Post by jo on Dec 14, 2007 14:13:47 GMT -6
OT: Ron Paul interview tonight on PBS 8pm
« Thread Started on Today at 3:07pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.dailypaul.com/
tonight 14 DEC @ 8pm EST on PBS
check for station listings
www.teaparty07.com
(the more you know, the more you may start to call him your #1 candidate..He is out-fundraising Huckabee by far..interesting...not what the media would have you think...)
Here is a transcript from a previous interview with Bill Moyers and Ron Paul:
MOYERS: We turn now to a man who was right when no one listened. Now a lot of people are saying what he said. Six months before President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, Congressman Ron Paul, an independent Republican of Texas, took to the floor of the House of Representatives to sound a warning:
REP. PAUL: 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: Ron Paul asked the press and his colleagues in Congress to consider a list of 35 questions to be answered before troops were sent to Iraq. But the consensus of conformity in Washington between official sources and the establishment press was so suffocating that mavericks like Ron Paul didn't get a hearing. Congressman Paul is indeed one quirky maverick. He practiced obstetrics and gynecology before entering politics, defends medical marijuana, doesn't like a lot of things about government, won't allow his children to accept federal student loans, and refuses to take his congressional pension or payments from Medicare. He ran for President in 1988 as the candidate for the Libertarian Party, a party small in number but strong on principle that looks skeptically on government. He will address their convention tomorrow morning in Atlanta.
But right now he joins us from his home in the 14th district of Texas, on the Gulf Coast. Welcome back to NOW.
PAUL: Thank you, Bill. Good to be with you.
MOYERS: In that speech you made on the floor of the House, you were almost prophetic in what you said. You were right. You were not listened to. Do you think people like you are being listened to now?
PAUL: Not a whole lot. I think they listen. But they, very interestingly enough, ignore it. I think silence is the best treatment for me as far as they're concerned. If they criticize, I think I would get more attention. And they certainly aren't going to compliment it.
But you know, one-on-one, it's interesting what happens. The other day there was a member sitting next to me on the International Relations Committee. He leaned over to me. He says, "Ron," he says, "do you ever think about sending out a press-- press release and saying, 'I told you so'?" I said, "No, not really." Really, if there's any "I told you so" added to, I think it should come from somebody else. I think I have to go from where we are now and make my best judgment on what we ought to do.
MOYERS: What should we do?
PAUL: Well, I think we should leave. And I think we should leave as quickly as possible. And let the Iraqis take over. My suggestion is this. That… it's an artificial country. It was created by Westerners. It's not gonna be held together politically very easily.
And, therefore, I would make a suggestion as we were leaving, this is really three countries. Do a cantonization of it. Or it's… maybe even adapt some of the principles of our early republic. Have three independent states. If they want to be loosely knit and come together, let that happen.
But say, "Here are the likely boundaries," that we have three countries there. We have a Kurdish land. We have a Shiite and a Sunni land. And we're suggesting you honor this and commit to this. And we're leaving. And I think if they knew that and we started packing up, I think there would be there would more likely have peace there than there would be if we continue to do what we're doing.
MOYERS: Most people I've talked to say that without an American military presence in Iraq, the country will almost certainly fall into civil war with bloody conflict that could bring the rest of the region in. What if they're right?
PAUL: Well, you know, I guess it's always possible. There's no way to say there will be none. But I think that's exactly what my concern has always been is that if we go over there and disrupt that area and pick sides and be involved, which we've been for years literally since we got rid of Mossadeq in Iran. You know, that has led to many problems.
And that, still, is festering. The fact that we were an ally of Iraq and in the war against Iran is another festering sore there. So yes, I think our interference does exactly what we say we're there to prevent. There is that possibility. But I think it would be a lot less. And besides, I don't… I never find… I'm never comfortable with assuming we have this moral authority to do what we're trying to do.
Nor do we have the money. I mean, this country's nearly broke. I mean, we're running a national debt increase of $700 billion a year. So, can we afford this $200 billion that we're spending over there? So, there are practical reasons against it.
And there is the risk that there would be chaos over there. But isn't there more chaos there now? I mean, there's a lot more people being killed in the last 15 months than the prior 15 months.
