05/30/04 – Ron Paul – The Scott Horton Show

Alright everybody, welcome to the weekend interview show.
The guest today is an obstetrician by trade, a flight surgeon, and apparently he's the only congressman who gives money back to the treasury at the end of every term.
I am truly honored to introduce Dr. Knowles, Congressman Ron Paul.
Good to be with you.
It's an honor to have you on the show, sir.
Thank you.
My first question is hypothetical.
I hope maybe you can have a little bit of fun with it.
If somehow the majority of the House of Representatives came to their senses and made you the House Speaker, what would be the new agenda for the House of Representatives?
Well, of course the House can't do a whole lot by itself.
Well, you have to have the Senate to go along and also a president who will sign your bills.
But if we thought about the most important thing we could do, if we had like-minded people in the Senate and somebody that would sign the bill, or you think we could get past it, I'd work on a constitutional amendment, get the states to pass it.
That would be the Liberty Amendment.
The Liberty Amendment means that you get rid of the IRS, repeal the 16th Amendment, and the federal government has three years to stop doing everything it's doing that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution.
They have to cease and desist and quit, and then we would get back to constitutional government.
But that is a hypothetical and a dream, and it's not something we'll hold our breath for.
But the power of the first strings is all within the House of Representatives, so as House Speaker you couldn't necessarily pass a lot of legislation, but you could stop a lot of unconstitutional things from being funded, right?
You could really bottleneck it up if you go through the expenditures, but the tragedy, of course, the current Congress, they have given up all the prerogatives, whether it's on the issue of war or whether it's the issue of writing regulations that become law, what they allow the courts to do.
But if we had the control, you literally could stop the funding and stop these unconstitutional programs that I'd like to ban.
But it would cause chaos if you didn't have the Senate to go along with that.
But the Vietnam War was finally stopped by Congress cutting the first strings and stopped funding it, so that would be one way to do it.
A speaker by himself can't do it.
I mean, you have to have a majority vote, because if you were the only one who thought that way and you were an accidental speaker, I mean, they would kick you out of office the next day, you're only going to have a libertarian speaker when you have a libertarian Congress, and you won't have a libertarian Congress until the people want a libertarian Congress.
You filed a bill in October of 2002 to declare war against Iraq, and then you voted against it.
Why is that?
Well, it wasn't actually a bill, it was an amendment.
The resolution giving to the President the option to do whatever he wanted in Iraq came through the International Relations Committee, on which I sit.
And when it came up, I had the chance to amend it, so I offered a substitute amendment, which was a declaration of war.
So when I presented it, I said, this is a declaration of war and I'm going to depend on you, the rest of the committee, to make sure it doesn't get passed, because I'm not going to vote for it.
But the reason I did that was to remind them that war should only be fought on declaration and with congressional participation, but the resolution was not doing that at all.
The resolution was citing the United Nations and then saying to the President, if you want to go to war, it's okay, if you don't want to go to war, it's okay, and when you want to go, it's up to you.
So it was giving to the President the authority to do what only Congress should do, so in many ways what we did as a Congress is we transferred power from the Congress to the executive branch, which is unconstitutional.
And that was the reason I introduced that and made them vote on it.
Of course, the vote was 43 or 44 to 0.
And how does that make you feel when you see these Congressmen now demanding accountability and complaining that they don't know what's going on when they've passed all their authority away?
Well, I don't say too much.
I let the events speak for themselves.
But one member, I was on a committee this week on international relations, and the individual was sitting next to me, and he said, Ronnie, don't you ever feel like sending out a press release saying, I told you so?
So I thought that was pretty neat because he suggested it.
If you say it yourself, it doesn't sound so good.
But at least he was thinking about it.
Now that it's proven there's no weapons of mass destruction, there's no links between the former Hussein regime and Al Qaeda, the people apparently don't seem to think they're very liberated over there with the latest polls that I've seen or the opinion of the Iraqi people.
I wonder, do you think those were the real reasons that we went to Iraq, and if there were other reasons that were not so publicly discussed?
What do you think those might have been?
Those were the reasons many members voted for it, believing what they were told.
Of course, now we find that that information was wrong.
The question is, did they do it deliberately, or did they just blunder, or what were their ulterior motives?
There's probably a lot of awe of that, but I think there were other ulterior motives.
