All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2023 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
25:01
Lindsey Graham On Gaza: 'Kill 'em All!'

After Israel's bombing of a Gaza refugee camp this week killed scores of civilians, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told CNN that there should be "no limit" on the number of civilians Israel can kill. In a previous interview he urged Israel to turn Gaza into post-WWII Berlin. Also today, US House passes resolution authorizing attacks on Iran.

|

Time Text
Lindsey Graham's War Views 00:11:03
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Happy Thursday, Dr. Paul.
Good.
Are we going to save some money today and send it all back to the taxpayers?
I don't know.
We'll try.
People say, yeah, but they won't know how to take care of themselves.
Yeah, but what happens if you put a bunch of people in Washington and they get all our money and they decide what the first penny is going to be spent?
And what if they mess up compared to individuals making mistakes?
That's right.
Rather radical stuff there.
But we're only going to talk about one person, and he's a politician.
He's not our favorite.
No.
He's in the Senate, solidly supported by South Carolina or someplace, right?
That's right.
So he's a very famous person, Senator Graham.
He gets a lot of interviews, and everybody wants to know what his opinion is.
So we'll spread his information.
We'll spread his opinion.
And of course, anti-war helps us out a lot on that.
Keeping up, I'll tell you.
That's a good outfit there to do the research and the sorting it out.
So anti-war comes on.
They want us to know about, and we're going to pass this message along.
It says, Senator Graham says no limits on how many civilians Israel can kill.
That sounds, you know, first off, does that sound moral?
It sounds immoral to me.
And, you know, they have these rules of law of war.
You know, you're not supposed to.
You can kill a lot of people and do something, but there are a lot of rules that says that you shouldn't do things.
But I think all the reservations of going into war and how it's run depends on the morality of the people.
And sometimes you find fascinating stories how morality breaks out, like the Christmas Eve party in World War I, where the Germans and the British celebrate Christmas together, and the next day go back to fighting and killing each other.
So there's always this subtleness that there's a moral standard.
But this suggests that Senator Graham, I don't know, I wouldn't want to be judgmental, but it looks like he doesn't care.
He's mincing no words.
And, of course, if you look for all the causes of war and what's going on over there right now and people that encourage these problems, and of course, I blame our foreign intervention, overseas and foreign policy because, and that plus the international organizations like the United Nations and NATO, and then our money, and the money is passed out for political reasons.
And even if we wanted to be cautionary with the money and say you can't do this, this is to help some people here and limit it.
It doesn't matter.
So that's why the founders were correct.
They gave no authority for us to take money from poor people in this country and give it to rich benefactors to fight wars overseas.
And then we come in and we chime in and we have senators that are so well known and say, well, you know, if they get our money and start killing people, and it's, you know, in this case, it's Israel that we're talking about getting the money.
But that could be applied to almost any group, you know, because, and sometimes on both sides, or very often, we send it to both sides and they get together.
So the whole principle is wrong.
But this caught our attention, and I thought we should express ourselves exactly how this could be prevented.
And I think constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy and a little bit morality, we wouldn't have to worry about this.
And probably Senator Graham would have a harder time becoming a senator.
Yeah, well, let's put up that first clip then.
This is Senator Graham on antiwar.com.
Senator Graham says no limit on how many civilians Israel can kill.
Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday there should be no limit.
Now, I think Lindsey Graham is unique, and I may have overlooked someone, but literally everything about him is bad.
You know, some senators are mostly bad, some members are mostly bad, some are half and half.
But there really is zero good about Lindsey Graham at all.
He went over to Syria and met with Al-Qaeda and was buddy-buddy with them.
He went over to Ukraine and was buddy-buddy with Nazis.
I mean, everywhere he goes, he embraces the worst parts of a society and he embraces war.
After the tragedies of October 7th, he urged Israel to start attacking Iran.
Wisely, Israel did not follow his ideas because they would have been a lot more dead Israelis.
But this is a guy who just loves war and he loves people dying, and he's a hypocrite.
So he says there should be no limit.
And now, we're not criticizing the no limit part.
It's obviously not for us to decide.
But we're criticizing him, emphasizing.
And here's the next thing that he said in the article.
He says, Graham previously said if Israel doesn't do something similar to Gaza, it would be a mistake.
Here's what he said: quote, Gaza is going to look like Tokyo and Berlin at the end of the World War II when this is over.
And if it doesn't look that way, Israel made a mistake.
So he's in favor of destroying the civilian infrastructure.
Well, let's take a look at World War II, Berlin after World War II.
Let's take a look at that next picture.
Here's Berlin after World War II.
