Ron Paul: Do Not Meddle With Russia

Ron Paul gave this speech before the US House of Representatives as they voted on House Con Res 154 “expressing concern” over Russian involvement in Alexander Litvinenko’s murder.

Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived resolution. The US House of Representatives has no business speculating on guilt or innocence in a crime that may have been committed thousands of miles outside US territory. It is arrogant, to say the least, that we presume to pass judgment on crimes committed overseas about which we have seen no evidence.

The resolution purports to express concern over the apparent murder in London of a shadowy former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander Litvinenko, but let us not kid ourselves. The real purpose is to attack the Russian government by suggesting that Russia is involved in the murder. There is little evidence of this beyond the feverish accusations of interested parties. In fact, we may ultimately discover that Litvinenko’s death by radiation poisoning was the result of his involvement in an international nuclear smuggling operation, as some investigative reporters have claimed. The point is that we do not know. The House of Representatives has no business inserting itself in disputes about which we lack information and jurisdiction.

At a time when we should be seeking good relations and expanded trade with Russia, what is the benefit in passing such provocative resolutions? There is none.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record a very thought-provoking article by Edward Jay Epstein published recently in the New York Sun, which convincingly calls into question many of the assumptions and accusations made in this legislation. I would encourage my colleagues to read this article and carefully consider the wisdom of what we are doing.

109 thoughts on “Ron Paul: Do Not Meddle With Russia”

  1. The Epstein article notwithstanding, there is reason for concern. The assassination of political dissidents is a serious thing, signaling the erosion of important civil and political rights. To claim that we ought to keep our mouths shut because it falls outside of our “jurisdiction,” and because we hope instead to curry favor with Russia for economic benefit, is crass isolationism.

    Perhaps the insinuations made by the resolution are false, although the text is rather short and it is unclear whether it makes “many” assumptions, let alone accusations. I agree that speculation about foreign political crimes may be arrogant; but then again, a House resolution doesn’t have much diplomatic currency. Nobody’s starting a war with Russia over their domestic affairs. In effect, the Resolution only said, “We’re not going to do anything drastic, Russia, but we’re not entirely sure your hands are clean, either. Don’t think we’re not paying attention.”

    1. After Tom Lehrer: “When you have nothing to say, the least you can do is shut up.”

      Wittgenstein says something similar at the end of the Tractatus–somewhere between what the case is and what it is not.

      Or does what W says carry over into something outside the book, smuggled out of Italy to Bertrand Russell, who understood only the technical, and estimated the remainder mystic?

      Americans continue to make fools of themselves in public, to Russians in particular.

      The only thing Paul can mouth meaningfully as a Congressman is something firm with the word “impeachment” in it.

      Otherwise it is just another display of incompetence by a gynecologist with Locke-jaw who does not have the slightest idea why Socrates was called midwife.

      Jesus saves.

      Don’t make waves.

      Return to sender.

      Address unknown.

      No such number.

      No such zone.

      James Jesus is smiling his drunken knockers up.

      These morons think National Review is erudite.

      T. S. Eliot frowns: “Bertie was doing my wife.”

      Pound to Possum: “It’s the brew.”

    2. Here’s the problem with what you said Weston. You called this Litvinenko fellow a “political dissident”. What he did was on the same scale as the Rosenbergs. He sold Russian state secrets to British Intelligence. That is called “treason” since he was a Russian citizen when he did this. In the US traitors/spies are lucky if they get life imprisonment if caught, the death sentence is usually preferred.

      Even if the FSB did have a hand in his untimely death it would be entirely legal following US laws.

      1. The Rosenbergs got a trial. Due process is also an important civil right, maybe the most important one.

  2. What next America? Concern over Putin’s possible steroid use?
    Your President is a belligerent murderer yet you do nothing!

    1. there’s not much we can do, the beligerent murder is supported by 500+ beligerent criminals (and opposed only by Ron Paul and a few others), and unfortunately, while most Americans seem to disagree with the way their government does business (in part or in whole) they simply don’t have the intelligence (or desire) to research the candidates and vote for the ones who will truly represent them… sad state of affairs I’ll admit, but my fellow Americans will soon pay dearly for their ignorance, not because their government has made them the object of the worlds ire but because their government has spent their country into economic ruin…

    2. GW Bush and his administration is guilty of many many crimes and they like to do things like this to distract!

      I am very happy I am not an American. When are you going to wake up and realize that you are heading to the same position of states like China unless you wake up and stop the Government from controlling every step of your life!

  3. The point is not that Russia is beyond criticism, which Rep. Paul knows very well. Rather, that the United States no longer has the moral credibility to condemn offences by foreign regiems. In fact, the United States has become so unpopular that these criticisms actually serve to legitimate the regiems in the eyes, not only of their own xenophobes but of cosmopolitans. When the United States has cleaned up its own house and become “a shining city of freedom on the mountain”…then it can go back to this kind of righteous indignation. Please don’t hold your breath on that one! In the meantime, what are genuine cosmopolitans to do about ameliorating rights abuses globally. The obvious solution is to support that subcategory of NGOs which are actively involved in promoting human dignity regardless of considerations of citizenship. Naturally these groups are motivated by very different world-views, but to the extent that they are transnational non-state moral actors (TNSMAs ?) they have a legitimacy that governments cannot equal. To give one sacred, and one profane (but benevolent), example…The Roman Catholic church and Amnesty International.

    1. You make a fair point, but just judging from the post I don’t think that was what Paul was going for!

    2. O, please. Catholic Church? Go to Balkans and find out what Catholic Church did over centuries to the Orthodox Christians. Perhaps you could visit Holocaust Museum, and find an exibit on concentration camp, Jasenovac. Or find a book, called Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican. As for NGOS, do not hold your breath—find out who is paying their paychecks and you will find out whose side they are on.

      The problem with this kind of Russia-bashing is that it is dangerous. It would be much wiser to find out if Litvinenko was transporting the nuclear isotope, and became the victim. In fact, the history of the same isotope is deadly. Many famous researchers died as they failed to understand the ease with which the isotope can excape its confines. Also, that it is rather harmess to the touch, but deadly if ingested.