I had a lot of members admit to me, even though they wouldn't say it in public, that we do need to protect the oil.
I mean, what are we going to do if we don't have this oil?
We depend on this.
So they recognize this as being...
Well, that's other members of Congress.
What do you think were the real goals of the administration?
I think oil probably was a major issue, although they would never admit it, because when they went into the Persian Gulf the first time with George Bush Sr., he publicly said immediately, he says, we've got to go over there and stop Saddam Hussein to protect our oil.
So they were talking that way.
Of course, there's the neocon approach of remaking the Middle East.
They're very sincere about that, and it's a philosophic position that they take.
Well, you wrote quite a long thing.
I'm not sure if it was a speech that you gave, but a friend of mine got in the mail her liberty report that was called Neocond.
Yeah, it was a speech I gave on the last floor demonstrating how this war was planned for a long time.
As a matter of fact, the basic authority was passed in 1998 under Clinton, and we had a resolution come up on the floor.
And it was under suspension, which means they didn't expect any opposition.
If they bring a bill under suspension to the floor, if both parties are in support of it, an individual like myself can demand time and opposition.
And I was so outraged in 98 that they were moving toward war, that I went down and took the 20 minutes, or only 40 minutes.
I had 20 minutes, and the other two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans had 20 minutes.
And we debated this issue, which I said is going to lead to war.
But that was the original authority saying the intent, the policy of the United States is to get rid of Saddam Hussein, to have regime change.
And it's cited quite frequently, and it's called the Iraqi Freedom Act or something like that.
It was in 1998, and they hide behind that and say, oh, well, Congress said this, and Clinton believed it, and you know.
And that is true, but this was pushed by the neocons.
And of course, immediately after President Bush took office, they were talking about the war and planning.
That's what Paul O'Neill wrote in his book.
In the first month they were there, they were talking about the war.
How unprecedented is it for the invasion of Iraq in terms of what they call a preemptive strike?
Of course, it's not the first time that we've attacked a nation that never attacked us, is it?
No, hardly.
But it is a significant event where we went in with a huge army to change the government and to occupy the country.
We've done it in the South American, Central American countries, Panama was regime change.
I think it, in modern times, it started in 1953 when Eisenhower sent the CIA over there to get rid of an elected leader, Mossadegh, and they kicked him out and put the shawl in, who was a ruthless dictator.
And they remember that.
And now, who are we fighting over there right now?
The Iranians who probably orchestrated this whole thing, you know, in getting the information to the Congress and gave it to the CIA and all this.
Through Ahmed Chalabi.
Yeah, through Chalabi.
And so it never goes away.
But I think the fact that we did that led to the rise up of the radical Shiites and the overthrow of the Shah with the Ayatollah in 1979.
So it goes on and on.
And then we became his ally of Saddam Hussein against Iran.
And they remember that too.
So this just goes on and on and on.
That's why there's a pretty good argument for non-intervention.
Stay out of there.
Stay out of the affairs of other nations.
You wrote a weekly column a few months back called, Keep the UN out of Iraq and out of the US.
And now that the transfer of power seems imminent and we have a UN, I forget, Baradei, I believe his name is, is picking the new government over there.
I wonder what degree of control do you think that the UN might end up having in Iraq?
And why out of the US?
What do you mean by that?
Well, I didn't use the terms out of the US.
I just said, we ought to be out of the UN.
I was jokingly saying also that they asked me what the solution is.
I said, well, turn the whole mess over to the UN, then we should get out of the UN and the UN will have to deal with it.
The UN eventually will be involved.
And even though Bush was sort of obstinate about getting UN approval, final approval, he used the UN as justification.
So some people argue that he really was putting backbone into a UN resolution that wasn't being enforced.
They made the resolutions and then decided, well, we don't want to invade as a UN army.
So Bush says, you know, we've got to go in there anyway.
And so the UN is alive and well.
At the same time, we're back in UNESCO, which put us back in UNESCO and that's cost us a lot of money.
There are new treaties on civilian ownership of white arms, too, as well, right?
That's right.
And they're talking now about international taxation on the internet and arms control.
So what does it mean when conservatives in America are angry at the UN for not doing enough and for being obstinate?
I thought that the conservative critique of the United Nations was that it did anything at all.
