Bringing LIBERTY to
Capitol Hill -- 2008
Saturday Morning, September 15, 2007, 10:30am
A Discussion of The President's Saturday Morning
to listen to a replay of the September 15, 2007 Ozarks Virtual
Notes and Summary of the Broadcast -- General Petraeus
Reports on Iraq
PRESIDENT: Good morning.
This week, General David Petraeus
and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress on the progress of
America's strategy in Iraq, including the surge in forces. They agreed
that our Coalition faces formidable challenges. Yet they also said that
security conditions are improving, that our forces are seizing the
initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
Because of this progress, General
Petraeus now believes we can maintain our security gains with fewer U.S.
A Christian/Libertarian Response:
- Republican Candidate Ron Paul said
this at the recent New Hampshire debate: | video
MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, your position on the war is
pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the
bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry?
What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked
their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the
region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we
REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the
ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and
that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been
wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people —
(interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not
to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well
one bit. Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave
the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi
Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11.
So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on
the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security
to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and
Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for
our national security. I am less safe, the American people are
less safe for this. It’s the policy that is wrong. Tactical
movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and
reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new
foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring
our troops home, defend this country,
MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take
30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we
should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off
the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)
REP. PAUL: No! I’m saying we
should take our marching orders from our Constitution.
- Would you have chosen to invade and occupy Iraq in 2000?
- Was it a good idea to dedicate U.S. troops to overthrow Saddam
Hussein and his secular government so that we could create an Islamic
Theocracy in Iraq? Look at the Iraq Constitution:
- Article 2: First: Islam is
the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental
source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the
established provisions of Islam may be established.
- Article 2: Second: This
Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority
of the Iraqi people
- Article 3: Iraq is a country
of many nationalities, religions and sects, and is a part of
the Islamic world, is a founding and active member of the
Arab League, and is committed to its covenant.
- Article 89: The Federal
Supreme Court shall be made up of number of judges, and
experts in Islamic jurisprudence and law
- If you had the choice to kill or maim 40,000
Americans; kill or main ten times as many Iraqi
civilians, in order to create this Islamic Theocracy, would
you have chosen to do so?.
- If you had known that gas prices would double as a result of
the political/military instability, would you have chosen this
- If you had known that the total cost of this war would be
$3-6,000 for every man, woman and child in America, would you
have said, "Yes, and Islamic Theocracy is worth it!"
- Would you have said "Yes, let's do it! My family will
contribute $12,000 to this war."
- What Kind of America Do You Want?
- A Christ-like Servant
- or a Global Bully?
- What Kind of America Do We Have?
- The World doesn't think of America like it did 100 years ago.
America was the bread-basket of the world. The "Protestant
Work Ethic" fed billions of people. America was the place
where immigrants were greeted by the Statue of Liberty and told
they were free to succeed.
- Today America is anti-immigrant, and Liberty
in a Free Market has been replaced with Security
through market regulation by an omnipresent government.
- What is the "light" that can bring people out of
- What should America's Foreign Policy Look Like?
- The great rule of
conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our
commercial relations to have with them as little political
connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796)
- I deem [one of] the
essential principles of our government, and consequently [one]
which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and
honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)
We should send Christian
missionaries to Iraq, not soldiers.
President's Saturday Morning Radio Address
|THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week,
General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified
before Congress on the progress of America's strategy in Iraq,
including the surge in forces. They agreed that our Coalition
faces formidable challenges. Yet they also said that security
conditions are improving, that our forces are seizing the
initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
||The question we
should be asking is not "How many troops should be in Iraq,
and when should they leave, or how long should they stay?"
The question we should be asking is whether we should have sent
troops there in the first place.
|Because of this progress, General Petraeus now
believes we can maintain our security gains with fewer U.S.
troops. He's recommended a force reduction of 5,700 troops in Iraq
by Christmas, and he expects that by July we will be able to
reduce our troop levels in Iraq further, from 20 combat brigades
to 15. He's also recommended that in December we begin a
transition to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq, in which our
troops will shift over time from leading operations to partnering
with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces.
|I have accepted General Petraeus's
recommendations. And I have directed that he and Ambassador
Crocker deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time,
they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and
of the troop levels we need to meet our
national security objectives. The principle that guides my
decisions on troop levels is "return on success." The
more successful we are, the more troops can return home. And in
all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have
the troops and flexibility they need to defeat
||How is America
made safer by sending troops to Iraq, imposing by force an
arbitrary and unclear agenda, killing people in Iraq and giving
recruiters of terrorism an easy enemy?
Who exactly is "the enemy" that Bush is going to
defeat? Is it the Sunnis? The Shiites? Is it al-Qaeda? How can we
"defeat the enemy" if our very presence in Iraq as a
military occupation is the basis for recruiters to raise up a new
generation of anti-U.S. terrorists? Are we forever going to be in
Iraq, with today's children becoming tomorrow's combatants,
generation after generation?
|Anbar Province is a good example of the
progress we are seeing in Iraq. Last year, an intelligence report
concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. But local sheiks
asked for our help to push back the terrorists -- and so we sent
an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge.
Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and Coalition troops drove
the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population
centers. Today, citizens who once feared beheading for talking to
our troops now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are
hiding. And young Sunnis
who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and
||Al-Qaeda was not in
Iraq before the U.S. military occupation. Muslim terrorists are
coming from around the world to to battle with the U.S. invaders.
Would it be a good thing if everyone in Iraq joined the army or
police? Will an increase in U.S.-controlled police and military in
Iraq attract terrorists or deter them from coming to Iraq? What
kind of life is being created in Iraq by the U.S. occupation?
|The success in Anbar is beginning to be
replicated in other parts of Iraq. In Diyala, a province that was
once a sanctuary for extremists is now the site of a growing
popular uprising against the extremists. In Baghdad, sectarian
killings are down, and life is beginning to return to normal in
many parts of the city. Groups of Shia extremists and
Iranian-backed militants are being broken up, and many of their
leaders are being captured or killed. These gains are a tribute to
our military, to Iraqi forces, and to an Iraqi government that has
decided to take on the extremists.
||The more powerful
a military occupation force becomes, the easier it is to recruit
resistance to it. U.S. military domination is "proof" of
what the terrorist recruiters are saying about the U.S. As
"The Great Satan" becomes extremely powerful, extremists
are attracted to it as an enemy.
|The success of a free Iraq is critical to the
security of the United States. If we were to be driven out of
Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda
could find new recruits and new sanctuaries. And a failed Iraq
could increase the likelihood that our forces would someday have
to return -- and confront extremists even more entrenched and even
more deadly. By contrast, a free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe
haven. It will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. And it
will serve as a partner in the fight against terrorism.
||If the U.S. stopped
being an imperialist, what exactly would "embolden" the
terrorists? Who would they be fighting? What happens to their
How will a "free" Iraq "deny" something --
is there "freedom" when you're being "denied?"
If the religion of al-Qaeda permeates the people of Iraq, will the
U.S. overturn their "democratic" elections, forcing the
popularly-elected al-Qaeda leaders out of office and installing
U.S.-approved officials? Will terrorists be "emboldened"
by that "denial?" Is this "freedom?"
|In this struggle, we have brave allies who are
making great sacrifices to defeat the terrorists. One of these
Iraqis was a man named Sheikh Abdul Sattar. He was one of the
tribal leaders I met on my recent visit to Iraq, who was helping
us to drive al Qaeda out of Anbar Province. His father was killed
by al Qaeda in 2004. And when we met Sheikh Sattar, he told me,
quote: "We have suffered a great deal from terrorism. We
strongly support the democracy you have called for." Earlier
this week, this brave tribal sheikh was murdered. A fellow Sunni
leader declared: "We are determined to strike back and
continue our work." We mourn the loss of brave Iraqis like
Sheikh Sattar, and we stand with those who are continuing the
"democracy" as long as they think they have the popular
vote behind them.
America's Founding Fathers opposed
"democracy." They would have opposed imposing
"democracy" on Iraq by military force.
The imposition of "democracy" is actually the very
definition of "imperialism."
America is neither a democracy nor a republic. It is an empire.
America was based on the idea that Christianity
creates free governments and a prosperous economy. It is
Christianity, and Christian
morality -- "Liberty Under God,"
not "democracy" -- that we should be trying to export to
the Middle East.
|If Iraq's young democracy can turn back its
enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East -- and a more
secure America. So we will help the Iraqi people defeat those who
threaten their future -- and also threaten ours.
|Thank you for listening.
May End Up With Even More Troops in Iraq | Houston
- Even if there are not more "troops," there may be more
Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million - Los Angeles Times,
Confront Waste In Iraq Reconstruction - washingtonpost.com
- Why do "conservatives" in Washington place so much faith
in the efficiency of government troops rather than the Free Market?
"Enduring Relationships" - by Gordon Prather
- Bush wants an "enduring relationship" with Iraq, which
sounds like the U.S. relationship with Korea, which has seen U.S.
troops there for 50 years. But the Bush-Clinton regime (1989-200?)
has not pursued nuclear diplomacy in a Christ-like manner.
The Democrat Party Radio Address:
Tom Lantos on President Bush's failed War in Iraq.
- Strategically, the escalation has failed. It was intended to buy
time for Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and the other Iraqi
political leaders to find ways to move toward the one thing that may
end this terrible civil conflict - a political settlement.
- To win the war against international terrorism, we must stop
frittering away our resources - military, diplomatic, and economic -
on an endless religious war in Iraq.
- "The United States needs a new direction in its policy on
Iraq. The situation calls for a change of course. We need to get out
of Iraq, for that country's sake as well as our own.
Libertarian Response to Democrats:
- Lantos speaks of a "civil conflict" that
requires "a political settlement." It is in
fact a religious problem.
- He admits this later on, speaking of "an endless religious
war in Iraq."
- Is it U.S. foreign policy to change the religion of the people of
other nations by military force?
- Is it U.S. foreign policy to repress religions forever and ever,
as long as religious leaders continue to raise up converts to
"fight the oppressors and occupiers?"
- Who would be the "enemy" for terrorists to fight if the
U.S. were not there?
- Lantos says, "We need to get out of Iraq," but Democrats
have voted to continue funding the war, even after they took control
of Congress. They will keep us in Iraq, or move us back to Bosnia.
But they will keep us in war.
for a replay of this edition of the Ozarks Virtual