a middle way. And that's the truth of it. And we are already at it. For we've had an administration that has aided and abetted and promoted and coerced the culture of death in every continent and toward every nation on the fact of the Earth already.

Using our capital and our money and our clout they have forced other nations to take the same ungodly stance toward innocent life in the womb that they take now.

So my friends, don't think that this is just some future that we are talking about. We are already far down the road toward the destruction of our republic, our conscience, our decency. The question isn't whether we will choose that road but whether we will turn back now before we pass the point of no return.

---

The American Heart ... The American Faith

[Consort]

But regardless how many in this godless nation...

---

You say it's godless and others say there is too much God. Who is correct?

---

I still see no evidence that the Self Evident truths on which this nation was founded have changed ... which self evident truths included the fact that all men are created equal.

---

Self Evident truths are a statement of our ideals (as oppoesed to a Communist Manifesto) and they remain as written — however, the devil is in the intrepretation of those ideals and the interpretations are in constant flux.

---

If I am blinded somehow to this inconceivable development, please point out for me the "new and different" self-evident truths on which our policies now are based so that I may get with the program as have you.

---

Again, the "self-evident truths" remain static; the interpretion of them changes every day to fit the objectives of those who are doing the interpreting.

---

I would like them articulated as clearly as were the self-evident truths on which we based our original independence and claim to the moral authority to wage war.

---

I suspect that there are any number of accurate answers to that...and many of them contradict each other...by design.

[Consort]

...all men are created equal.

That's a noble ideal to aim for, but if you think it's a fact then just take a look at our Justice Legal System.

[FreeReign]

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?

It wasn't Moyer's question I was criticizing. It was Paul's non sequitor reponse that was criticizing.

Paul avoids completely the dangers of WMD and terrorism in his answer to Moyers question. Moyers asks if Sadaam is planning an attack against the U.S. The SUBSTANCE of Paul's response is to only address the possibility of a Sadaam attack from his army, navy and air force leaving out the obvious -- WMD and terrorist attack.

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.