portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

A congress america can be proud of

This letter inquires into the real reason for the war, and even though most of us know it is about the oil pipeline, this is evidence even congress knows, but is remaining suspiciously quiet.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!-- saved from url=(0061) http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=12525 -->
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 vLink=#772277 link=#0000ff bgColor=#ffffff
background="Ron Paul_files/server.htm">
<P align=center><IFRAME marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0
src="Ron Paul_files/imp.htm" frameBorder=0 width=469 scrolling=no
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript"><!--
random = parseInt(Math.random()*1000)
banner = '<A HREF=" http://www.i-clicks.net/cgi-bin/banners/hit.pl?190" TARGET="_top">'
banner += '<IMG SRC=" http://www.i-clicks.net/cgi-bin/banners/imp.pl?190:COM:'
banner += '' + random + '" WIDTH=469 HEIGHT=62 BORDER="0"></a>'
// -->
</SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT><A HREF=" http://www.i-clicks.net/cgi-bin/banners/hit.pl?190" TARGET="_top">
<IMG SRC=" http://www.i-clicks.net/cgi-bin/banners/imp.pl?190:COM:12" WIDTH=469 HEIGHT=62 BORDER=0></A></NOSCRIPT></IFRAME></P>
<FORM method=post><INPUT type=hidden value=149495 name=id>Congressman Ron
Paul<BR><I>11/29/01 - Mr. Speaker:</I><BR>Fri Nov 30 17:25:40
2001<BR><BR><BR><B> http://www.thelibertycommittee.org <BR><BR><BR>Congressman
Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001 <BR><BR>Mr. Speaker:
<BR><BR>We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and
protracted war. This is not<BR>necessary if one can identify the target- the
enemy- and then stay focused on that target. It's<BR>impossible to keep one's
eye on a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and
identify<BR>it. In pursuing any military undertaking, it's the responsibility
of Congress to know exactly why it<BR>appropriates the funding. Today, unlike
any time in our history, the enemy and its location remain<BR>vague and
pervasive. In the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known
and<BR>clearly defined, even though our policies were confused and
contradictory. Today our policies<BR>relating to the growth of terrorism are
also confused and contradictory; however, the precise enemy<BR>and its
location are not known by anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood,
it cannot be<BR>accurately targeted or vanquished. <BR><BR>The terrorist enemy
is no more an entity than the "mob"or some international criminal gang.
It<BR>certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is
obviously a strong sympathizer<BR>with bin Laden and his henchmen, but how
much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or<BR>even Pakistan? Probably
not much. <BR><BR>Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign
policy of almost every nation throughout<BR>history. Economic gain and
geographic expansion, or even just the desires for more political
power,<BR>too often drive the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in
recent years, we have not been exempt.<BR>If expansionism, economic interests,
desire for hegemony, and influential allies affect our policies and<BR>they,
in turn, incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored. The
target will be<BR>illusive and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished.
<BR><BR>We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly
4,000 innocent civilians.<BR>There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, and
they have paid a high price. They're all dead. So<BR>those most responsible
for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If one encounters
a<BR>single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with others without
the help of anyone else, no<BR>further punishment is possible. The only
question that can be raised under that circumstance is why<BR>did it happen
and how can we change the conditions that drove an individual to perform such
a<BR>heinous act. <BR><BR>The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are
not quite so simple, but they are similar.<BR>These attacks required funding,
planning and inspiration from others. But the total number of
people<BR>directly involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept
the plans thoroughly concealed.<BR>Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could
have done it. But there's no way thousands of people<BR>knew and participated
in the planning and carrying out of this attack. Moral support expressed
by<BR>those who find our policies offensive is a different matter and
difficult to discover. Those who<BR>enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit are too
numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target and<BR>wage war
against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or sin. <BR><BR>The
predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political
and economic<BR>reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi
government, we have ignored that country<BR>in placing blame. The Afghan
people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course,
is<BR>closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and
the Saudis. Even the United<BR>States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to
power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked<BR>oil pipeline politics
with them. <BR><BR>The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden
Truth revealed our most recent effort<BR>to secure control over Caspian Sea
oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two<BR>authors, the
economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S.
military<BR>threats against the Taliban. <BR><BR>It has been known for years
that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline<BR>through
northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan
central<BR>government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that
the plan for the UN to "nation<BR>build" in Afghanistan is a logical and
important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely<BR>given those
interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan.