This is what he wants Gaza to look like when Israel is done with it.
Well, Gaza bombed another refugee camp this morning.
Let's look at the next picture.
And this is what it looks like.
It kind of looks, it actually looks pretty similar.
Let's go to the next one.
This is the same refugee camp.
And then one more.
There we go.
So I guess Lindsey Graham is getting his way.
It is looking more like Berlin after World War II.
The question is, is this really something to be cheered?
Isn't this interesting?
He's using our policies after World War II, the end of World War II, to justify, you know, killing.
But he has a point about that.
But the whole thing is, is there's been a lot of people looking back.
I can remember in grade school when the bomb was dropped, you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you know, our teachers, you know, recited the ritual that it was so necessary, you know, and they gave the official answers.
But there were many people that we found out.
You know, Eisenhower was opposed to it, and a lot of people, but it happened.
But to use that as a justification for, well, the Americans do so let's do it.
Look up all the wonderful things that came out.
Then if they go back to World War I, they'll say, well, look how the Americans went in one year and look at what they did, you know, and they helped bring the war to an end, which is not exactly good history.
You know, and that may be where some of these problems start.
But, you know, I think about Lindsay about whether he has a philosophy that fits into this.
You mentioned he's pro-war no matter where it is.
It just seems like he's pro-war.
And I have no idea what his true motivations are, but I suspect that it might be some of this self-aggrandizement.
You know, Phil building his own building.
He's always in the action.
And if he takes his position and they're anywhere close, there will be somebody in the media that like him.
They'll put him out there.
He's always out there.
He's out there.
So I think it's that self-centeredness that is a driving force.
I don't think he has, I don't think, I don't imagine he's the kind that would say, well, I really have studied it hard and I've decided Karl Marx is correct.
I think he skipped that.
He's just Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey Graham sets the standard.
And unfortunately, I think they contradict everything the founders would have liked to see happen.
Yeah.
Well, he's not only a bloodthirsty thug, he's also a hypocrite.
And I dug up this video.
This is so no.
On the one hand, we have Graham saying, hey, Israel, thumbs up, green light, kill them all, let God sort them out.
No problem, no moral objection at all.
No, he was speaking a different tune when he was talking about civilian casualties when Russia attacked Ukraine.
Let's listen to Lindsey Graham on that issue.
It's a little different.
And I want to let the Russian generals and the Russian pilots know that you follow the orders of Putin at your own peril.
You can find yourself in The Hague if you drop cluster bombs on civilians.
There'll come a day when the rule of law will trump the rule of the gun.
Keep complete the whole thing.
There's ample evidence that there's a breach of the Geneva Convention, that the customs and laws of war are being violated.
That cluster bombs dropped on civilians is not legal in this world.
Now, the rule of law and war are always difficult.
People say, why do you even think about law when it comes to war?
Because that's what makes us different than other groups that we do believe in America following the law of war.
So here he is telling Russian pilots, if you drop bombs on civilians, you're going to go to The Hague.
We in America follow the rules of war, the laws of war.
We don't do that kind of thing.
And here's the other Lindsey Graham saying, hey, kill them all.
Let God sort them out.
You know, but we have a system of dealing with this because they could get charged with war criminals, you know, war crimes.
And, you know, that brings to light about some of the times domestically.
You know, some people get into trouble if somebody is killed or hurt or injured or stolen from, and it happens not to be a matchup with racism and all.
Oh, that's a hate crime.
But, you know, hate happens to be a subjective thing.
How can they interpret, you know, if two people are murdered, you know, how do you know one is a hate crime and one isn't a hate crime?
Murder should be murder, punishment.
Johnson's Brewing SNAP Crisis 00:06:28
But this whole idea that you sort of, and they all of a sudden have magic and they're going to sort this out.
And that's what Graham's trying to do internationally.
Sort this off.
Well, we can approve this, but not this.
Yeah, the other way.
It sounded like he was almost threatening us Russians.
Yeah.
But it's okay when other people do it.
Yeah.
Well, let's move on because we've been a little bit hard on Mike Johnson, the new Speaker of the House.
His first action is to start giving money away overseas.
But we want to go ahead and recognize one thing that he's done that we agree with.
And this is from Jonathan Turley's website.
Put the next one up if you can.
Republicans join Democrats in defeating the censure of Representative Talaib.
Now, regardless of what you think about Rashida Talaib, I think she is Palestinian and she's been very critical of Israel's behavior in Gaza.
And so there were some groups in the House that wanted to censure her for what she said.
