All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 29, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
32:10
Lindsey Graham: 'Hit Iran!'

Yesterday's attack on US troops in Syria/Jordan gave Sen. Lindsey Graham the opportunity to repeat his favorite chorus "Attack Iran!" While Republican hawks profess admiration for President Ronald Reagan, they suspiciously ignore one of his most important foreign policy decisions: to pull US troops from Lebanon where they were sitting ducks for attack. Also today: Texit for Texas?

|

Time Text
Why The Troops Got Attention 00:09:59
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you this one.
Happy Monday, Dr. Paul.
How are you?
Doing well, doing well.
All right.
Weather's holding up.
I might even get out of doors again.
Yeah, I know.
It's perfect.
But we're indoors today to think about what was doing outdoors on the other side of the world.
But why should we have to worry about that?
But, you know, we could be interested, but now we have to worry about it because I think we have some people.
I keep trying to figure out the people that have control of our foreign policy, are they crazy or mentally ill or just what?
Or are they conspiring to do something and they're totally naive?
But anyway, their motivation, I like to talk about motivations.
Why do they do it?
What's the purpose of this?
But there's a lot of them that I can't understand their motivation because it's so bizarre and so weird.
And our foreign policy is getting worse.
We need to work harder at what we're doing.
The best we can do is expose what we see and give a suggestion that maybe a different approach would be better.
And of course, if we talk about it and say anything, we get blasted for being isolationists.
We don't want to deal with the world.
We don't want to have trade and visits and travel.
No, they don't accept the idea of non-intervention, which is what the founders believed in and advised us to do, saying that we would have a better chance for peace and prosperity if we just would mind our own business.
But that doesn't mean we isolate ourselves.
Matter of fact, it's the opposite.
This is what we're doing.
We isolate ourselves.
Our foreign policy is isolating our country more than ever before.
And yet they use the term that we're the ones who want to be the isolationists and pursue war.
But the truth is otherwise, so we'll work on that, and we have a job for that.
But there was a big event yesterday, and it caught the attention of all the media, even though there's been events like this have been similar.
They've been worse.
But for some reason, somebody needed a little bit of action.
And the action, you know, the media got the action because that's all they talked about for the last 24, 36 hours.
And that is dealing with the three American troops killed in a drone attack in Jordan.
Oh, I wonder what they were doing there.
I wonder if they were authorized to go there and start a war.
We'll have to ask Biden.
Yeah, I will.
He sent them over there.
But any American troops killed.
But, you know, not many people will ask the question, what in thunder are they there?
But I think there's been a map around, I hope we get to see it, showing we're just where we are.
I mean, it's so extensive.
The only thing when I look at this, and I wanted to get discouraged, is I look at it and more people are saying, they're asking the same questions we are.
Why are we there?
Why are we spending money in Ukraine?
At the same time, we could use a little bit of help on our own borders.
But people are talking that way.
So I would think that eventually truth wins out.
But, you know, there's the establishment that would deal with our wise professors, our media, most journalists, except for the few that we know, are all there to distort what's going on.
And that is a real challenge.
But this, of course, is another example of what we warn about.
You know, things getting out of control, the unintended consequences.
How long are they going to last?
How many people die?
How much money it costs?
All these things.
And, you know, it's a shame to be right on this stuff.
You know.
And there's a lot of people out there because we know them and we'll be able to, and they are able to explain the stupidity of it all.
But it looks like it's still going to be a struggle.
But there's things happening now.
There's issues out there.
If we use that and get that message out to the people, I think they would have a change of heart.
Yeah, and it is a tragedy.
We can put this first clip up.
This will tell you what's happening.
It's from anti-war.com and Dave de Camp.
Three American troops killed in drone attack in Jordan.
Now, there's some speculation about the in Jordan.
And Dave carefully writes that it's according to CNN.
Jordan has denied that there has been an attack on its own territory.
Pardon me, coming from Iraq.
So there is a question, and there's some speculation that these troops were actually near the Atanf air base in Syria and that the U.S. government doesn't want to get out that they were killed in Syria because, as you were saying, some of the questions that they have, they will have it double because the U.S. troops are not there legally in Syria.