MOYERS: But the President said in his speech on Monday that if we fail to build a stable democracy in Iraq, it will invite, an unprecedented terrorist victory. It will lead to more violence. And it will threaten American security. You may have been right last year. You were right last year. But now is now. Areen't we trapped there? Those…
PAUL: I guess a lot of people would think so. But do you recall the so-called entrapment in Vietnam? I mean, we couldn't leave. And what did we do? We always escalated. And so those are the choices: leaving or escalating. Because most of the good military people now are very concerned that we don't have enough troops.
Some say we need to double or triple the troops if we really wanna police that area. So, it's escalation or leave. And history shows I think one of the things that those who were so energetic about promoting this war failed to understand the history of the area. It just doesn't work that Westerners can occupy that territory.
And the idea that even the British were gung-ho over this war means that they have short memories as well. So, I don't just see how this policy of persistence at this level will bring peace and stability. And I think the national security issue is critical. And that was one of the reasons I voted against the war is I did not believe our national security was threatened.
And I don't think it's threatened now. And I think we have shown that they weren't… they couldn't have done anything to even their neighbors. So, the idea of that, if we're not there promoting democracy, I mean, we've been trying to promote democracy around the world since Woodrow Wilson sort of started this whole thing. Make the world safe for democracy.
And it doesn't work. You only promote good values by setting good examples. So, this idea that we can force things on people doesn't work. We tried it militarily in Vietnam. We walked away after losing the war and now we're friends with Vietnam. We trade with them. They're more Westernized and capitalized than they'd been if we'd have stayed.
MOYERS: Many conservative writers this week, particularly since what happened in the prisons over there has become known, are saying that the fault lies with the liberal media. That liberal journalists are undermining our effort in Iraq. What is your take on that?
PAUL: No, I don't think you can blame it on the media. I mean, I've had my battles with the media, so to speak. But and I think, if anything, my blame goes to the liberal and the conservative media who, once again, both endorsed the war, you know?
Whether it was THE NEW YORK TIMES and the major three networks or Fox News, I mean, they pumped up the people. And, of course, the radio talk shows did, too. And so they pumped up the people. So, from my viewpoint, I don't distinguish a whole lot between the so-called conservatives and the liberal media because both of them, like both parties, endorsed this idea of foreign interventionism and have lost their faith and confidence that non-intervention is a good policy and is worthwhile to pursue if we're interested in peace.
MOYERS: There's something different here. We were attacked by terrorists, by militant extremist Muslims who are still trying to kill us.
PAUL: Right.
MOYERS: How would you deal with the war on terror?
PAUL: Well, you know, I think, first thing, we should be very cautious in our definition. Because if you listen to the radio talk shows, they glibly say, "We have to be there because they're trying to kill us." But they don't define anything.
Sure there's some people trying to kill us. But the Iraqis weren't trying to kill us, so we couldn't use that argument. Somebody else was trying to kill us. What we oughta try to do is understand why were they trying to kill us? And they give us a pretty good hint as to why they were.
But immediately after 9/11, it was pretty well-confirmed that the al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden did the deed and that they should be attacked. I voted for the authority for that and even the funding to go specifically after those who perpetrated the crime.
But in a way, our foreign policy got distracted because they had this other issue and we have spent too much time and energy in Iraq which literally has created more enemies. The al-Qaeda gets to skip off into Pakistan. At the same time, we do the worst thing in the world. We take over a Muslim… Arab country.
And then with this prison scandal, we have, unfortunately, the policies we follow has fallen into the… to the benefit of Osama bin Laden because of the recruiting effort now is just tremendous. So, I think the unintended consequences of this are just overwhelming. But, also, the ability of those who really wanted this war for other reasons aren't capable of stepping back because they would have to say, "You know, we really messed up. We made a mistake and we ought to pursue another policy."
MOYERS: I saw President Lyndon Johnson come to grief, lose his credibility over Vietnam. Do you think President Bush has any credibility left on Iraq?
PAUL: Its interesting, if you did a poll in my district, I imagine the large majority would still say that we gotta support our President. And we gotta, you know, stay the course. But when I talk to them and take a position which is different, it doesn't offend them.
