At some point in the not too distant future, a whole bunch of people are going to say, “Well fuck me, Ron Paul was right.”

Several poster here have said it, the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not conservative at all.  And the neo-conservatives are just Trotskyites...but so are the neo-liberals.

Again, libertarians of the right, center, and left: it is well past time for us to come together.  We have far more in common with each other than these two parties that we hold our noses and vote for.

We might have slightly different ideas on how to tax or how much military to sustain, but we’re the only ones (apparently) in the American political spectrum who are capable of Reason.  If we don’t fix this, no one else will.

Been a long time since I commented here but as always Ron Paul doesn’t disappoint.  I can’t wait to get his hands on his new book! 

Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report on Iraq to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, April 9, 2008

Opening Statement

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on the current state of affairs in Iraq with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Reviewing the presentations by our panel, I have noted with some concern that they seem more focused on justifying a future attack on Iran than reporting on progress in Iraq. Much of the assertions about Iran in Iraq seem illogical, others seem intended to inflame the situation with little justification.
Particularly, I am concerned about claims that a new enemy in Iraq has emerged with ties to Iran. First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the “dead-enders” from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” a prime focus of the presentation by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus last September. Now we are told that the new enemies are mysterious “Special Groups” that are said to have spun off from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
If this phenomenon of constantly emerging enemies bent on destabilizing Iraq is accurate and our presence in Iraq keeps generating new enemies, perhaps the problem is the occupation itself. If this is the case, doesn’t it make sense that our departure from Iraq may actually have a stabilizing effect?
I suspect these allegations that Iranian-supported “Special Groups” are now the prime enemy are in reality designed to provide an excuse for a planned US attack on Iran or are meant as justification for a permanent US military presence in Iraq.
It makes little sense to assert that Iran is funding militias to undermine the Iraqi government. The current Iraqi government may have been approved by the United States, but essentially it was made in Iran. The leading political parties of Iraq, the DAWA and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council have close ties to Iran. Leaders of these parties were in exile in Iran until the US invasion of Iraq. Iranian president Ahmadinejad is warmly welcomed in Baghdad by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Why would Iran set up militias in the south to destabilize a government with such strong Iranian ties? I find the allegation that Iran just cannot tolerate an elected government next door to be unsatisfying, particularly considering that Iran itself regularly holds elections where a wide variety of political parties compete for power.

It is alleged that the rockets fired into the Green Zone during the recent clashes in Baghdad and Basra were made in 2007 in Iran. Is it not true, however, that if the Iranian government were to actually arm the Iraqi militias, these groups would have more modern weapons to counter U.S. helicopter gunships and heavy tanks? Is there any hard proof that the Iranian government is arming groups in Iraq? There are reports that thousands of US weapons have gone missing in Iraq. If some of these turn up in the hands of insurgents, would it make sense to suggest that the US government is intentionally arming them?
In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Iran is trying to prevent the further destabilization of Iraq, which makes sense considering that Iran is next door and would keenly feel the effects of an Iraq fallen into civil war. The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Iranian government has condemned attacks on the “Green Zone” in Iraq. According to other press reports, the government of Iran brokered a ceasefire after recent Iraqi government moves against elements of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by again stating my concern that the real purpose of today’s testimony is to further set the stage for an attack on Iran. Congress should make it very clear that there is no authority under current law for an attack on Iran. It is in our best interest to talk with Iran and to work with Iran to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. It is also in our immediate interest to remove US forces from Iraq as quickly as it is safe to do so.

“It’s an odd posture for a candidate who won much support for his anti-war position, a topic that Paul omits here.”

Odd only if you assume Bush & Co. are the conservatives they claim to be.  They’re actually Neocons, and should be prosecuted for identity theft. 

Neocons are Trotskyites who use the language of conservatism to smuggle in their big-government, pro-interventionist agenda.  Conservatives, on the other hand, distrust centralized power, both political and economic, and revere tradition as the accumulated cultural wisdom of generations of actual experience.

Contrast that with, say, Douglas Feith, who is so convinced of his ideology that he still thinks invading Iraq was a good idea.

Most people just don’t get it. It’s not about the man. It’s about the message. The Ron Paul movement is just getting started.

The two party system is corrupt and election process is broken. Ron Paul offers an alternative, which should forever be available to the the American people.

Lastly, it’s not over until the fat lady sings and the MSM does not qualify as the fat lady.

I didn’t hear that phrase in the Ron Paul add (although the audio quality was bad--I might have missed it).

Ron Paul is far more anti-war than Barack Obama. Obama, like a typical politician, waffles back and forth. For example, he proudly says he was against the war from the start, but in the next breath says he would gladly attack Pakistan, without their approval, if he thought he could “get” bin Laden.

Ron Paul is NOT a “conservative.” He is a libertarian, which means he is for strict constraints on government both abroad and at home. “Conservatives” attack him for the former, “Liberals” for the latter.

In the end, “Liberals” and “Conservatives” are playing for the same team: the big government team. As evidence, observe how much G W Bush has cut government domestic spending. Then, observe how much Hillary or Obama will reduce foreign meddling. [Hint: not at all.]

The Democrats and Republicans both play for the same team, folks. It’s the team that finds great satisfaction in bankrupting you at home, while fighting pointless, “glorious” wars abroad.

Someone forgot to mention that to the Ron Paul supporters.

The Iraq war is antithetical to the ideals of classical conservatism. Real conservatives are more isolationist than interventionist.

Neo-conservatism, which describes Bush and his cadre differs very much in this respect from classical ‘paleoconservatism’, which better describes Ron Paul.

This is exactly why the guy creeps me out.

I wonder what he WOULD say in a debate that actually brings this stuff out?

It would be interesting.