      Mr. Litvinenko had some unsavory friends. Strangely, one of the leaders of Chechen clans was on hand at his deathbed. Yet, it turned out that Mr. Litvinenko has converted to Islam on his deathbed, and Mr. Zakayev arranged for the funeral. Since British government did not apparently took time and trouble to find the whereabouts of the isotope, it is a fair bet that it may show up one day — like in the drinking water of some unfortunate city.

      When governments support and cover up the works of Mr. Zakayev and his other assorted buddies, nothing good comes of it. And it is rather laughable that the US government issues an oppinion on the guilt of other Contries. Such actions make government look silly. And silly people are not listened to, not trusted.

  4. Paul is Rube Goldberg freeing slaves with his “self-ownership” machine.

    “Oh, Massah, thank you so much–we hadn’t thought of that, nor of using either ownership or your naive reflexive to be free.”

    The Russians don’t need him or the Austrian School to defend them.

    The game was over when Putin went to Tehran.

    Now that Paul has defanged the antiwar vote, validated the Republican Party, and depleted funds that others might have used seriously, all he has heft is his voice in Congress.

    I have been listening closely. Why haven’t I heard him screaming his head off like a woman in labor?

    Social Darwinists who have spent most of their life in mindless activity are a dime a dozen.

    To Paul–who I presume will read this: I once had some respect for you.

    Right now it’s simple: Put up or shut up.

    1. Structurally the only constitutional recourse left is impeachment.

      Kucinich, way ahead of the curve, proposed impeaching Cheney first.

      Paul initially opposed it, then tepidly supported its move to Judiciary.

      I repeat: put up or shut up.

    2. “The Russians don’t need him or the Austrian School to defend them.

      The game was over when Putin went to Tehran.

      Now that Paul has defanged the antiwar vote, validated the Republican Party, and depleted funds that others might have used seriously, all he has heft is his voice in Congress.”

      ? LOL

      Obviously they do or there wouldn’t be such a mindless bill before the House. Game? Why shouldn’t have Putin went to Tehran? Which true antiwar candidate did Paul take resources from? *Coughs Id Coughs*

    3. “Now that Paul has defanged the antiwar vote, validated the Republican Party, and depleted funds that others might have used seriously, all he has heft is his voice in Congress.”

      Yes, sadly, and some of us here had so hoped that we’d heard the last of him.

    4. Gene Coast, what have YOU done?
      Dr. Paul created the drive for the funds you so condescendingly refer to. Put simply, they were voluntarily given to him to use as he sees fit, and would not have gone somewhere else otherwise (sorry, Kucinich, Gravel, Costa, etc.)
      Defanged the antiwar vote? Apparently the Democratic Party, even with its majority, isn’t capable of stopping the madness. Paul brought a lot of people into the fold who were against he war, but refuse to vote for collectivist ideals. We will need him and his supporters if we ever want change the foreign poicy of this nation. Then we can argue about collectivism v. capitalism.
      My guess is Paul has done more for this country in a Summer weekend than you have in your life. Now, you go ahead and scream like a woman in labor, for whatever good you think it will do.

      Peace be with you.

  5. One thing for sure is that I’m glad people like Weston, and Eugene Consta aren’t running for President. Come on, “Put up or Shut up”? Ron Paul has been trying th wake up the public for the past 30 years, knowing the consequences. And who cares if Russia killed one of its own spies? Let them have their own business, while we mind our own. Yet, we have open borders, a slipping economy, bankruptcy, and we point fingers at others when our own mess is in our own back yard. Wake up, fools. It is people like Eugene, and Weston, that think we should be putting our damn noses in every other nation’s business is the correct thing to do!! Our Founding Fathers never wanted this, they expected only diplomacy, and free trade with others, but not internal spying, and CIA overthrowing governments. All this so called “isolationism”, Ron Paul is an isolationist According since Bush took office and started invading other countries, we have less friends than before, that IS isolationism, we should be non-interventionists. The two of you should be ashamed, if you are against extreme, and needed Constitutional ideas, consider yourself anti-Americans. I, for myself, consider myself a Constitutionalist, and pro-patriot who advocates peace under diplomacy and free trade, promote freedom and libery, NOT just under barrel of a gun. I want other countries to know us as good people, not warmongers, and you people by contuinuing Bush’s policies will put me, your families at risk for more terror attacks if we don’t wake up. It’s all about foreign policy, and the advice from the Constitution. I’m warning ALL of you.

    1. It is not a question of “letting” the Russian Federation “have their own business”.

      The Russian Federation is doing quite well thank you.

      As Michael S. Harris says above–“Your president is a belligerent murderer yet you do nothing.”

      1. They are not doing quite well either, yet, they even are still singing joy when they get flooded with oil from Iran, because they UNDERSTAND foreign policy. They currently are building nuclear reactors for Iran, they ship them nuclear material, they have oil contracts with them, and it gets even better, their currency is worse than ours! Somehow, Iran dumped our dollar back in December, but I still doubt you’ll even understand why. And now, look at us, we are in desperation of invading Iran. We can just continue borrowing our money from the next superpower, China, keep heightening our debt, and finally, wait in a soupline. I;m just making the point. As for Russian “business” you’re right, they are doing very well with their policy, just as we are not. So tell me, what else is (un)constitutional??

        1. With oil $90-110 per barrel, the Russians are doing quite well.

          With gold occasionally reaching $1000 an ounce, the Russians are doing quite well.

          With an educated populace and huge natural resources, with intelligent leadership and the succession problem solved, and with the technology and means to defend themselves–the Russians are doing quite well thank you.

          Nor do they need Paul’s instruction in kindergarten economics and political economy, nor in foreign policy.

          Bush and Cheney and Rice and the Neo-Cons and Olmert and the Corporate Fascists apparently think they are playing chess with children, when they themselves can’t distinguish a pawn from a bishop.

          The Russians also have culture and comedy.

          The Americans were slow to grasp the joke behind the Russian billionaire’s bid to buy a B-52 right off the runway.

          Putin probably smiled privately for a week at that one.

          Meanwhile, who builds the world’s best turboprops?

        1. It’s hard to tell, but that surely is a possibility.

          It is important also that Blair and the British rushed into the affair with six guns blazing trying to turn it into a serious attack on Putin and grounds for new security measures in regard to radioactive material.