Well, I think there still are a lot of conservatives that sort of listen to some of the rhetoric and say, you know, that's good.
We're going in on our own, you know, and they like that.
But in the administration, there are some who sort of would like not to be hamstrung with the United Nations.
They don't mind the United Nations too well, but they want to have total control of the United Nations.
So it's sort of made up of a mixture.
I still think the majority of American people still think it's good to be in the United Nations, but there's a growing number of people disenchanted.
And right now, much so over this issue of the corruption of the arms for food programs, this could turn out to be one of the biggest scandals in the history of the world.
Do you regret voting to authorize the use of force against Afghanistan?
That was not a declaration of war.
Regret voting not to?
Well, Afghanistan, I said not Iraq.
You voted for it against Afghanistan, correct?
Well, it wasn't listed as Afghanistan.
Right after 9-11, we had a resolution to vote to give the authority to the president to take action against those individuals who were responsible for 9-11.
Is that any more constitutional than the one against Iraq?
Yeah, I think it is.
I think that is much closer to the type of authority that, because it wasn't to go in and to occupy, it was to go after the Al Qaeda.
It was equivalent to what Jefferson did when he went to the Congress six or seven times to get explicit permission each time he did something to deal with the piracy on the seas.
He recognized the importance of the Congress.
He didn't have, again, back then, anybody to declare war.
They were pirates on the high seas.
So he would get explicit permission, but he did it each step of the way, fully recognizing that Congress authorizes the use of force.
So we did authorize the use of force, but then you have to sort of trust the president to do what is instructed, and the instruction was to go after the Al Qaeda.
It didn't say take over and do nation building in Afghanistan.
And besides, later on, some of that money that was authorized for that, that war was secretly used to start to go into Iraq.
So I think his judgment, at least, was different than what I would have expected, because I think specifically they sort of ignored the Al Qaeda after that.
And I also at the time suggested that the Congress should have been even more explicit and issued letters of marks of mark and reprisals, where you literally permit private companies to go and get certain individuals.
So only individuals, not groups?
They would have certain groups?
No, there could be groups.
I mean, you could designate.
It would depend on how the Congress would write it, but it's only Congress can write letters of mark and reprisal.
And it's a lot different than assuming that the president can decide how much money can be used for a reward for the CIA to go in and bump somebody off.
It was a little more honest about it.
So I think we should have spent our time going after the Al Qaeda.
I'm sorry that he overstepped the bounds of what was intended there and went into Iraq and a few other things.
But no, I think it was very hard not to vote against that.
And I remember my statement on the floor, because I considered it a tough vote, and I said that I'm not satisfied with this resolution.
I don't like it.
I think we could do a better job.
But the alternative of doing nothing under these circumstances is unthinkable.
Otherwise, you would have to be practically an anarchist if you say the president can't have any authority to do anything about it.
Of course, I would have liked to have all our presidents for the last hundred years doing a lot less.
We wouldn't have to be facing these kinds of problems, but that's history.
We have to deal with the violence that's going on right now.
What do you see as the future of the so-called war on terror about how it will be fought when, like you say, we're fighting pirates through our actors less than states?
Do we have to overthrow every nation that has al-Qaeda in it and create democracy there?
I'm afraid that's the direction we've been going, and I think it's the wrong direction.
I just think it creates more terrorists and recruits for the al-Qaeda, and occupation is certainly one of the worst things that we could have done for our own benefit.
I see ourselves as less secure now than before, so I think we should be concentrating more on trying to protect our people back at home.
The whole idea that our Coast Guard right now, we've lost Coast Guard members in the Persian Gulf because they're protecting terminals and things.
If we're thinking about the responsibility of the federal government protecting us, why wouldn't we have the Coast Guard in the Gulf of Mexico?
You know, around our ports, checking on unusual things.
I think the emphasis should be, are we protecting our country or are we policing the world?
The whole philosophy we've been following, it's just not this administration that's been going on for a long time.
It led us to a situation where we have made a lot of enemies by aggravating people, being in the Persian Gulf, having troops on what they consider Holy Land, and then we weren't very well protected.
We've exposed ourselves.
Seoul, Korea was probably better protected on 9-11 than New York City because we had planes there, and if the North Koreans ever did anything, they would have been prepared.