And, you know, they sort of nod their heads. And they don't hold it against me that I actually have a different foreign policy. But there's still there's still a fair amount of support. But I think obviously the polls are showing in this country there's a lot less.
Matter of fact, back in September of 2002, one month before the election, I did a little speech on the floor, a five minute speech, talking about the politics. I sort of was being cynical. And I said, "You know, nobody cares about the Constitution. Nobody cares about my views on non-intervention. But let me talk about the politics of it." And I went through, you know?
And I mentioned Lyndon Johnson and others. And you know I said it's not even good politics even though in the short term, I admitted it could be. And it did. It helped the Republicans in 2/02. I said, but long term wars hurt. They have hurt.
Republicans have come in after Democrats have been involved whether it was World War I or the Vietnam or Korean War. So, I said, "Boy, you have to be careful." I say in a practical sense, war is not popular politically because there's always a cost. People die. And there's an economic consequence. And it hurts the economy.
And that didn't get any attention either. But I thought maybe I could get their attention on the politics of war.
MOYERS: I watched the Democratic Party come apart on Vietnam, Congressman Paul. And in this Washington Post this week, the conservative, very conservative, columnist, Robert Novak, writes, quote, "The Republican Party is displaying symptoms of a nervous breakdown." Do you agree with that?
PAUL: I think to some degrees. There's a split even among the neocons. Those who promoted the war are splitting off from the President and giving him less support because we're not being aggressive enough. So, in some ways, we have conservatives who think the Republicans are spending too much on entitlements. And we have some who think they're not strong enough and militant enough going after this nation-building project.
And, of course, my position is that we spend too much on entitlements. And we spend too much on war and the military. And I think we should save a lot of money. My only compromise on this philosophy is I would cut the overseas spending, whether it's military, foreign aid, bring it home, take half of it and put it towards the national debt and use the other half for those projects that lend itself to some benefits for some people in this country, even like the Corps of Engineers. I'd rather build highways here than pretending that we can nation-build in Iraq.
MOYERS: Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, thank you very much for being with us on NOW.
PAUL: Thank you, Bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Last Edit: Today at 3:08pm by jo » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide, do not hold back; lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes."
-Isaiah 54
« Thread Started on Today at 3:07pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.dailypaul.com/
tonight 14 DEC @ 8pm EST on PBS
check for station listings
www.teaparty07.com
(the more you know, the more you may start to call him your #1 candidate..He is out-fundraising Huckabee by far..interesting...not what the media would have you think...)
Here is a transcript from a previous interview with Bill Moyers and Ron Paul:
MOYERS: We turn now to a man who was right when no one listened. Now a lot of people are saying what he said. Six months before President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, Congressman Ron Paul, an independent Republican of Texas, took to the floor of the House of Representatives to sound a warning:
REP. PAUL: 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: Ron Paul asked the press and his colleagues in Congress to consider a list of 35 questions to be answered before troops were sent to Iraq. But the consensus of conformity in Washington between official sources and the establishment press was so suffocating that mavericks like Ron Paul didn't get a hearing. Congressman Paul is indeed one quirky maverick. He practiced obstetrics and gynecology before entering politics, defends medical marijuana, doesn't like a lot of things about government, won't allow his children to accept federal student loans, and refuses to take his congressional pension or payments from Medicare. He ran for President in 1988 as the candidate for the Libertarian Party, a party small in number but strong on principle that looks skeptically on government. He will address their convention tomorrow morning in Atlanta.
But right now he joins us from his home in the 14th district of Texas, on the Gulf Coast. Welcome back to NOW.
PAUL: Thank you, Bill. Good to be with you.
MOYERS: In that speech you made on the floor of the House, you were almost prophetic in what you said. You were right. You were not listened to. Do you think people like you are being listened to now?
PAUL: Not a whole lot. I think they listen. But they, very interestingly enough, ignore it. I think silence is the best treatment for me as far as they're concerned. If they criticize, I think I would get more attention. And they certainly aren't going to compliment it.
But you know, one-on-one, it's interesting what happens. The other day there was a member sitting next to me on the International Relations Committee. He leaned over to me. He says, "Ron," he says, "do you ever think about sending out a press-- press release and saying, 'I told you so'?" I said, "No, not really." Really, if there's any "I told you so" added to, I think it should come from somebody else. I think I have to go from where we are now and make my best judgment on what we ought to do.