    2. You’ve misunderstood my view–to put it mildly–if you think my approval of a House resolution against political assassination and nuclear proliferation is “warmongering.”

      Anti-American? Ashamed? Continuing Bush’s policies? Don’t be a jackass. Diplomacy and free trade aren’t incompatible with holding other states accountable for violating their constituents’ civil rights. I’m all for having friends in the international community, but this isn’t a popularity contest. I don’t think we should sell our values up a crick just so Russia will take us to the prom.

      1. What values? You’ve got to be kidding. Either you are completely ignorant of American foreign policy over the last fifty years or you are an idiot.

      2. Well JW, that’s a penetrating argument. But with all due respect, I’m neither an idiot nor ignorant of American foreign policy, so you must have misunderstood. Perhaps if you had put your point about values into a complete sentence I would be able to see where you went wrong.

    1. Support Obamba huh? And I suppose we should support his favorite pastor, Wright. And who does Wright support? Farakhan. And Farakhan says things like “the Pope is a no good cracker” and white people are the “skunk of the earth.” Not only will I not support Obama, if he win I am finished with the Democratic party.

      1. Transitivity of support is a pretty weak principle to base your disavowal of the Democratic Party on.

  6. We cannot revive old factions
    We cannot restore old policies
    Or follow an antique drum.
    These men, and those who opposed them
    And those whom they opposed
    Accept the constitution of silence
    And are folded in a single party.
    Whatever we inherit from the fortunate
    We have taken from the defeated
    What they had to leave us—a symbol….

    T. S. Eliot

  7. I am from Russia. You are chewing the cud conveniently provided to you by the media that is totally controlled. I watched the site RusGlobus.net for nine years. It was opened by Eugene Limarev and paid by Boris Berezovsky. The site was closed immediately after the Litvinenko’s death. Limarev was a small time crook trying to make it big. He listed as his staff several persons, but in reality he ran the site single-handedly. The site was paranoidal! He was collecting anything remotely sounding like anti-Russian, but it was pitifulle amaturish and, in the same time, goulish. He resorted to intimidation at every opportunity. Once he got into a row with the owner of a site in France for the Russian nationals. He had a page dedicated to smearing her reputation. Next – she perished in one-car accident on a quiet ride from Paris to Kalinigrad. She was alone in the car…
    That is the same Limarev who was instrumental in bringing Scaramella to London “to warn Sasha”..
    Just give it a thought! A Russian who could easily pick the phone and warn Sasha in their native tongue, or send him an e-mail in Russian resorts to sending an e-mail to the Italian who lives in Rome! And Scaramella flies to London! Everything in this story stinks!
    BTW, the Litvinenko’s wife is demanding the opening of the British inquest papers and findings. There is her “open letter” floating in the Net.

    1. Most contemporary Americans are historically illiterate, even about their own history and literature, while believing this or that tribalism or faith or ideology provides their parochial absurdities cosmic validity.

      Many, for example, seem to think that Britain was anti-Russian because Russia was Communist.

      Most Russians at least now know better.

      Americans Left and Right, but particularly the latter, are still stupidly Anglophile, in politics and foreign policy.

      This includes Roman Catholic “conservatives” whose cosmopolitan veneer is limited by what they are allowed to believe by the Bishop of Rome.

      This in part explains the American fascination with “Empire”, their sense of mission as the new carriers of “Christianity” and the “White Man’s Burden”, and also their vulnerability to Zionists of various stripe.

      To give the devil his due, the Neo-Conservatives, though never deeper intellectually than the Trotskyites who gave them birth, are masters at exploiting American emotional prepossessions, from Anglophilia to “English” as the only language to bearing the torch of “Western Civilization” to inbred racism and xenophobia, including hostility to both French and Spanish, and, nowadays in a important way, Mexicans.

  8. “While some may talk about whether or not an offense is ‘impeachable,’ that is only so much political rhetoric. The Constitution only specifies that Congress can impeach a president for ‘high crimes’ and ‘misdemeanors,’ but the definitions of those words are left to Congress to determine-anything a sufficient number of Members of Congress find offensive can be cause for impeachment….”

    [Ron Paul September 28, 1998]

    Ah, that was then–this is now, eh?

    Mr. Paul–put up or shut up. You supported the impeachment of Clinton on trivial grounds. Clinton and Nixon pale beside the two criminals now in the office of President and Vice President.

    Without impeachment, the presidential election doesn’t matter much.

  9. If each reporter found his or her own balls and reported the news, they couldn’t fire them all, and Ron Paul would not only be our conscience in the House, regarding Russia and everything else, he would be our President for eight happy restorative years. If all of you passionate patriots I read on all these blogs ran for office, any office, even dogcatcher, and carried it out with honor, the country would have some chance, maybe, of turning around. There are so many talking, but only to each other. Russia laughs at us. I cry for us, because I am old and that is all I can do.

  10. Not only Russia laughs at us, but China, Iran, Canada, even the third world countries are. We are doomed if we keep repeating the same mistakes, same foreign/monetary policy, and bankrupting ourselves. Many people think having Ron Paul as President is like returning back in the 1700’s, or having completely anarchy, or sinmply “change”. They use arrogance against him because they feel scared to have complete change, yet, everyone wants change! But Ron Paul is not simply giving you Obama’s ‘change’, but rather the righteous, and courageous change as followed in the rule of law, the Constitution. Under his presidency, you’ll cherish your fruits and labor, as in no more taxes taken by our government. No more overseas spending, but, rather trade with others. And re-instate our national defense, rather trying to spread out troops around the globe acting as the policemen, in reality, we are sitting ducks here at home. No wonder 9/11 happened. It was right for Paul to impeach Clinton, he was ok on the economy, but totally sold us out to NAFTA, and voted for the “Iraqi Liberation Act”. Or if you forgot, Clinton demanded ‘peacekeeping force’ in Mogadishu that costed us 14 American lives. We should be protecting our borders, abolish the welfare, let people work, let people have the freedom to privatize their businesses, no more illegal wiretapping, no more huge, and centralized government. Having a limited/constitutional government will be the way to go, not to forget, we’ll have our precious free-market economy, and the envy of the world. NO other nation has a great constitution like ours, sadly for us, we chose to ignore it.

