[Mb-civic] Michael Dailey sent this very Good

[Michael Butler]

Bush Faces New Skepticism from Republicans on Hill
<http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905B.shtml#1>  €


What If (It Was All a Big Mistake)?
By Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Wednesday 26 January 2005


Delivered to the U.S. House of Representatives.

 
America's policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early
20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political
parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error
in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose
ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in
the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting -
hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of
foreign civilian casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What
if it was all needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude
that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question
must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more
compatible with a true republic's goal of peace, commerce, and friendship
with all nations? Is it not possible that Washington's admonition to avoid
entangling alliances is sound advice even today?
In medicine mistakes are made - man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made,
incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are
advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care,
advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and
medication. Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a
doctor never checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad
results and assumes his omnipotence - refusing to concede that the initial
course of treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not
be good. Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community
place restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes
and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct
things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are
instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges
slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians,
regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more
aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their
power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power
corrupts! 
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention,
despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has
brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial
realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws
ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth
of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We'll probably not be any
different. 
We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted by the
world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth
and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the
precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined
leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Rest assured, though,
the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become
apparent to everyone at some point in time.
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly
designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars have
been spent. Whether or not we're better off is another question.
Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over
20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of
billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We've created the
Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and created a new
super CIA agency. 
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail,
to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card,
and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal
aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare
benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as
the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of
all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for
it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security,
unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.
Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our
leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our
civil liberties. It's frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin
Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.
We don't understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and
the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize
domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The
other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden, who declared war
against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually
impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new
laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about
the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness
to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the
inconveniences and even humiliation at our nation's airports.
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power
and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys
those who promote a centralized state.
It's no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath
of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided
an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.
All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty
while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11
promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time we will realize
there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties
protected. 
The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems.
Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in
the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no amount
of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering
costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are
never employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes
will be used to terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it.
Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us
safer! 
TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not the solution. It
serves only to make us all more obedient and complacent toward government
intrusions into our lives.
The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to
recognize. Most assume the government has the greatest responsibility for
making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores
mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist,
taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the
government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent
and dependent upon the government.
After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government
control and a political takeover by the TSA - which was completely contrary
to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to
protect their customers.
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the
Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the appearance of
discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets
white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety
policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government
agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that
which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However,
local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if
the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.
We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on
airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law
enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand,
should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private
firms - long denied the right - should have a right to discriminate. Fine
restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for
service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right
should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should
be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well.
This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right
that has long been denied them and other private companies.
The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting
those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to
make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim
males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To
add insult to injury, the fines collected from airlines are used for forced
sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the
circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some
individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose.
While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and costs
skyrocket. 
If we're willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask
ourselves a few questions:
What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing
the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are
deeply flawed? 

What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass
destruction? 

What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never
allies? 

What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to
enhance our national security?

What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our
client oil states in the region?

What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American
troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of
our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?

What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our
government admits? 

What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some
claim, and what is an acceptable price for "doing good?"

What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse
under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the
war? 

What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of
Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our
troops removed? 

What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are
never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?

What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three
separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while
rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?

What if it turns out radical Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms, but
rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and
Muslims? 

What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from
pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?

What if we discover that democracy can't be spread with force of arms?

What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about
liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized
government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted
through persuasion, not force?

What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and
occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and
it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?

What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to
terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?

What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually
recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings
were ignored or denied?

What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won't have to fight
here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?

What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?

What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China,
Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, "justified" by current U.S. policy?

What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed
policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?

What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions
deteriorate? 

What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that
would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war against
them? 

What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up
fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret - an alliance not achieved
even at the height of the Cold War?

What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is
deeply flawed? 

What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads
to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens
when arrested? 

What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of
pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to
mobilize enough troops?

What if the "stop-loss" program is actually an egregious violation of trust
and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if it
actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion
against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and
women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political
leadership running the war?

What if the Pentagon's legal task-force opinion that the President is not
bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged,
and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally
disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a
policy? 

What if the intelligence reform legislation - which gives us bigger, more
expensive bureaucracy - doesn't bolster our security, and distracts us from
the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?

What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an
unwinnable guerrilla war?

What if we discover, too late, that we can't afford this war - and that our
policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest
rates, and a severe economic downturn?
Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function
of the federal government - to provide for national security - has been
severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft in place to
protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We
have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent
overseas in over 100 different countries. On 9/11 our Air Force was better
positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin, and London than it was to
protect Washington D.C. and New York City.
Moreover, our ill-advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long
bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11.
Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was
protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support
from Pakistan - our "trusted ally" that received millions of dollars from
the United States. We allied ourselves with both bin Laden and Hussein in
the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it's safe to say we have used
billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this
contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very dangerous foreign
policy. 
Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation building, and
frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us - while leaving the
homeland and our borders unprotected - result from a foreign policy that is
contradictory and not in our self interest.
I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these
concerns. If I'm completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost except
my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our
foreign policy. 
But the bigger question is:
What if I'm right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change
course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic
security, yet no one pays attention?
For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?
Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas.