Since we<BR>don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other
countries are equally supportive of<BR>him, our concentration on this Taliban
"target" remains suspect by many. <BR><BR>Former FBI Deputy Director John
O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous dealings with the Taliban<BR>and our
oil interests. O'Neill then took a job as head of the World Trade Center
security and<BR>ironically was killed in the 9-11 attack. The charges made by
these authors in their recent publication<BR>deserve close scrutiny and
congressional oversight investigation- and not just for the
historical<BR>record. <BR><BR>To understand world sentiment on this subject,
one might note a comment in The Hindu, India's<BR>national newspaper- not
necessarily to agree with the paper's sentiment, but to help us
better<BR>understand what is being thought about us around the world in
contrast to the spin put on the war by<BR>our five major TV news networks.
<BR><BR>This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on October
13, 2001: <BR><BR>The world today is being asked to side with the U.S. in a
fight against global terrorism. This<BR>is only a cover. The world is being
asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to<BR>strengthen
its economic hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will it be allowed. We
must<BR>forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor
with the United States. <BR><BR>The need to define our target is ever so
necessary if we're going to avoid letting this war get out of<BR>control.
<BR><BR>It's important to note that in the same article, the author quoted
Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian<BR>Sea oil reserves, from an interview on
Radio Free Europe: "We (the U.S.) view oil as a security<BR>consideration and
we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other
considerations,<BR>other values." This, of course, was a clearly stated
position of our administration in 1990 as our<BR>country was being prepared to
fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of<BR>mass
destruction only became the issue later on. <BR><BR>For various reasons, the
enemy with whom we're now at war remains vague and illusive. Those
who<BR>commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted with a rifle or
hemlock- not with vague declarations,<BR>with some claiming we must root out
terrorism in as many as 60 countries. If we're not precise in<BR>identifying
our enemy, it's sure going to be hard to keep our eye on the target. Without
this<BR>identification, the war will spread and be needlessly prolonged.
<BR><BR>Why is this definition so crucial? Because without it, the special
interests and the ill-advised will<BR>clamor for all kinds of expansive
militarism. Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60<BR>countries
against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at most, only a
few hundred ever<BR>knew of the plans to attack the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. The pervasive and<BR>indefinable enemy- terrorism- cannot be
conquered with weapons and UN nation building- only a<BR>more sensible
pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this. This must occur if we are to
avoid a<BR>cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities. <BR><BR>It was
said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists responsible
for the attacks, and<BR>overthrowing and instituting new governments were not
to be part of the agenda. Already we have<BR>clearly taken our eyes off that
target and diverted it toward building a pro-Western,
UN-sanctioned<BR>government in Afghanistan. But if bin Laden can hit us in New
York and DC, what should one<BR>expect to happen once the US/UN establishes a
new government in Afghanistan with occupying<BR>troops. It seems that would be
an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda. <BR><BR>Since we don't know in which
cave or even in which country bin Laden is hiding, we hear the clamor<BR>of
many for us to overthrow our next villain- Saddam Hussein- guilty or not. On
the short list of<BR>countries to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria,
Iran, and the Sudan, just for starters. But<BR>this jingoistic talk is
foolhardy and dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in
this<BR>manner. <BR><BR>The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every
day, with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol,<BR>Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett
leading the charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense<BR>Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear: "We are going to continue pursuing the entire
al Qaeda<BR>network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan."
Fortunately, President Bush and Colin<BR>Powell so far have resisted the
pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and<BR>pray that
they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take
on Iraq. <BR><BR>The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is
producing weapons of mass destruction is<BR>the reddest of all herrings. I
sincerely doubt that he has developed significant weapons of
mass<BR>destruction. However, if that is the argument, we should plan to
attack all those countries that have<BR>similar weapons or plans to build
them- countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and<BR>India. Iraq
has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of
western<BR>control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This
is why she has been bombed<BR>steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain.
My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called<BR>proof will be
provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack
in the<BR>United States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to
retaliate against him. This will greatly and<BR>dangerously expand the war and
provoke even greater hatred toward the United States, and it's all<BR>so
unnecessary. <BR><BR>It's just so hard for many Americans to understand how we
inadvertently provoke the Arab/Muslim<BR>people, and I'm not talking about the
likes of bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang. I'm talking about the<BR>Arab/Muslim
masses. <BR><BR>In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and
persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley<BR>Stahl asked our Ambassador to the
United Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: "We have<BR>heard that a
half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq).