    1. No impeachment, no rule of law or Constitution.

      So sorry. Time is running out.

      The grammar of the first statement above, by the way, is classical Chinese.

      1. The British were anti-Communist because they were, and are still, anti-Russian.

        Meanwhile, the Neo-Cons and the Likudites will be only too happy to revive the Cold War, even without a Soviet Union.

        If that seems an absurdity, I urge a new look at Prohibition.

        The native American hysterics that brought you that are now bringing you a “War against Terror”, bankruptcy and a broken empire in Mesopotamia.

    2. . America policing the world ..you must be blind..they are murdering so that can steal what others have!

  11. The USA has nothing to gain from meddling in affairs that are not its concern. America today is as far away from the country the founding fathers wanted as to be beyond belief.

    1. Indeed. Not just welfare and international hegemony, but also? We ended slavery. Woe betide us all.

  12. For all of YOU Ron Paul bashers all I can say is that YOU are a joke. Ron Paul is one of the only politicians that has the balls to stand up and speak truth to power and YOU slam him? Why don’t YOU spend your time dogging out the other useless idiots who YOU have put in office?

    I know why, it’s because he dashed your hopes. Please, cry me a river! YOU should have helped instead of being the hopeless. YOU would rather sit on your ass and moan about the how bad things are than actually get involved and support anyone with a solution.

    It’s the freaking Eeyore syndrome. Put your head in the sand and cry when your world goes to hell. Thats what gets you off, Right? YOU want the war to go bad, YOU want the economy to crash, YOU want the U.S. to collapse. That makes YOU feel all warm and fuzzy. Well get a life, get a clue, buy a life. When the U.S. goes down so will YOU, And I for one, will not mourn your loss. However, I will feel sorry for the millions of people who will suffer because of YOU. What have YOU done that Ron Paul has not?

    Ron Paul is not a saint or a god or the answer to all your problems. He is just a man that has done his best to set things straight. Why on earth would YOU put him down? There are very few people that have the guts, determination, and willpower to get the message out. He has done that better than anyone else.

    So for all of YOU Ron Paul bashers, pull your head out of the sand, and if YOU feel the need to slam someone why don’t YOU pick on someone that has made the world worse, rather than one man that has done his best to make it better?

    Peace, and God help the Eeyores!

    1. Let him stand up firmly for impeaching Cheney now.

      He is a Congressman–that is his Constitutional duty.

      Put up or shut up.

      1. You “Put up or Shut up” guys crack me up. You make is sound so easy. For 30 years Ron Paul has been steadfast in his fight against tyranny. He has been voting right in line with the Constitution and speaking out against attempts to ignore it.

        I don’t have much time for the long post I wanted to write, but I will just say this. It is not easy to fight against the huge established power base that is the FED, Military Industrial and Major Media. They have their greedy little hands in everything. We’re lucky Ron Paul has not been “eliminated” long ago. I’m fortunate that they don’t see him as a real threat. But he IS doing much better than they ever thought he could. He’s waking up the people to the truth.

        I, for one, am thankful to him for his conviction and dedication to the Constitution. I will continue to read and become more aware. This election there was ONE Ron Paul. Next time there might be TWO, then THREE. We are fighting to get back our country from those that have stolen it’s wealth, disgraced it’s image and murdered it’s children in unnecessary wars. We are here and our numbers are growing. I pray that we’re not too late.

        Thank You, Dr. Paul.

  13. To Eugene Costa:

    Your cynicism and ego-maniacal views on America and our Constitution lead me to believe you have bought lock stock and barrel into the neo-fascist regime currently in power here, even though you purport impeachment. How convenient of you.

    Like Martin said, but I will paraphrase and not be as kind, it would take an absolute MORON, or someone whose sole agenda was to dismantle this nation, one Constitutional amendment at a time, to not see the profound courage in the past 30 years of Ron Paul’s untouchable stance for revealing the truth on everything that has gone wrong and is going wrong with this nation and it’s leadership, Democrat or Republican.

    God bless the man for having the GUTS to stand up for what is right in the face of a complete media black out and a shunning by the party he has fought his entire life for.

    Who the hell are you to criticize him on ANY level? What have you EVER done for this nation or our Constitution? Don’t tell me….NOTHING…it’s obvious. You would rather be an arrogant snipe playing ignorant to your own nations demise and unraveling.

    Good night and Good Luck!

    1. You seem either disingenuous or a fool.

      You have the perfect right to be such as long as there is a Constitution.

      Pardon if I don't bother to keep track of your nonsense.

      When Paul stands up for impeaching Bush and Cheney as vigorously as he stood up for impeaching Clinton, he will regain some of my respect perhaps.

      He will also have done a great service to the nation and to the Constitution, as Kucinich, almost alone and a voice in the wilderness, has already done, and continues to do, on a wide variety of issues.

      Impeachment in itself will not solve either the economic problems or the foreign policy disasters the present administration has led the US into, but it will have a bracing effect in asserting accountability, and provide a Constitutional framework for survival.

      If you and your ilk, and Paul himself, cannot grasp that simple fact, or that the window to act gets smaller every hour, you are not worth the time of day.

  14. To Brad Smith:

    Well said and I agree.

    RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT, 2008! Let’s get this man elected!

    1. Ah yes, the King who will end all Kingship, making the world safe for the Constitution.

      Yes, yes.

      Has a familiar ring.

  15. Heh… all talk. No substance. You “put up” nothing, Eugene. To paraphrase you, sir. “Your grammar, by the way, is classical Moron.” Hope that helps pointing out what you sound like. Your gut blubbering vomit of metal surrender is quite apparant.

    1. You do raise a good point, however.

      With Saddam Hussein hanged, and Bin Laden nowhere in sight, whomever will the US surrender to?

      The terms get stricter every day.

      Suppose the Japanese might accept a belated surrender of World War II?

      Paul, and the “self-ownership” crowd might evince a spark of wit by suggesting the US surrender to itself, but, I fear, the play will be lost on dullards.

      Wouldn’t impeachment be easier?

