[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 18, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6348-H6349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          A POLITICAL MISTAKE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have for years advocated a moral and 
constitutional approach to our foreign policy.

[[Page H6349]]

This has been done in the sincerest belief that a policy of peace, 
trade, and friendship with all nations is far superior in all respects 
to a policy of war, protectionism, and confrontation. But in the 
Congress I find, with regards to foreign affairs, no interest in 
following the precepts of the Constitution and the advice of our early 
Presidents.
  Interventionism, internationalism, inflationism, protectionism, 
jingoism and bellicosity are much more popular in our Nation's capital 
than a policy of restraint.
  I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and 
occupy Iraq and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls 
left in the Congress who are trying to stop this needless, senseless, 
and dangerous war. They have adequately refuted every one of the 
excuses for this war of aggression; but, obviously, either no one 
listens, or the unspoken motives for this invasion silence those 
tempted to dissent.
  But the tragic and most irresponsible excuse for the war rhetoric is 
now emerging in the political discourse. We now hear rumblings that the 
vote is all about politics, the November elections, and the control of 
the U.S. Congress, that is, the main concern is political power.
  Can one imagine delaying the declaration of war against Japan after 
Pearl Harbor for political reasons? Or can one imagine forcing a vote 
on the issue of war before an election for political gain? Can anyone 
believe there are those who would foment war rhetoric for political 
gain at the expense of those who are called to fight and might even die 
if the war does not go as planned?
  I do not want to believe it is possible, but rumors are rampant that 
looking weak on the war issue is considered to be unpatriotic and a 
risky political position to take before the November elections. Taking 
pleasure in the fact that this might place many politicians in a 
difficult position is a sobering thought indeed.
  There is a bit of irony over all of this political posturing on a 
vote to condone a war of aggression and force some Members into a tough 
vote. Guess what, contrary to conventional wisdom, war is never 
politically beneficial to the politicians who promote it.
  Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt were reelected by promising to stay 
out of war. Remember, the party in power during the Korean War was 
routed in 1952 by a general who promised to stop the bloodshed. 
Vietnam, which started with overwhelming support and hype and 
jingoistic fervor, ended President Johnson's political career in 
disgrace and humiliation. The most significant plight on the short term 
of President Kennedy was his effort at regime change in Cuba and the 
fate he met at the Bay of Pigs. Even Persian Gulf War 1, thought at the 
time to be a tremendous victory, with its aftermath still lingering, 
did not serve President Bush, Sr.'s reelection efforts in 1992.
  War is not politically beneficial for two reasons: innocent people 
die, and the economy is always damaged. These two things, after the 
dust settles from the hype and the propaganda, always make the people 
unhappy. The euphoria associated with the dreams of grandiose and 
painless victories is replaced by the stark reality of death, 
destruction, and economic pain. Instead of euphoria, we end up with 
heartache as we did after the Bay of Pigs, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and 
Lebanon.
  Since no one wants to hear anymore of morality and constitutionality 
and justice, possibly some will listen to the politics of war, since 
that is what drives so many. A token victory at the polls this fall by 
using a vote on the war as a lever will be to little avail. It may not 
even work in the short run. Surely, history shows that war is never a 
winner, especially when the people who have to pay, fight, and die for 
it come to realize that the war was not even necessary and had nothing 
to do with national security or fighting for freedom, but was promoted 
by special interests who stood to gain from taking over a sovereign 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, peace is always superior to war; it is a political 
winner.

                          ____________________