[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 76 (Thursday, June 3, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3754-H3755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SAME OLD, SAME OLD

  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, the more things change, the more they stay the 
same. Our allegiances to our allies and friends change constantly. For 
decades, exiled Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi was our chosen leader to be in the 
new Iraq. Championed by Pentagon neocons and objected to by the State 
Department, Mr. Chalabi received more than $100 million U.S. taxpayer 
dollars as our man designated to be the leader of a new Iraqi 
government.
  But something happened on the way to the coronation. The State 
Department finally won out in its struggle with the Pentagon to dump 
Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a competing 
exiled group.
  What a mess. No one should be surprised. Regime changes, whether by 
the CIA or by preemptive war, almost always go badly. American 
involvement in installing the Shah of Iran in the 1950s, killing Diem 
in South Vietnam in the 1960s, helping Osama bin Laden against the 
Soviets in the 1980s, assisting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 
1980s, propping up dictators in many Arab countries, and supporting the 
destruction of the Palestinian people all have had serious 
repercussions on American interests including the loss of American 
life. We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars while the wounds 
in the Middle East continue to fester.
  How many times have our friends become our enemies and our enemies 
our friends, making it difficult to determine which is which? Our new 
relationship with Qaddafi in Libya is an example of the silliness of 
this policy. Long-term interference in the internal affairs of other 
nations does not help us or those we support.
  The invisible economic costs are enormous, but generally ignored. A 
policy of militarism and constant war has huge dollar costs, which 
contributes to the huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation and 
economic dislocations. War cannot raise the standard of living for the 
average American. Participants in the military industrial complex do 
benefit, however.
  The clear failure of the policy of foreign interventionism followed 
by our leaders for more than a hundred years should prompt a 
reassessment of our philosophy. Tactical changes, or relying on the 
U.N., will not solve these problems. Either way, the burden will fall 
on the American taxpayer and the American soldier.
  The day is fast approaching when we no longer will be able to afford 
this burden. Currently, foreign governments are willing to loan us the 
money needed to finance our current account deficit and, indirectly, 
the cost of our

[[Page H3755]]

worldwide military operations. It may seem possible now because we have 
been afforded the historically unique privilege of printing the world's 
reserve currency.
  Foreigners so far have been only too willing to take our depreciating 
dollars for their goods. Economic law eventually will limit our ability 
to live off others by credit creation; and trust in the dollar will be 
diminished, if not destroyed. Those who hold these trillion-plus 
dollars can hold us hostage if it ever becomes in their interest. It 
may be that economic law and the hostility toward the United States 
will combine to precipitate an emotionally charged rejection of the 
dollar.
  That is when the true wealth of the country will become self-evident, 
and we will no longer be able to afford the extravagant expense of 
pursuing an American empire. No nation has ever been able to finance 
excessive foreign entanglements and domestic entitlements through 
printing-press money and borrowing from abroad.
  It is time we reconsider the advice of the Founding Fathers and the 
guidelines of the Constitution, which counsels a foreign policy of 
nonintervention and strategic independence. Setting a good example is a 
far better way to spread American ideals than through force of arms. 
Trading with nations, without interference by international government 
regulators, is superior to sanctions and tariffs that too often plant 
the seeds of war.
  The principle of self-determination should be permitted for all 
nations and all demographically defined groups. The world tolerated the 
breakup of the ruthless Soviet and Yugoslavian systems rather well, 
even as certain national and ethnic groups demanded self-determination 
and independence.
  This principle is the source of the solution for Iraq.
  Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, 
why not read our history and see how 13 nations joined together to form 
a loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government. Part of 
the problem with our effort to reorder Iraq is that the best solution 
is something we have essentially rejected here in the United States. It 
would make a lot more sense to concentrate on rebuilding our Republic, 
emphasizing the principles of private property, free markets, trade and 
personal liberty here at home rather than pursuing war abroad. If this 
were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending ourselves into 
bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold thousands of 
corporations and special interests would be denied.
  True defense is diminished when money and energy are consumed by 
activities outside the scope of specifically protecting our national 
interests. Diverting resources away from defense and the protection of 
our borders, while antagonizing so many around the world, would 
actually serve to expose us to greater danger from more determined 
enemies.
  A policy of nonintervention and strategic independence is the course 
we should take if we are serious about peace and prosperity. Liberty 
works.

                          ____________________