      At this rate, two or three generations down the line imagine the curious histories of the great war lost by the United States, with no one quite sure whom they lost it to.

      1. Eugene, I truly have given you the benefit of the doubt. However, you continue to slam Ron Paul for one reason. He won’t impeach Bush. Well, get over it. It’s a useless solution. Ron Paul could waste all the time he wants trying to get it done, it will NOT happen. Are you that nieve? Why don’t you spend some time trying to do something positive? Slamming Ron Paul over one issue that clearly will not happen is ignorant. Bring something new to the debate for a change!

        You say “Wouldn’t impeachment be easier?” What the F are you talking about? If you think it could happen you are completely lost. He obviously learned from the Clinton mess, why don’t you? You suggest that Ron Paul is useless because he won’t promote your one issue. What about everything else he stands for? Yes, Bush should be impeached, in fact thats not even enough. However, your one issue focus is short sighted to say the least.

        Eugene, you seem like a person with at least half a brain in your head. Why don’t you use it?

        1. Actually, I might say the same about you–we agree on many issues.

          So perhaps we share at least half a brain.

          As for the other halves?

          I strongly suspect neither you nor Paul sees the structural necessity of impeachment.

          The imperial presidency is an important part of the problem.

          The Constitution is not workable with a overweening president and a weak Congress.

          I could go on about that at length. But that is the bottom line.

          Not only will Paul not win (he is an incompetent presidential candidate, as are the people around him incompetent campaigners), he is validating the criminals and incompetents in the Republican Party.

          I was a great admirer of Paul for long years.

          I happen to agree that Clinton was rightly impeached, but on the wrong issue.

          And the whole Starr investigation was joke.

          That a man like Paul could approve Clinton’s impeachment, and stand on the sidelines in regard to Bush and Cheney tends to belie his Constitutionalism.

          Impeachment is the last recourse of Congress in regard to a criminal in the White House, and, as Paul rightly reads the Constitution, there is no need for any “crime” beyond what the Congress calls a crime in regard to the Constitution.

          What part of this don’t you understand?

          Better a hundred Pauls and Kuciniches in Congress than either as King.

          I also have grave suspicions about some of the people around Paul, who seem to be making him into a cottage industry, rather than taking him as serious antiwar candidate.

          Paul’s private beliefs are none of my business, were he first and foremost a Constitutionalist in the crunch.

          If the crunch is not now, when? After Bush and Cheney attack Iran?

          The Constitution is cunningly designed. The men who designed it were not naive enough to think government the province of ethical men. That is behind the checks and balances.

          All this talk of Paul being an ethical and moral fellow–so what?

          I am not interested in any king, good man or bad.

        2. corr: “was a joke”, “as a serious”. Pardon any other typos I have still not caught.

        3. If I thought he could get Bush and Cheney out I would worry about it but that is NOT going to happen.

          I do agree that Clinton was impeached for the wrong reasons. Who cares about a BJ when he goes and bombs water treatment facilities in IRAQ etc. etc.?

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t you suggested Ron Paul should run on a third party ticket? So what your saying is it’s OK for him to be king as long as he isn’t a republican king. Furthermore, what would lead you to believe that Ron Paul would abuse his power? That in fact is why people are concerned with “All this talk of Paul being an ethical and moral fellow”.

          Again your single issue focus is short sighted. He can’t get it done and it would just be a huge waste of time. Why don’t you focus your attention on his positives rather than one issue you see as a negative?

          Peace!

          Ps. As for your typos I don’t think many people would care. This is a blog not pro journalism.

  16. “What did you do in the war, grandpa?”

    “Which war, son–there were so many I lost count.”

    “Any war, grandpa–tell me a war story please!”.

    “Well, there was the War on Poverty, then the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror. Which one do you want to hear about, son? Seems like we were always going to war against something in those days.”

    “Which one was the most fun, grandpa? Did you get any medals in any of them?”

    “No, son–got no medals. Lost them all.”

    “The medals, grandpa–you lost all the medals you got?”

    “No, son–got no medals and we lost all the wars too.”

    “Is that why we are poor and drugged and terrified now, grandpa”.

    “You could say that, son. You sure have a head on your shoulders for a young’un. Keep talking like that and I’ll have to turn you in for not taking your prescriptions.”

  17. With a complicit Congress on both sides Paul would never call for impeachment proceedings as he is not stupid. Both parties are complicit in the illegality of the Bush regimes crimes and would never support such an action.

  18. We live in a one party system in the U.S. If you cannot wrap your head around this fact you are truly lost.

    1. This has become blatantly clear in the last decade, FirstCasualty, that we have just one party basically now.

  19. What has got todo with one Russian mans death with America?
    In Iraq & Afghanistan alltogether maybe one million people died direct USA intervention illegal invasion and keep dying. So whats Russia say ?

    To interfere one Russian dead is rude and very undiplomatic. This American rudness will motivate more Russian politicians like PUTIN to be more aggressive to protect RUSSIA and I personally hope todays Russia goes back to the good alldays of Soviet Union style diplomacy to keep USA honest in international affairs.

    At the moment USA with Bush is like a drunk cowboy is in the China shop keep destroying things and nobody say nothing,this would not happened if there was a Soviet Union,think about it.

  20. This action by Congress really is from Bizarro World. We are stuck in wars of our own choosing which we are also losing; we are bankrupt fools still trying to impress our neighbors; and we have flooded the World with our “bad paper”, but think that we have the right to discipline the World. Our Jackass-in-Chief is to meet Mr. Putin this Sunday. So our Congress provides this little icebreaker for conversation. Things should flow smoothly after that.

    1. “in wars of our own choosing which we are also losing”–memorable and hard not to steal and develop.

      One would not be surprised to find an echo somewhere in one’s future tightened as, say, “losing wars of our choosing”, “choosing the wars that we lose”, usw.

      There’s also the eye rhyme one might uncover in the past tense.

      Before or after his wife ran off with the preacher, the pick-up exploded, and his dog died?