And now Mike, Jonathan Turley writes, I was impressed by the comments of Speaker Mike Johnson on the measure and the 23 GOP members who took the unpopular step of voting against the measure, even though they disagreed with her viewpoints.
And go to the next one.
Here's where Johnson explained himself.
In an appearance with Fox host Sean Hannity last night, with other GOP members, Johnson explained that he opposed such measures in the interest of free speech.
He noted that members say controversial things all the time and that it is a slippery slope to use such disciplinary measures in a tit-for-tat pattern.
So when people reach this point, you really have to say, great, great, great.
We keep wondering, but we encourage people to put this whole thing together and apply those same principles to some other issues too.
But, you know, who knows?
He was probably pretty good on, you know, the freedom of speech during the COVID epidemic, my guess would be.
But it's like some people would pick one, but not the other one and say, well, public health is a different story, and we have to stop this and we should close it down.
Or they might want to regulate the internet for a different reason instead of just saying what he has said about this.
So yes, I think he deserves a compliment.
We ought to give him a star for the day.
Star for the day, that's right.
That's right.
But I have to say, there are other things that aren't so good.
We gave him a plus and a minus.
And here's the minus.
This is from Politico today.
Johnson's brewing SNAP crisis.
Now, SNAP is that program that gives food to low-income people.
As libertarians, we're not fond of welfare whatsoever.
But we have Mike Johnson is going to declare war on the SNAP program.
Go to the next one.
He says, Johnson, more than previous Speaker McCarthy, is a proponent of a more hardline GOP effort to overhaul the SNAP program, the country's largest anti-hunger program that serves 41 million low-income Americans.
Now, you can say, of course, we don't support welfare.
However, when you talk about sending money overseas and in the same breath, you're talking about cutting money for hungry people here.
I almost wonder if he's working for the Democrats because it would be a great commercial for elections.
You know, that issue has come up a lot during my years of campaigning.
And I would take the position, no, there's no authority, welfareism and all this stuff.
And it shouldn't have been started.
But if we're sincere in trying to work our way out of this, and I always mention that that's going to be difficult because there's going to be so many special interests.
But otherwise, if we march on like we have and we have this massive bankruptcy, everything goes to pot anyway.
So I said that, you know, if we're willing to work on it, pick the things that the people, you know, would be more willing, you know, for diplomatic reasons and for practical reasons.
Oh, okay.
American people in general don't yell and scream and say, what I want more is more of money for foreign aid.
Of course, they might for different reasons.
But no, no, they don't say that.
I said, well, why don't we cut, they finally get tired of you could use Ukraine as an example or Vietnam, it was used as an example.
We're running out of money.
That's cut there.
And I use the actual words.
I said, but don't cut food stamps and health care to kids.
And, you know, even though for them, the libertarian constitutional philosophy is a threat to them.
What does that mean?
Will we lose all this?
But all of a sudden, if they know there is a way or could be a way where you can start cutting and still have to not start with kids, you know, and just look at the attitude about how many children have been killed over in the Middle East.
It seems to be a lot of people aren't too worried about the kids either who are getting killed.
Maybe Senator Graham could talk about that.
Yeah, he likes that.
Well, just out of curiosity, I looked it up.
So the first thing Mike Johnson wanted to do was send $106 billion overseas, divided between Ukraine and Israel, not equally, but divided between the two.
$106 billion overseas on these useless wars.
Well, I looked up the cost of SNAP, which is the welfare program.
Put that next one up.
In fiscal year 2021, the government spent about $111 billion on SNAP.
So they're virtually identical costs.
One, however, is welfare for the poor, which is SNAP.
But the other is welfare for the rich, which is U.S. sending money overseas, which actually just goes to our military-industrial complex.
Both of them are welfare.
One's for the poor and one's for the rich.
So are you picking on the rich welfare recipients?
Well, that's why the principle of transfer of wealth, taking money out of people's wallets, stealing it through inflation, and assuming that the government owns everything you earn, and they let you spend your first penny by permission.
They have control of your income.
All Lives Matter Debate 00:03:46
But anyway, it's a tragedy because this has been known.
It's not like the government gets too big.
I think even the Roman Empire had a problem like that at one time, right before it collapsed.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, let's move on to the next one.
And this is a short one, but it needs to be said because they voted on HRES 559, I think it was yesterday, and it was declaring that it's the policy of the U.S. that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable.
Now, you remember these kinds of resolutions in the run-up to the Iraq War.
Literally about every other week, there'd be another one.
And it would be, this is just a sense of Congress, just a sense of Congress.
Well, Thomas Massey was the only Republican no vote on this.
And this is the second time in a week that he's taken a tough vote, and he's going to get hammered.