In this country, I'd much rather emphasize protecting ourselves here, I'd bring our troops home and spend a lot less money.
Commentator Gary North writes for LouRockwell.com, wrote a column where he said, The American empire ends on June 30th.
This is a complete disaster.
Iraq is such a failure that all your fears that America is going to go crazy and be an empire, don't worry about it.
Because after this, everybody's coming home pretty soon.
What do you think of that?
We're just not cut out to be empire builders.
Well, it seems from my perspective, sir, that the American people really don't want to have an empire, and that, I believe, is why the executive branch always lied to us to get us to go fight their wars.
That's right, and I think the American people aren't good hearted.
They get talked into it that even if we have sinister motives, if we tell the American people we're going there for good motives, and we're going to help people and take care of them and give them democracy and give them freedom, of course, when we look around and see all the inconsistency, it becomes a joke.
But I think he's probably onto something which is probably good for us.
I tell people in Washington, every place, that I will win this argument about what we should be doing, but not because all of a sudden I'll be persuasive.
I, or we, those who believe this way, will win because we're going to run out of money.
Now, Gary, I guess, figures we're going to run out of credibility and ability to police the world and be an empire builder once they see what will happen after June 30th.
This is a question from a friend.
Why don't the members of the Republican Liberty Caucus vote with you?
It seems that they would have little excuse since you get elected by a bigger margin every term.
What is their excuse to not vote constitutional if they are the Liberty Caucus?
Surely they've at least read the Constitution, unlike most of the House.
Probably.
They're very sympathetic, and they do tell me that there would be some disagreements.
Nobody would be, you know, agree on all the issues.
But a lot of them will tell me that they agree with me, but they think it would hurt them back home.
But that's been one of my goals, is always to get reelected by sticking to my guns and voting, when I consider the best I can, and following the Constitution.
But we've been able to always do better.
In fact, last time you were reelected by the biggest margin ever right after voting against the war in a very Republican district in South Texas, correct?
68, 69 percent in November of 2002.
And pardon me, but before I forget, I used to live right on the edge of District 10, or almost in it.
And now I can't even see it anymore.
I think it's gone.
District 14?
Oh, 14.
Pardon me.
District 14.
I wonder, what happened to your district?
It was pushed toward the Gulf Coast.
And they've done it again, even though I've had a new district for between 2002 and 2004.
This year it will even be much smaller, I mean, in geographic area, because they've given me the city of Galveston.
Galveston, of course, will be a very much more local Democratic city.
And they took all your conservative rural votes away, or most of them.
They took a bunch of them away.
And that was Tom DeLay and Rick Perry and the boys right there.
They were designing it to get more Republican seats.
Mine is still a Republican-leaning district, but it's probably the worst Republican district out of the 22 that they want to win.
If there's only one of you in the House of Representatives, which I watch a lot of C-SPAN and I don't see too many more Dr. Pauls there.
And I wonder, what real hope do we have to have the old republic and not the new empire and the total state that we're marching towards now?
Well, I work on the assumption that none of us know what exactly will come tomorrow.
1989, 1991, in that era, how many people were saying, you know, it's going to be a new world, the Soviet Union's going to disappear.
I mean, that was pretty magnificent.
I saw predictions philosophically on economics that they couldn't be sustained, and they weren't.
But all of a sudden, they disintegrated.
So, things can happen beyond our imagination.
You can't get a whole lot of encouragement by being in Washington.
But when you leave Washington, there's a growing number of people who are becoming more aware of what's happening.
And so, I think we're making progress.
I think, like Gary North assumes, that there'll be something major, a change, a recognition that we can't sustain the empire after June 30th.
I've been predicting all along that, you know, because of the finances of this country, something major has to give.
But that's why it's so important to spread the message of freedom and get as many people to understand it as possible.
That's why our radio show like yours is so important that you talk to people and try to get them interested.
Because the government generally reflects the people's attitudes.
I know there are dictators and all, but once the people really, really get sick of it, even dictators.
I mean, as bad as Stalin was, it lasted a limited amount of time.
It finally had to go, because it doesn't exist.
So, attitudes are very important.
So, I think our job is not to worry about tomorrow, but just to work on that job of trying to change people's minds and tell them that there's a tremendous amount of benefits if we follow the Constitution and defend freedom.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Thank you.