    2. On second thought, Bush’s meet-up with Putin will probably go from some opening comments like “Hey, Vladimir, do you know where a fella could get his hands on some of that Bolomium stuff; I’d like to sprinkle some in Pelosi’s pink drawers, heh, heh”. And then down to the serious business of telling Putin that he might as well break out the K Y jelly ’cause NATO is going “right up your Russkie mud hole”. By the time the state dinner starts, Putin will probably excuse himself to go into the kitchen (and not trusting just any waiter) personally spit in Bush’s soup.

    3. Richard Vajs,

      I understand you have a lot of anger for President Bush and that you vehemently disagree with him on a myriad of issues. We might even agree on some of them. However, when you call him the “Jack Ass in Chief” don’t you realize that you are not just degrading and demeaning him, you are demeaning the office of President of the United States, consequently you are degrading the United States, and really, all Americans. Why can’t we strongly disagree with our leaders while still showing a modicum of respect? For example, I think Barack Obama is a disaster and he is good friends with a vile, virulent racist. Therefore, I strongly hope he does not get the Democratic nomination or the Presidency. But in the event he becomes my President, even though I have a low opinion of him, I will still give him a certain level of respect. If he would walk in a room and I was seated, I would stand up. Why? Because failing to do so, I know I demean not him, but myself and my country.

      1. And why, might we ask, should this office automatically be exempt from degradation? Why this authoritarian ethos of unthinking genuflection that mindlessly accords legitimacy to the ruling potentate?

  21. To Eyeore, aka Eugene,

    while most antiwar.com readers might indeed prefer Dr. Paul to come out more strongly in favor of impeachment, your repeating a 5th-grade taunt to ‘put up or shut up’ is contemptible in light of Dr. Paul’s singularly heroic 30-year record of putting up, and not shutting up about the great issues of our time.

    Dr. Ron Paul has – more than any other elected representative – stood alone in that swamp of vipers in voting against and educating about the evils of unlawful (unconstitutional) government, fractional-reserve banking, fiat currency, the federal reserve cartel, the income tax, corporatism and corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex, the war on drugs, government intervention and cartelization in health-care, domestic spying, violations of due process, state-sponsored torture and terror, foreign interventionism and global hegemonic imperialism.

    To claim (as you have) that Paul’s campaign was harmful to the cause of peace and liberty is to permanently discredit yourself here.

    1. Poor Eyeore. Dude, don’t know the fella.

      Something out of Winnie Ille Pu?

      “permanently to discredit yourself here”–pardon the slight rearrangement, I don’t like split infinitives (mostly).

      “Here”, eh?

      Hic, haec, hoc–you really must do something about that hiccup.

      From the looks of it you are a gainfully employed in American cryptography or Central Intelligence or something like that, right?

      These days you just can’t keep a complete incompetent down.

      1. Eyesore,

        the history of your commentary here, the reflexive chimplike sarcasm, the venal invective, the hyperinflated egotism, the hatred of the good, the way you think you so cleverly play with words and people — clearly identifies your genetic and cultural lineage.

        I mean it’s a god damn billboard.

        1. Too incompetent for the CIA or cryptography. Naval intelligence then? Got it–Air Force, right? ROTC, Catholic School, drove a taxicab to put yourself through. Later worked on a dude ranch punching cows? Took off with the information age–voila, promoted to blogging antiwar.com!

          But what does Utah, have to do with it?

  22. Costa and Weston: You two must be very popular in your neighborhoods. Do you insinuate yourselves into their business too?

    Get over yourselves. Ron Paul is so far superior to either one of you it’s not funny.

    1. Paul, as he himself would likely admit, is at best a mediocre mind.

      He has always been too busy for anything else.

      That is no disqualification for Congress, especially in Texas, but without the Constitution, and the minds who designed it, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

      Personally I am not interested in his prayers, his ethics, his religion, his economics, his charity, nor in a future dynasty with someone named “Rand” in it.

      As a Congressman Paul has a voice.

      I expected much more of him in the way of impeachment than he has delivered, especially given the principles he has espoused in the past.

    2. Paulite, what the hell are you talking about. I never said I was better than Ron Paul, and I don’t see how I’m ‘insinuating’ myself into anyone’s ‘business’ by posting a comment–in a comments thread–where I disagree with Paul’s expressed view on a matter of foreign policy. Do you interpret every disagreement as one side claiming to be ‘superior’ to the other? ‘Get over yourselves.’ Sheesh. Why not actually engage with the issue rather than start a pissing contest to see who can come up with the best dismissal?

  23. As arrogant as Mr.Costa may appear – I for one tend to agree with his assertion. Ron Paul has done some great things but it doesn’t take too much effort to recognize that the constitution that he purports to fight for is worthless without enforcing criminal proceedings against a fascist executive who so vagrantly violate it.

    And if it is true that Paul did support impeachment proceedings against Clinton than surely that should give even the most hard-core Paul fans pause.

    There are other problems with Paul that this Chomskian leftist would have serious problems with – but I have alot of respect for the man.

    But he is not and never was the ONLY solution…

  24. I recommend everyone read the Resolution in question before commenting on Congressman Paul’s “strong opposition” to it (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-154).
    .
    Perhaps some of you may find that you disagree with his analysis and reaction even though you generally share his views.
    .
    Perhaps some of you may find that you agree with his analysis and reaction even though you generally contest his views.
    .
    Blind support or blind opposition does not serve any of us well.
    .
    .
    Much of the commentary revolves around Congressman Paul’s stance regarding impeachment. Although this is off topic, I would like to address this point of contention by emphasizing that the majority of Congresspersons who have supported this resolution do not favor impeachment. Criticizing one Congressperson while not holding others equally accountable is unfair. In this case I think it indicative of underhanded intentions.

    Charles

    1. Amen. God forbid we should read what Ron Paul is criticizing before we jump on his bandwagon.

  25. As an American I am ashamed of our current government. My father retired from the Army as CMDSGM or E-9 serving for almost 30 years and fighting in WWII, Korea and VN. I am very proud of being the son of a man who sacrificed so much for this country. He died at the young age of 56 due to complications with Agent Orange poisoning. Now, I am torn in my patriotism. Do I support a government that murders innocent people in foreign lands for oil and empire? Or do I follow my heart, my gut and my common sense and listen to the voice of reason that is Ron Paul? Well, I am following what is right and the good Dr. is right. Read your history people, our government and other governments that built empires have all been crooked. There is nothing that makes us different, it is just a different time in history. We are being tested on the strength of our “experiment” that is America and our constitution. Will we pass? Russia has their own problems and we ours, I would rather have them as an ally. It is time to impeach Bush and his cronies and try to repair the damage that has been done before it is too late.