They're going to put someone up against him, and he's going to get hammered.
But he explained himself why he voted that way.
If you put the next one on, because of the language he read the bill.
And this is down in the resolved clauses.
It says that the United States will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Now he circled that and said, I do not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, but I will not vote to give Joe Biden this power, all means necessary.
And they snuck that in.
Go to the next clip because this is the bill here, not surprisingly entered in by Mr. McCall, the biggest warmonger, one of the biggest, H.R.E.S. 559.
They go to the next one.
Here are some of the resolved clauses.
Now, this is where the enacting clauses of a resolution is.
This is the meat of it.
The other stuff is just sort of the coding, right?
But it's this policy of the U.S. that we will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a weapon.
I almost read that, Dr. Paul, as an authorization for force.
Right.
You know, one thing they do when they're debating what a country can do or prevent it from doing is Israel has the right of self-defense, as if that's the final thing.
But I'm for the right of self-defense.
Matter of fact, I had at times voted for the right of Israel for self-defense when there weren't very many other, like, no, no other Republican did it, because I did believe that they have a right of self-defense.
But that doesn't mean that it means that it's limited to it.
Why is it that all countries should have the right of self-defense, but that isn't what they're saying?
I mean, it's meant to be targeted.
It reminds me of the attitude of all Black Lives Matter.
Of course they do.
But can you imagine getting into trouble?
Because you've said, well, morally, all lives matter.
And I sort of come from that position and sometimes very small human life.
I think that all lives matter.
And if it's totally ignored, I think society deteriorates and there's a little bit of deterioration going on in this country.
Yeah.
Well, we're going to pat Thomas Massey on the back.
Great job.
A lot of courage.
I wish there were a group there that would vote with him, but maybe over time, you know, people got more curious when they saw you voting alone and they'd ask why.
You could explain yourself.
Yeah, I can recall that one time when, oh, you know, that sort of caught a little bit of attention, but what really got the attention is when the supporters got together and they were excited about what we were doing and taking these positions.
Why We Listen And Learn 00:03:31
And then they say, well, this raised some money off.
And it was started at the grassroots level and we broke some records about the amount of money we raised.
But the other members of Congress, they got fascinated with that.
How'd you raise this money?
What is the technique?
I didn't know you knew anything about the internet.
How did you do that?
And I said, and we were sitting together and they were asking me this, but we had just voted something, and I think it was 400 and something to one.
And I wanted to say, why don't you just look up there?
Maybe that'll give you a hint.
But I didn't do that.
And somebody later on said, well, you should have.
Because I think people, you know, as lonely as Thomas is, I'll bet he sleeps better than most of them out there.
But the trouble is, is the people that endorse all this is killing and war, they're people who have been conditioned to a form of nihilism.
They don't have any sense of guilt about these positions.
They don't, you'd think, you know, what about the eras of all those wars in the Middle East that we were fighting against?
Do you think the presidents and the people and the Secretary of States that pushed that hard, all of a sudden, you know, I am so sorry that I did that because it was the wrong thing to do.
Not going to hear that.
It doesn't happen.
Well, I'm going to close out by thanking our audience today for watching this show.
Please hit like, please subscribe, please comment, please send it around, help us grow the show and get the message out.
And we appreciate you.
I'll put a link in here about how to get your free copy of Dr. Paul's new book if you help out the show.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I too want to, once again, thank our viewers for tuning in today and encourage them to come back and maybe bring a few people with you.
Because if you can spread a message, it's very important.
I think that's probably the most important thing because people catch on to the politicians, they catch on to the media right now.
They're all down in being recognized as authentic sources of finding out what's really going on.
So, but word of mouth and what you hear from people, one thing I noticed, and I encourage people who say, oh, I'm only one person.
I said, but if you're prepared, you know what's going on, you understand the issue, and you have a good position, and you can defend it morally and constitutionally.
Leonard Reed explained to me, you don't have to worry about how you're going to get your message out.
What you do, you make it available, and people will come to it.
So, we make it available in a way on our website, and people come to it.
And word of mouth and spreading this message is very important.
So, everybody has a responsibility, and nothing delights me more than when I meet young people who are no longer teenagers when they might have been first introduced to some of these issues.
And they have their own organization, newsletter, and radio programs and whatever contributing.
So, we all do have a responsibility.
And the other thing that I like to see people do is enjoy the issue, get together with the people that support it.
One of the reasons why we have our conferences, because we get to meet with you and talk, and I find them very valuable to understand how people think about these, and there's a healthy discussion.
But, I do want to thank you once again for tuning into the Liberty Report.
Export Selection