Go to Original 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42895-2005Jan27.html>
Bush Faces New Skepticism from Republicans on Hill
By Mike Allen 
The Washington Post
Friday 28 January 2005
White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. - When President Bush flies to this Allegheny
mountain resort Friday to meet congressional Republicans, he will encounter
a party far less malleable and willing to follow his lead than it has been
for the past four years.
Bush is accustomed to getting his way with Congress and finished his first
term without suffering a major defeat. But mid-level and rank-and-file
Republicans have begun to assert themselves on issues including intelligence
reform, immigration and a major restructuring of Social Security, the
centerpiece of his second-term agenda.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), who has offered a
variety of Social Security ideas that differ from the president's, assured
Bush at a meeting Wednesday in the White House residence that he is still
fighting on his side.
"I've just opened up a new front," Thomas added, according to a participant.
Such independence was much rarer when the party's prospects for keeping
control of Congress were tied to Bush's political health, and his reelection
was everyone's priority. But now that Bush has run his last campaign, he is
being bolder in calling for legislative action than many lawmakers who must
run every two years are willing to be.
That leaves the success of his second-term agenda very much in doubt.
In hallway conversations, over glasses of wine and even in front of
television cameras, Republican lawmakers are expressing trepidation about
some of Bush's plans, putting him in the undesirable position of having to
sell himself to his own party when he could be focusing on Democrats and
independents. 
Many House Republicans are hesitant to do anything that might jeopardize
their chances in the midterm elections in 2006, while in the Senate at least
half a dozen members have begun jockeying for the White House.
It's the 'no interest like self-interest' rule, and it's every man for
himself," said an aide to a Senate Republican committee chairman, who spoke
on the condition of anonymity to maintain good relations with the White
House. "He's discovering the fine line between having a mandate and being a
lame duck." 
White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. went to the Capitol on
Wednesday as the guest speaker at a regular leadership meeting and to talk
about the need for Republicans to be reformers and work together. House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said he thinks it is important for Bush
to confront the issue of immigration and provide leadership on broad
legislation. 
Participants said that the tone was respectful and that Card reiterated the
administration's commitment to Bush's temporary-worker program and
immigration enforcement issues.
After lawmakers took a six-hour train ride from Washington to the Greenbrier
resort here, White House senior adviser Karl Rove worked the crowd and gave
the first of several presentations, devoting most of his introductory
remarks to Social Security. Rove, discussing the issue at the request of
congressional leaders, said that taking it on is important and will be
popular. 
Bush will make his pitch personally to congressional Republicans at a
luncheon Friday. 
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman has begun conferring with
lawmakers daily in a bid to sell the president's agenda. He said a main
mission is to be a good listener for those who have qualms about Bush's plan
to partially privatize Social Security, and to back up worried lawmakers
with the party's research, regional media, booking and grass-roots
operations. 
"Off-year elections are won through the party's ability to motivate the base
and persuade swing voters, and this is good politically from both
perspectives," Mehlman said.
The skeptics remain vocal, however. During a visit to the White House this
week by Finance Committee Republicans, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) told
Bush she would be concerned about doing anything that would undermine the
guaranteed benefit of Social Security.
"We'll keep you in the open-minded camp," replied the ever-optimistic Bush,
according to two people who attended the meeting. Later, she told reporters
she will oppose the diversion of payroll taxes to individual accounts, the
crux of the president's plan as his aides have discussed it so far.
Fifty-five of the Senate's 100 members are Republicans. Sixty supporters
would be needed to overcome a delaying tactic known as a filibuster, so
Snowe's voice is critical to the GOP. She said in an interview that it was
"clear that he [Bush] was soliciting input, recognizing that it is a
volatile and sensitive subject where there are disparate views."
"I always tell my colleagues that the Founding Fathers had a great idea, and
that was checks and balances," she said.
The White House got a taste of the legislative branch's coming assertiveness
late last year, when two committee chairmen temporarily held up a
restructuring of the intelligence services - which the president said he
wanted - because of concerns about a Bush-backed compromise.
Thomas, the House's chief tax writer and a fearless power broker, used an
appearance at a National Journal forum earlier this month to announce that
he plans to consider a much broader and deeper review of Social Security
than Bush has envisioned.
"You people," he said, gesturing toward several former White House
officials, "propose; the Congress disposes." He said Bush's failure to veto
any bill so far "means we have some latitude in putting together a package
that saves Social Security that is perhaps broader than the theme that he is
primarily focusing" on.
That theme is a mechanism to allow younger workers to divert part of their
payroll taxes into a personal stock-and-bond account. Thomas wants to use
the occasion to consider eliminating the payroll tax and to add a savings
program for long-term care. At least some House leaders have hailed Thomas's
broadside because they believe that Bush's idea alone would fail but that
Thomas's expanded ideas might make the plan more attractive to businesses
and older Americans.
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Bush backer and chairman of a Social Security
subcommittee, contends that the differences between Bush's needs and those
of the GOP in Congress are not enough to create a real fissure. "It isn't
about the president personally anymore," Santorum said. "But at the same
time, we all know that if the president's not popular and we're not being
successful as a party, it hurts us all."
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said the divergence of interests between a White
House and a legislative majority of the same party "is natural and happens
almost inevitably in a second term."
While the White House thinks Social Security legislation will be dead if it
is not signed this year, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) said such an
undertaking will take some time, "and it should - it really should."
------- 
Jump to today's TO Features:

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t
r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this
article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Print This Story <http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/printer_012905B.shtml>
E-mail This Story <http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905B.shtml#>

 
 
 
© : t r u t h o u t 2005 | t r u t h o u t
<http://www.truthout.org/index.htm>  | voter rights
<http://www.truthout.org/voters.rights.htm>  | environment
<http://www.truthout.org/environment.shtml>  | letters
<http://www.truthout.org/letters.htm>  | donate
<https://secure.entango.com/donate/pkXd5Fr9GE4>  | contact
<http://www.truthout.org/contact.htm>  | multimedia
<http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm>  | subscribe
<http://truthout.org/subscribe.htm>  |