Have you seen Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill?

Question

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.

This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version — in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas.

As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”

Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report.

Do you agree with Ron Paul?

wj · Accepted Answer

Yes that is why I am now an independent.

Pythagoras · Answer

There are two separate ways to interpret your question:

1.  Do you agree with Ron Paul that people who now support funding the war are hypocrites because the White House is under different leadership?

2.  Do you agree that this funding should not have been approved?


The answer to #1 is an absolute "yes".   We are funding the same war, regardless of party.  Therefore, it is entirely hypocritical to base your decision on the party in power.  If you agree or disagree with the war, I can understand that.  One can make arguments for both sides.  However, to withhold your opposition because the new President has a different letter after his name is sick.

The answer to #2 is "in a sense".  I don't think one can abruptly end funding and leave the troops hanging.  I would support a united position of "no more funding after 2009" (or some other deadline that gives the administration time to withdraw forces).  Other than that, I am in complete agreement with Paul's return to a more limited, Constitutional based government.

rvinsight · Answer

I agree with him 100% on all of his issues raised in this speech.  

We are broke as a nation yet we are still giving away the farm.  It is almost like our politicians want to break us or they just do not care.  Everyone is so focused on THEIR agenda they don't pay attention to how we are supposed to pay for it all.  The "I will sign your bill if you sign mine" mentality is what is driving our country to the brink of bankruptcy.  Our only hope it to inflate our way out punishing people who try to save their money instead of depending upon a bailout.  This also punishes people on fixed incomes, middle class and the poor whose wages are not fairly tied to inflation.

One of these days Americans are going to get sick and tired of paying the rest of the world to like us and loosing their fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters protecting interests not related to OUR national security.

If it walks like a hypocrite, talks like a hypocrite and smells like a hypocrite then it must be a hypocrite.

Anonymous · Answer

I do.

I listened to the Canadian Prime Minister when he was here earlier last year. Of all the people I have heard talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, he has made the most sense, much like Ron Paul. It is a no-win situation. Saddam is gone. The Taliban will never be dismantled no matter what we do. Leave and let them go on to deal with it themselves. We will NEVER see peace in the Middle East and why in the hell should we care anyway.

Anonymous · Answer

Wars and foreign aid further leverage our financial situation so of course I agree with him if the concern is to address the economy.  But I believe it's safe to say w/ the economic policies passed so far have very little to do w/ economic recovery.  

I also agree w/ his assertion that Congress now supports the war...as they did before 2003 as well.  We can fall victim to propaganda, but we can never rewrite history w/o actions/quotes coming back to haunt those who do.

Google:  Iraq Democrats Quotes

Lots of inconvenient quotes dating back to 1993 citing the same concern for our primary reason for invading Iraq.

If it was a mistake, that's another issue altogether.

Anonymous · Answer

"Do you agree with Ron Paul?"

Without a doubt.  He is one of the only politicians with integrity.

Anonymous · Answer

I do
The man has common sense,maybe the only politician who does. 
He notices the unnecessary spending,predicted the failure of GM,and would truly pull the troops out of Iraq.

DAR · Answer

100%.

I also note they slipped in the Obama unconstitutional funding of the IMF to compete with the dollar as reserve currency through SDRs and to guaranty IMF loans.   (that was the reason most GOP voted against it.)

Who guarantees ours?

Anonymous · Answer

Yep one of the first things I do every day is check the Campaign for Liberty website.

Rick · Answer

absolutly...if you don't? then I can only assume you voted Obama....didn't he say he's bringing the troops home? Ron Paul is right! and always has been right!

Trending News

Have you seen Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill?

15 Answers