MOYERS: What should we do?
PAUL: Well, I think we should leave. And I think we should leave as quickly as possible. And let the Iraqis take over. My suggestion is this. That… it's an artificial country. It was created by Westerners. It's not gonna be held together politically very easily.
And, therefore, I would make a suggestion as we were leaving, this is really three countries. Do a cantonization of it. Or it's… maybe even adapt some of the principles of our early republic. Have three independent states. If they want to be loosely knit and come together, let that happen.
But say, "Here are the likely boundaries," that we have three countries there. We have a Kurdish land. We have a Shiite and a Sunni land. And we're suggesting you honor this and commit to this. And we're leaving. And I think if they knew that and we started packing up, I think there would be there would more likely have peace there than there would be if we continue to do what we're doing.
MOYERS: Most people I've talked to say that without an American military presence in Iraq, the country will almost certainly fall into civil war with bloody conflict that could bring the rest of the region in. What if they're right?
PAUL: Well, you know, I guess it's always possible. There's no way to say there will be none. But I think that's exactly what my concern has always been is that if we go over there and disrupt that area and pick sides and be involved, which we've been for years literally since we got rid of Mossadeq in Iran. You know, that has led to many problems.
And that, still, is festering. The fact that we were an ally of Iraq and in the war against Iran is another festering sore there. So yes, I think our interference does exactly what we say we're there to prevent. There is that possibility. But I think it would be a lot less. And besides, I don't… I never find… I'm never comfortable with assuming we have this moral authority to do what we're trying to do.
Nor do we have the money. I mean, this country's nearly broke. I mean, we're running a national debt increase of $700 billion a year. So, can we afford this $200 billion that we're spending over there? So, there are practical reasons against it.
And there is the risk that there would be chaos over there. But isn't there more chaos there now? I mean, there's a lot more people being killed in the last 15 months than the prior 15 months.
MOYERS: But the President said in his speech on Monday that if we fail to build a stable democracy in Iraq, it will invite, an unprecedented terrorist victory. It will lead to more violence. And it will threaten American security. You may have been right last year. You were right last year. But now is now. Areen't we trapped there? Those…
PAUL: I guess a lot of people would think so. But do you recall the so-called entrapment in Vietnam? I mean, we couldn't leave. And what did we do? We always escalated. And so those are the choices: leaving or escalating. Because most of the good military people now are very concerned that we don't have enough troops.
Some say we need to double or triple the troops if we really wanna police that area. So, it's escalation or leave. And history shows I think one of the things that those who were so energetic about promoting this war failed to understand the history of the area. It just doesn't work that Westerners can occupy that territory.
And the idea that even the British were gung-ho over this war means that they have short memories as well. So, I don't just see how this policy of persistence at this level will bring peace and stability. And I think the national security issue is critical. And that was one of the reasons I voted against the war is I did not believe our national security was threatened.
And I don't think it's threatened now. And I think we have shown that they weren't… they couldn't have done anything to even their neighbors. So, the idea of that, if we're not there promoting democracy, I mean, we've been trying to promote democracy around the world since Woodrow Wilson sort of started this whole thing. Make the world safe for democracy.
And it doesn't work. You only promote good values by setting good examples. So, this idea that we can force things on people doesn't work. We tried it militarily in Vietnam. We walked away after losing the war and now we're friends with Vietnam. We trade with them. They're more Westernized and capitalized than they'd been if we'd have stayed.
MOYERS: Many conservative writers this week, particularly since what happened in the prisons over there has become known, are saying that the fault lies with the liberal media. That liberal journalists are undermining our effort in Iraq. What is your take on that?
PAUL: No, I don't think you can blame it on the media. I mean, I've had my battles with the media, so to speak. But and I think, if anything, my blame goes to the liberal and the conservative media who, once again, both endorsed the war, you know?
Whether it was THE NEW YORK TIMES and the major three networks or Fox News, I mean, they pumped up the people. And, of course, the radio talk shows did, too. And so they pumped up the people. So, from my viewpoint, I don't distinguish a whole lot between the so-called conservatives and the liberal media because both of them, like both parties, endorsed this idea of foreign interventionism and have lost their faith and confidence that non-intervention is a good policy and is worthwhile to pursue if we're interested in peace.
