Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill

    http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/06/...-funding-bill/

    On June 15, Rep. Ron Paul gave the following speech in opposition to the Democrats’ new $106 Billion war funding bill, after it was sent back to the House from the conference committee. (The bill passed Tuesday evening.):

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.

    This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version — in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas.

    As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”

    Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report.

  • #2
    Re: Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill

    The single Texas congressman we can still be proud of!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill

      Originally posted by ltullos View Post
      The single Texas congressman we can still be proud of!

      Agree. His stance is always consistant. How long till we are despised in that region?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill

        Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
        How long till we are despised in that region?
        How about yesterday? or 8 years ago?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill

          Congressman Paul's stance reflects the appropriate policy for best interests of the United States and the vast majority of its' citizens.

          Whether other nations and peoples despise or love us and our nation is irrelevant.Even more so for the more despisable-from an American, or Western, perspective-(whom we should strenuously leave alone)failures of the human race.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ron Paul on the War Funding Bill

            In a historic vote, only 30 of 256 Democrats stood against $100 billion for more war.

            In a vote that should go down in recent histories as a day of shame for the Democrats, on Tuesday the House voted to approve another $106 billion dollars for the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and increasingly Pakistan). To put a fine point on the interconnection of the iron fist of U.S. militarism and the hidden hand of free market neoliberal economics, the bill included a massive initiative to give the International Monetary Fund billions more in U.S. taxpayer funds.

            What once Democrats could argue was "Bush's war," they now officially own. In fact, only five Republicans voted for the supplemental (though overwhelmingly not on the issue of the war funding). Ron Paul, who made clear he was voting against the war, was a notable exception.


            ...

            Two other Democrats, not expected to vote against the war funding, joined the anti-war Democrats. Brad Sherman and Pete Stark brought the total number of Democratic votes against the supplemental to 32.

            ..


            Below are the Democrats who stood against Obama's expanding war the day their votes mattered (See where your Representative stood here):

            Tammy Baldwin, Michael Capuano, John Conyers, Lloyd Doggett, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Michael Honda, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Eric Massa, Jim McGovern, Michael Michaud, Donald Payne, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, Jose Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Jackie Speier, John Tierney, Nikki Tsongas, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Peter Welch, and Lynn Woolsey.
            http://www.alternet.org/world/140715..._/?page=entire

            Well, no surprises here

            Comment

            Working...
            X