So there's a question about that.
Nevertheless, it's a tragedy for these service members and about three dozen who've been injured, some of whom apparently, fairly seriously, they had to be menified out to Germany.
So it's a pretty big event, a pretty serious event.
But as you say, Dr. Paul, and very importantly, this is not unusual.
This has happened before.
The media would like us to believe that this is the first time an American has ever been killed there and they've crossed a red line.
It's time for us to go in.
Well, in fact, it's not.
And we've talked about it on the show many times.
There have been, I think, at least 200 attacks since the October 7th Hamas issue in Israel.
So the fact of the matter is there have been many, many more.
Americans have been killed there.
They're stationed where they shouldn't be.
And the only reason these troops are there, Dr. Paul, is to act as a tripwire.
Literally, their purpose is being served by them being hurt or killed.
You talk about a Washington and a Pentagon who cares about the soldiers.
No, that's the reason they're there because they know as soon as there's a death, as soon as these service members are killed or hurt, there's going to be a clamor for military action.
And what happens when that happens?
Well, the neocons go nuts.
Well, let's take a look at this next because this will give you a map and an idea of the area we're talking about.
This is an interesting convergence point between Jordan, Iraq, and Syria.
And as you can see, these U.S. military facilities inside Syria and in Jordan and Iraq, they have something very, very interesting and important in common.
They all control the main road between Baghdad and Damascus.
So the U.S. military controls these roads to make sure that there is no communication between Damascus and Iraq and Baghdad.
And I think that's a very important point.
So yes, as soon as something like this happens, we see what happens next.
Let's go to the next clip.
Because the usual suspects say the usual things.
Lindsey Graham, hit Iran now.
Hit them hard.
Senator John Corden from our own state, target Tehran.
Even though, of course, they were fired from Iraq into Jordan.
It doesn't matter, Dr. Paul.
Anything that goes wrong, hit Iran.
That's it.
And, you know, this really got them stirred up.
There's a lot more statements like that floating around, dozens and dozens.
Yeah, oh, yeah.
Just to, you know, stir the pot.
And it's almost like on your mark, it's set, go, and then they're all prepared for the next event.
And like we have said, there's been many of these, but sometimes it gets more attention.
So I just wonder why they're getting some attention here.
But you know, I had two, I picked two headlines I wanted to compare.
I don't think this is very significant, but I just caught my eye.
And one from a Politico, which we quote, you know, every once in a while, and they're not as bad as some are.
But they're not libertarians, and they're probably not Republican.
But so they're first been on this.
Republican hawks call for retaliation.
Well, from this, you don't know whether they're pro or con or what.
But what got my attention is the Republicans.
So if they want to blame somebody, it's those Republicans that are going to cause the trouble.
But now Zero Hedge is reporting on the same thing.
And they're a little bit different because we know that they make a lot more sense than most of them do.
But this one starts off politico, which Republican hawks call for.
The zero hedges, congressional hawks urge.
So it's the same thing.
And then I got to thinking, you know, it's probably neither the Republicans nor the Democrats.
It's hawkish.
Who are the hawks?
The hawks who have relationship with the deep state, with the military-industrial complex.
And they listen because some of the people that respond when they're called to action, you'd say, well, they weren't that bad before.
Why are they doing this thing?
But they respond and they have.
And you used a couple quotes already, but if you really had the time and wanted to, we could probably do a whole program just reading the threats in the innuendos.
Boy, this is an opportunity.
And if you don't do it, the end of the world is going to come.
And it supports the fact that you don't want any of these weaklings coming in and saying, well, maybe we shouldn't have a retaliate.
Iran Backed Threats 00:09:12
Maybe we should reassess our own foreign policy.
And that I happen to believe in.
It's not a one-sided deal.
But that's a little more difficult because that means we're practicing free speech, but it's not politically correct because you're challenging one's own government, and that's not very popular.
But I've always argued that the First Amendment was designed where you could criticize your own government and not get put in jail.
But it seems like that is fading from us, and that's a serious problem in itself.
I mean, I think one of the problems that ails Americans is particularly when it comes to foreign policy, they're incapable of self-reflection.