MOYERS: There's something different here. We were attacked by terrorists, by militant extremist Muslims who are still trying to kill us.
PAUL: Right.
MOYERS: How would you deal with the war on terror?
PAUL: Well, you know, I think, first thing, we should be very cautious in our definition. Because if you listen to the radio talk shows, they glibly say, "We have to be there because they're trying to kill us." But they don't define anything.
Sure there's some people trying to kill us. But the Iraqis weren't trying to kill us, so we couldn't use that argument. Somebody else was trying to kill us. What we oughta try to do is understand why were they trying to kill us? And they give us a pretty good hint as to why they were.
But immediately after 9/11, it was pretty well-confirmed that the al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden did the deed and that they should be attacked. I voted for the authority for that and even the funding to go specifically after those who perpetrated the crime.
But in a way, our foreign policy got distracted because they had this other issue and we have spent too much time and energy in Iraq which literally has created more enemies. The al-Qaeda gets to skip off into Pakistan. At the same time, we do the worst thing in the world. We take over a Muslim… Arab country.
And then with this prison scandal, we have, unfortunately, the policies we follow has fallen into the… to the benefit of Osama bin Laden because of the recruiting effort now is just tremendous. So, I think the unintended consequences of this are just overwhelming. But, also, the ability of those who really wanted this war for other reasons aren't capable of stepping back because they would have to say, "You know, we really messed up. We made a mistake and we ought to pursue another policy."
MOYERS: I saw President Lyndon Johnson come to grief, lose his credibility over Vietnam. Do you think President Bush has any credibility left on Iraq?
PAUL: Its interesting, if you did a poll in my district, I imagine the large majority would still say that we gotta support our President. And we gotta, you know, stay the course. But when I talk to them and take a position which is different, it doesn't offend them.
And, you know, they sort of nod their heads. And they don't hold it against me that I actually have a different foreign policy. But there's still there's still a fair amount of support. But I think obviously the polls are showing in this country there's a lot less.
Matter of fact, back in September of 2002, one month before the election, I did a little speech on the floor, a five minute speech, talking about the politics. I sort of was being cynical. And I said, "You know, nobody cares about the Constitution. Nobody cares about my views on non-intervention. But let me talk about the politics of it." And I went through, you know?
And I mentioned Lyndon Johnson and others. And you know I said it's not even good politics even though in the short term, I admitted it could be. And it did. It helped the Republicans in 2/02. I said, but long term wars hurt. They have hurt.
Republicans have come in after Democrats have been involved whether it was World War I or the Vietnam or Korean War. So, I said, "Boy, you have to be careful." I say in a practical sense, war is not popular politically because there's always a cost. People die. And there's an economic consequence. And it hurts the economy.
And that didn't get any attention either. But I thought maybe I could get their attention on the politics of war.
MOYERS: I watched the Democratic Party come apart on Vietnam, Congressman Paul. And in this Washington Post this week, the conservative, very conservative, columnist, Robert Novak, writes, quote, "The Republican Party is displaying symptoms of a nervous breakdown." Do you agree with that?
PAUL: I think to some degrees. There's a split even among the neocons. Those who promoted the war are splitting off from the President and giving him less support because we're not being aggressive enough. So, in some ways, we have conservatives who think the Republicans are spending too much on entitlements. And we have some who think they're not strong enough and militant enough going after this nation-building project.
And, of course, my position is that we spend too much on entitlements. And we spend too much on war and the military. And I think we should save a lot of money. My only compromise on this philosophy is I would cut the overseas spending, whether it's military, foreign aid, bring it home, take half of it and put it towards the national debt and use the other half for those projects that lend itself to some benefits for some people in this country, even like the Corps of Engineers. I'd rather build highways here than pretending that we can nation-build in Iraq.
MOYERS: Congressman Ron Paul from Texas, thank you very much for being with us on NOW.
PAUL: Thank you, Bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Last Edit: Today at 3:08pm by jo » Link to Post - Back to Top Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide, do not hold back; lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes."
-Isaiah 54