  26. To Eugene Costa,

    Do you seriously sit all day long waiting for a blog post on anything Ron Paul just to bash him. Every blog written about Paul is filled with your shit. Yeah, we get it, you don’t like him because he didn’t jump to impeach Cheney and Bush. How many times do you have to say it? Everyone here already knows your opinion, and thank you for expressing it, but get over yourself. I think you just like to hear yourself talk.

    Clinton should have been impeached. The difference was that the GOP stood together to try make it happen. If you want Cheney/Bush impeached, then the twat Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic pussies with the majority should have lead the charge back in 2006. But they didn’t so we are stuck with what we have. Don’t blame Ron Paul for the left being a bunch of warmongers. You say he is wasting time trying to save the Republican party but you somehow want him to waste his time saving the Democratic party for not doing their job. Get over it.

    1. Mukasey boldly asserted in his letter to Congress that Miers and Bolton are immune from congressional subpoenas and, thereby, their “noncompliance did not constitute a crime.” According to Mukasey, “The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an executive branch official who asserts the president’s claim of executive privilege.”

      The way matters stand in America today, the executive branch can falsely prosecute, frame-up, and imprison members of Congress and governors of states at will, but itself cannot be held accountable to law.

      Pelosi herself was instrumental in making the executive branch unaccountable to Congress or to law when she declared impeachment of Bush to be “off the table” . This declaration by the Speaker of the House has effectively released the Bush Regime from any accountability, just as the Enabling Act released Hitler from any accountability to the Reichstag, the German constitution, or statutory law.

      Moreover, the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney—indeed the entire administration—is by far the most powerful and necessary case for impeachment that has ever existed. By declaring Bush unimpeachable, Pelosi is giving away Congress’ only remaining power to prevent tyrannical rule by the executive branch. If Bush is above impeachment, every future president will be as well.

      The Democrats naively believe that just one more year and the Bush Regime horror will be gone. But that is not the case. No matter who is the next president, the Bush Regime has established that the executive branch is no longer a co-equal branch of government. It is the primary branch, armed with unaccountability and the discretion to consult with other branches of government if it so wishes. The US Congress cannot give up the powers it has given up during the Bush years and ever expect to get them back.

      The US Congress cannot conspire in Bush’s destruction of US civil liberty and expect a future restoration of civil liberty.

      Republican federal judges who have aided and abetted the rise of an executive branch dictatorship cannot expect the judiciary to continue as a check on the unconstitutional and illegal behavior of the executive branch.

      The Bush Regime, with the complicity of Congress and the judiciary, has destroyed the American constitutional system. For the brownshirt Republicans only THE AGENDA is important. Law, Constitution, separation of powers, truth, decency, honor—all of these things and any others in the way of THE AGENDA are dispensable.

      While neoconservatives used 9/11 to pursue American and Israeli hegemony, Republicans used 9/11 to pursue executive branch hegemony. Whether or not Republicans can hold on to the executive branch through election theft or declaration of national emergency, the power that they have accumulated in the executive branch will remain. In the November 2006 congressional elections, voters gave Democrats control of Congress in order to rein in the Republican administration, but by then Congress had been reduced to an impotent branch of government and has proven to be incapable of reining in even an unpopular president with a 19% approval rating.

      If a regime that has come to be despised and deplored by a majority of Americans and the world can ride roughshod over law and the Constitution, constitutional government obviously has no future in America.

      Pelosi says the House of Representatives is going to file a civil suit against the Bush administration for refusing to help it enforce its subpoenas.

      Who does Pelosi think is going to prosecute the suit—the politicized Republican US Attorneys? The Republican federal judges who have helped to create the unaccountable executive?

      The White House branded Pelosi’s request for a federal grand jury to enforce the House subpoenas “truly contemptible.” Pelosi’s House Republican colleagues dismissed her request as “a partisan political stunt.” White House spokesman Tony Fratto played the fear card and denounced Pelosi for trying to investigate loyal Americans instead of passing legislation that makes Americans safe by allowing the executive branch to spy without warrants. House GOP leader John Boehner’s spokesperson accused Pelosi of making Americans unsafe by “pandering to the left-wing fever swamps of loony liberal activists.”

      The only power the House has left is impeachment, and Pelosi is too frightened to use it. Why is the Speaker of the House afraid to use the power the Constitution gives her to remove from office a president who deceived Congress and the American people, who violated US and international law, and who is a clear and present danger to American liberty, to the US Constitution, and to peace and stability in the world?

      Paul Craig Roberts

      Put up or shut up, Mr. Paul.

      1. Bush began violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in October 2001 when he spied on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court.

        Bush pressured telecom companies to break the law in order to enable his illegal spying. In court documents, Joseph P. Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications International, states that his firm was approached more than six months before the September 11, 2001, attacks and asked to participate in a spying operation that Qwest believed to be illegal. When Qwest refused, the Bush administration withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nacchio himself was subsequently indicted for insider trading, sending the message to all telecom companies to cooperate with the Bush regime or else.

        Bush has not been held accountable for the felonies he committed and for leading telecom companies into a life of crime….

        Republicans have used the “war on terror” to create an unaccountable executive. To prevent the presidency from becoming a dictatorial office, it is crucial that Congress cease acquiescing in Bush’s grab for powers. As the Founding Fathers warned us, the terrorists we have to fear are the ones in power in Washington.

        The al Qaeda terrorists, with whom Bush has been frightening us, have no power to destroy our liberties. Compared to the loss of liberty, a terrorist attack is nothing.

        Meanwhile, Bush, the beneficiary of two stolen elections, has urged Zimbabwe to hold a fair election. America gets away with its hypocrisy because no one in our government has enough shame to blush.

        Paul Craig Roberts

        Blushing yet, Mr. Paul? Put up or shut up….

        1. You have answered my question. You do have nothing better to do then sit around and contradict everyone who extends any sort of compliment Dr. Paul’s way.