You know, it would have been wise to pause for a moment and say, why?
Why are they attacking our bases in Iraq and Syria and Jordan?
Well, because they don't want us there.
Well, what was the reason we invaded Iraq for the second time in the first place?
To give them their democracy and the choice.
And they voted four years ago for the Americans to leave, and we said no.
And they just came out.
The prime minister just came in a couple of days ago and says, we'd like you guys to leave.
And we said no.
The Syrians likewise have said, we don't want you on our territory.
Leave.
So they're attacking these troops, having bases here because they don't want them there.
So the other question would be, well, do we have any legal authority to be there?
Not really if they voted us to leave.
So why are we there?
But they won't, unfortunately, because I think the manipulation of the mainstream media, they won't stop and say, okay, we have troops there.
Nobody wants them there.
And they're being targeted and they're being killed.
Why don't we just take them home?
But that never seems to be part of the equation.
How dare they tell us to leave their territory?
But don't you think this is pretty weird expectations, you know, when you think about it?
Because here we are, we fail to follow our own rules.
So we go in with violence and disregard for international law, and we create a democracy.
And it designed something that they're supposed to follow.
And they don't follow the own rules that we taught them, and we brought them democracy and all, and they don't do it.
And yet we don't do it either.
So you can't spread something with nothing or an opposite.
And that's what we're doing.
It's a long way from a couple hundred years ago when they looked to America to spreading the ideas of liberty.
You know, that lasted for a while.
It still exists to a degree, but it's fading.
And I think that has to be addressed before anything is going to be resolved, before the immigration crisis is resolved, before, see, the world's suffering from the same shortcomings.
And right now, they're suffering from a great shortcoming of intervention and authoritarianism, special interests, and a false belief that wealth will last forever if you have a friend that's controlling the world reserve currency and has the most powerful military force.
But they don't have righteousness on their side.
And that's why I think that is going to continue.
So these attitudes have to be changed.
And this is a reflection of a desperation on the results that have come about in the last 100, 150 years.
You know, it is obligatory for the media whenever they mention any of the attacks on the U.S., it's always Iran-baked based-backed groups.
Always Iran-backed, Iran-backed.
Well, yes, maybe they get their weapons from Iran.
That may be the case.
But you never hear U.S.-backed Ukrainian troops hit a Russian village, which happens a lot.
They use our weapons.
They hit a marketplace.
They hit a village, and a lot of civilians are killed.
You never hear that.
No one is allowed to buy weapons from anyone unless the U.S. says they can.
Well, the real world doesn't work like that.
And I think one of the things that we've seen this past week is the limits of the U.S. perception of their military power.
Because Biden went to Yemen and said, stop blocking these ships.
And Yemen said, you can't, we're going to block Israeli ships going into Israeli ports.
And Washington said, well, we're going to bomb you if you do.
And they say, we don't care.
We're going to keep doing it.
And so that's the case here.
And it will be the case in Iran, but on a bigger scale.
We can't just tell people to jump and they say, how high anymore.
But nevertheless, they're pretending like the world hasn't changed.
Let's go to this next clip because this is John Kirby, the spokesman of the National Security Council.
And here is him saying, we have prepared various retaliatory options to respond to Iran's attacks.
Now, it wasn't Iran, it was Iraq, okay, and presenting them to the president, waiting for his approval.
We do not want to enter into a full-scale war with Iran, but we will take all necessary measures to protect our security and interests.
And I would add, with the exception of pulling the troops out, which would actually secure them.
But here's the point I wanted to make, and I made it in an update that I sent to our subscribers last night for the Ron Paul Institute.
And that's if you look at this next picture.
So the Hawks want the U.S. to bomb Iran now because Iraq sent in a missile to Syria to tell us to leave.
Now, this is a map telling you all the American troops that are stationed within Iranian missile range in the region.
And you're looking at about, I would say, 30 to 40,000 U.S. troops.
If the U.S. attacks Iran over an Iraqi drone hitting American troops in Syria, these 36 to 40,000 Americans will be directly targeted by Iran in retaliation.
It is such an unbelievably dangerous and foolhardy move that I think any member of Congress or any senator that suggests that it should happen should be drummed out of office for wanting to sacrifice this many troops.