Is the price<BR>worth it?" Albright's response was "We think the price is
worth it." Although this interview won an<BR>Emmy award, it was rarely shown
in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still<BR>wonder why
America is despised in this region of the world! <BR><BR>Former President
George W. Bush has been criticized for not marching on to Baghdad at the end
of<BR>the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and stands by his explanation today,
a superb answer of why it<BR>was ill-advised to attempt to remove Saddam
Hussein from power- there were strategic and<BR>tactical, as well as
humanitarian, arguments against it. But the important and clinching
argument<BR>against annihilating Baghdad was political. The coalition, in no
uncertain terms, let it be known they<BR>wanted no part of it. Besides, the UN
only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.<BR>The UN has never
sanctioned the continued U.S. and British bombing of Iraq- a source of
much<BR>hatred directed toward the United States. <BR><BR>But placing of U.S.
troops on what is seen as Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia seems to have
done<BR>exactly what the former President was trying to avoid- the breakup of
the coalition. The coalition has<BR>hung together by a thread, but internal
dissention among the secular and religious Arab/Muslim<BR>nations within
individual countries has intensified. Even today, the current crisis threatens
the<BR>overthrow of every puppet pro-western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait. <BR><BR>Many of the same advisors from the first Bush
presidency are now urging the current President to<BR>finish off Hussein.
However, every reason given 11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still
holds<BR>true today- if not more so. <BR><BR>It has been argued that we needed
to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf<BR>War to
protect the Saudi government from Iraqi attack. Others argued that it was only
a cynical<BR>excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials
declared were "our" oil supplies. Some<BR>have even suggested that our
expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep<BR>King Fahd
in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his
regime. <BR><BR>Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well
please some allies, but it will lead to<BR>unbelievable chaos in the region
and throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American<BR>sentiment
and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an unmitigated
disaster. Iran<BR>and Russia will not be pleased with this move. <BR><BR>It is
not our job to remove Saddam Hussein- that is the job of the Iraqi people. It
is not our job to<BR>remove the Taliban- that is the business of the Afghan
people. It is not our job to insist that the next<BR>government in Afghanistan
include women, no matter how good an idea it is. If this really is an
issue,<BR>why don't we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do
the same thing, as well as impose<BR>our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy!
The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in<BR>a country
6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should insult us all. Of
course it does<BR>distract us from the issue of an oil pipeline through
northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye<BR>on the target and not be so
easily distracted. <BR><BR>Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in
Afghanistan. Would any of our military efforts in that<BR>region be justified?
Since none of it would be related to American security, it would be difficult
to<BR>justify. <BR><BR>Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I
believe he is with serious renal disease, would he not<BR>do everything
conceivable for his cause by provoking us into expanding the war and
alienating as<BR>many Muslims as possible? <BR><BR>Remember, to bin Laden,
martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be more powerful in
death<BR>than he is in life. An American invasio <!-- IP address =
User Agent = Mozilla/4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) --><BR><BR><INPUT type=submit value="Post a Response" name=postresponse><INPUT type=submit value="Return to Articles" name=returntoarticles><BR><BR><BR><A
href=" http://server.com/click.cgi?id=69">Need space to store images?</A> <FONT
size=-1> Server.com Sponsor</FONT><BR>
href=" http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&amp;article=12541">Mr.
Speaker</A> <FONT size=-1> patricia, Fri Nov 30 23:17</FONT>
href=" http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&amp;article=12533">Re:
Ron Paul's Message</A> <FONT size=-1> William Henry Harris, Fri Nov 30
href=" link to disc.server.com
.. Cont'd</A> <FONT size=-1> Ron Paul, Fri Nov 30 17:28</FONT>
href=" link to disc.server.com...
(CONT'D)</A> <FONT size=-1> Ron Paul, Fri Nov 30 17:30</FONT>
href=" link to disc.server.com
Dr.Paul,please read this!</A> <FONT size=-1> timothy revere, Sat Dec 1
<UL></UL></LI></UL></LI></UL></LI></UL><INPUT type=hidden value=12525
name=parent><INPUT type=hidden