          I do disagree with one comment made by Paul Craig Robert’s though…

          “Meanwhile, Bush, the beneficiary of two stolen elections, has urged Zimbabwe to hold a fair election.”

          I do not believe that he stole any election. The Democrats gave him the election because none of them had the balls to stand up to him by taking an antiwar stance. So why would the left vote for anyone but a big spending, big government warmonger. He represents the left and the Democratic party completely.

          Bush may go down as the worst president in history, but it is worse to be the party that lost twice to an absolute moron.

          I think it is about time that the antiwar left put up or shut up!

        2. Mr. Paul–put up or shut up.

          I had much higher expectations of you, perhaps wrongly, than I do of some of your supporters.

          In the end whether your principles change with party affiliation is your business, isn’t it?

          You have a voice in Congress. Use it or not–it’s your choice.

          Paul Craig Roberts, whatever his economics or ideology, is the fellow I want around when overthrowing a King, whether the King you apparently want to be or anyone else.

        3. Dano, you are not worth replying to. You are a fool, jumping to conclusions with easy categories and stereotypes.

          I also don’t have any intention of correcting your errors.

          That’s the polite version.

      2. The failure to hold impeachment hearings on what seems extremely solid grounds, which I’ve just described, amounts to complicity by Congress in this abrogation of the Constitution. Moreover we’re seen as an outlaw state by the international community for ignoring international law on torture and on aggression. The attack on Iraq without authorization by the U.N. Security Council is a flagrant violation of the U.N. charter, which is an international treaty which we’ve signed and are subject to. It means that we have committed and are in the process of committing a crime against the peace in the Nuremburg sense….

        Daniel Ellsberg

  27. A long time ago in a galaxy far away, I, a bit younger than he, was on some of the same busy streets as Parenti trying to stop a war. Have not seen him since, and off the streets our acquaintance was not close. Indeed, we probably would not remember one another at sight. But I have a couple of very strong memories of him, and one especially living image of a brave and ethical man who stood up when it counted, and was fearless in his principles and friendship.

    Glad to see he is still going strong. Thanks for the link.

    1. I once saw the word “neurotic” defined as someone who digs a grave, stands teetering at the edge, trips himself, falls in and then lies at the bottom of the pit, moaning “Who pushed me?” Which brings me to the general observation that right-wing nuts seem chronically determined to create their own enemies. A more specific observation is the case of Michael Parenti.

      This formerly mild-mannered college professor was radicalized in 1970 by several brutal state troopers and a corrupt judge. Parenti tried to intervene when University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, campus officials directed a garbage truck to back into a group of students. The students were participating in a demonstration objecting to the Kent State Massacre and the death of Edgar Hoults, an African-American bookstore employee who was shot in the back after being stopped on suspicion of driving while black. Troopers attacked Parenti with batons, and then appeared in court to claim they had been defending themselves! The judge ignored all evidence to the contrary and absolved the troopers of responsibility for their actions. The behavior of the troopers and the judge dishonored the ethical professionals who make up the vast majority in the judicial system and law enforcement.

      [http://www.keithpurtell.com/kthings/body_parenti.htm]

      That’s about the size of it. The man who was shot in the back was killed. He was opening the book store where he worked early in the morning. The policeman who killed him was eventually suspended. No charges were brought as I recall.

      I wonder what he looks like today? If he is still around.

      This is not all I remember about Parenti. Purtell calls him “mild-mannered”, which he was, until he came face to face with injustice–physically and morally fearless, a ball of focused tense energy.

      The web site has a picture of him. Recognized the face after all these years. Perhaps we are both much younger than chronology might suggest compared to contemporary apathy and intimidation.

      He still has that wild, slightly devilish look, and a slight smile.

  28. “Get over yourselves”

    Paulite

    Here at last the doublebind of the some of the Paul people is exposed:

    (1) “You are self-owned”

    (2) “Get over yourself”

    That is a bald statement of the matter, and perhaps not true in every case about the Paul people, but the doublebind among some of the chosen is clear.

    It is hard not to see it as part of Paul’s perverse Christian subculture, which operates pyschologically, as Bateson excavated, with doublebinds such as “Do what I say, but because you want to”, here changed to “You are free, but don’t disagree, and be like me”.

    The political message, “Paul as the King who will abolish Kingship and restore the Consitution”, is analogous.

  29. Mr. Costa,
    Do you perhaps have a blog of your own? I would love it if there was ONE place where we could pant in rapt anticipation for the scraps of wisdom you so generously leave for we mere mortals? I am confident that with your awe-inspiring leadership, we would be able to take on Congress and impeach the President simultaneously, and still have time for a leisurely game of chess that afternoon.

    Peace be with you.

    1. Whale, shore nuff, sun–ah’ll giv’ya a PO bocks won of deeze daze. Bah supcribshun ownly.

      Ain cheep eyether. En Ah doan du no bro bono.

      U got enny Ladin ‘n Greeg, son?

      Ah’ll giv u en artikel u ken look ub and reed rur free.

      Mebbe taige u unlee faive yeers ur zo to unnerstan.

      Bud whale wuth id.

      Tanks fur ur poltroonage.

        1. Pust Scibt: uh, won prawblem wit dat artikel tho–ul’ll hafta locayd wus kalt a “LIBRARY”.

          Eye’ll sbell dat fur u–L-I-B-R-A-R-Y.

          Luk id ub onlying.

          Id’s won them weerd plazes wid BUKS–B-U-K.

          Tanks sgin.

  30. Eugene Costa you are a moron,Dr.Paul has said he would vote to impeach if a proper resolution and proof were presented.Nancy Pelosi took impeachment of the table immedately after taking office. It was the democrat majorities job to bring forth the impeachment resolution and hold hearings.Why should Dr.Paul destroy his career in a totally hopeless effort to impeach Bush or Cheney.

    1. Paul is jiving. Read what he said in relation to Clinton’s impeachment (he was right in saying what he said then).

      What he is saying now is inconsistent with that.

      If you, or Paul himself for that matter, can’t figure that out that’s your–or, respectively, his–problem, along with what you chose to call “moron”.

      I quoted the key passage above.

Comments are closed.