That picture you had up there is perfect to make the point that this intervention doesn't make any sense.
It is aggression and it's illegal and it's far more than most Americans would think.
You know, the Americans are waking up because they heard that we were wasting money in Ukraine.
But we waste money all over the world.
And if anything settles down, we're ready to go someplace else.
I mean, this argument about the funding into Congress right now, they're trying to get funding to make sure we can fight China.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
That whole thing.
But I keep thinking, and you made the point because you made the suggestion on who did what.
Well, what if Iran actually didn't have a lot to do with this?
They don't even ask the question because that would ruin their whole program.
Ruins parties.
We've taught people how to hate all these years.
You know, we started off in 1953 and we're not going to let up until they behave themselves and become good Democrats.
That's what they're waiting for.
So that is a shame, but it will come to an end because we have a bankrupt moral and financial system and our foreign policy.
It doesn't make much sense.
And that's one thing that's happening now is when we throw our weight around, we don't get respect.
we need more respect we're good people but no that's going to last for a long time because I still think there's a lot of good people in this country but they just haven't become aggressive enough in spreading ideas They might say, bomb them.
That's a show that we're tough.
We're not going to put up with people disagreeing with us.
So that to me is a shame.
You know, the funny thing is, so the claim is that Iran backed, Iran backed.
We have to hit Iran.
Well, there's no proof, and Iran says they didn't do it.
But nevertheless, I wouldn't put it past.
I wouldn't say that Iran is not just sitting there saying they're watching America punch itself in the face and they're just sitting there watching it happen because that's exactly what we're doing there.
So I'm sure they're sitting by and watching this happen.
Just one other thing before we go on to the second one, you mentioned China.
And here's something else that's hilarious.
We have to now ramp up against China.
But the Financial Times reported last week, I think it was Blinken, he contacted the Chinese and said, please, will you talk to Yemen for us and ask them to stop shooting at these ships?
So on the one hand, we're ready to attack them over Taiwan.
On the other hand, we're calling and begging them, will you please talk to Yemen for us and tell them to stop being so mean?
You know, I think the analogy that somebody else used, probably, because I use it all the time now, is what would the Americans think if the Chinese have an operation in the Gulf of Mexico that we have over there on the straits of the Chinese straits there?
I mean, we're all over the place.
Border Defense and Invasion Threat 00:07:53
Yeah, technically, we probably stepped over the line, but we're just looking for problems.
And you know we wouldn't tolerate that.
You know, the sanctions.
We would never tolerate the sanctions if a country gets bolder.
But they stay vigilant.
They think, well, China's getting stronger.
Russia's getting stronger.
We better prepare.
You know, a lot of that buildup, there's a lot of fiction in that, too.
The fiction is our paranoia.
Yeah.
Well, the other thing that we're looking at was big news.
It happened just after we finished our Thursday show.
There was not much to talk about.
Is the border.
I mean, there was this dramatic event.
The Supreme Court said, hey, you can take down this razor wire on the Texas border.
And Governor Abbott, to his credit, said, no, you don't.
I'm going to bring in the national micro, the Texas Guard, and we're going to keep you from doing it.
It's a really big deal.
It's a face-off.
And then you had 25 state governors, Republican state governors saying, we're with Texas.
We believe the border should be defended.
And we're even going to send some guards.
I think Oklahoma and Idaho and a few states are going to send some troops over there to help defend the border.
I have to say, a lot of people over the weekend were talking about secession, civil war, and all of this stuff, which sounds very dramatic and everything, but it is some of the most interesting things that have happened in a while.
You know, in the report this week, I mentioned the fact that Article 1, Section 10, is important.
Because I wanted to refresh my memory on that.
And, you know, the whole article, that article is very, very strong and saying states do not have the right to go to war.
And yet, then they said in a very short phrase, but it's powerful, unless they're invaded.
Yeah.
And that, of course, raises the question, is this a true invasion?
And I don't have any trouble accepting that because I worried about that a few years ago.
When does open borders become an invasion?
We've been there for a while, and it's totally out of control.
So that is something that is going to have to be resolved.
And now Texas is taking the reins on that.
And what they want to do is they want to have a trade-off on here because they're playing politics with it.
Biden says, well, I'll tell you what, I'll do all that now, but you won't give me the money.
So he does all these illegal things of starting wars and spending billions of dollars.
And some of it is spent secretly and accumulated secretly.
But no, he can't use it to do something legal.
That is stop an invasion, or at least not, you know, welcome the invasion and open up the doors and demand that we take more money from American citizens to take care of everybody.
It makes no sense at all.
But what do they want the money for?
Well, if you get more money for those things that he's looking for, in a way, I said he wants more money to kill more people.
And take the money away from something that I think most Americans would justify and interpret the Constitution as we have because others have said the same thing.
That's what the governor is basing the whole thing on.
What I liked about it, it's a powerful phrase.
It's just a phrase, and yet it was clear-cut.
It showed, no, states shouldn't be in the business of going to war unless there's an invasion.
Yeah, yeah.
It's very clear.
But excuse me.
Unless we figured out what an invasion is and it's an insurrection.
Didn't we clarify all that?
I don't think half of America knows what a woman is still, but that's another issue.
Let's skip ahead, Moni, go to the next one.
Biden blackmail.
That's what we're talking about.
And here's the Silverheads article about it, but it's all over everywhere.
Biden blackmail intensifies, won't shut border until Congress coughs up Ukraine and Israel funds.
So he's saying, look, as soon as you give me the $100 billion I want, I'll shut down the border, but I have to have the authorization, as you point out.
He's already got it.
But the deal that they cooked up, and this is with Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, a Republican senator, who is not very popular in Oklahoma right now, we've got to get one of our friends up there.
Leave that up if you don't mind.
One of our friends up there to run against him.
In fact, we had one to run against him.
But he said that the deal would still allow as many as 150,000 illegal crossings a month.
So it's basically, you know, your faucet's dripping and you turn it halfway off.
It's absolutely insane.
The deal is insane.
I think Speaker Johnson said this is DOA.
And the one thing that I notice now is that Trump is consolidating his commanding lead now in the Republican race.
It seems to me, and you mentioned it when we were talking, that more and more Republicans are kind of coalescing around him.
And he's not going to be in favor of this deal.
No, that's for sure.
And, you know, in one way, I've already alluded to it, is that the Democrats and the Republicans have split on this.
You know, Democrats are usually more unified, but they're challenging their traditions because at one time they had a few good progressives.
They have only a very few now.
So the people that are anti-war in the Democrat Party are small.
And if anything, the Republicans are improving a little bit to become anti-war.
But there's still a major threat, a split in both parties.
But the real split is that they both listen to some people in the background who happens to finance a lot of elections.
And Deep State is not only, yeah, that is just one thing, but you know, it's everything else, the conditioning.
Yes, yes, there's the weapons.
But there's the whole idea of the media, the journalism, the educational system, the professors, the media, the social media.
All this stuff has been taken over, which I'm still astounded how effective it was.
And I'll just use the name for symbolic reason.
George Soros, all this was just with a couple bucks.
I know.
He's pouring money into Texas, too.
We'll see.
Well, the thing is, the insanity of, you know, they tied the money for Ukraine and Israel together with the border deal.
And I can see probably Republicans like Mitch McConnell would love to decouple those two because he wants to keep funding this war.
But fortunately, there are some people like Matt Gates, Representative Matt Gates, who very often is right, and put this up.
Here's his comment on the coupling of the funding for Ukraine with the border issue.
He says, imagine being a U.S. congressman trying to tie our border to funding for Ukraine.
And he posted an article from AP that came out over the weekend.
Ukraine says corrupt officials stole $40 million meant to buy arms for the war.
Ukraine Security Service says employees from an arms firm conspired with defense ministry officials to embezzle almost 40 million earmarked to buy mortar shells for the war with Russia.
You could probably add a couple zeros after that 40 million.
But if their own government is saying, we're stealing you guys blind, then you know how bad it really is.
That's for sure.
Yeah, I am finished.
Reagan's Mistake: Lessons from History 00:04:52
I'm just going to just, I did mention, if you put it that very last clip, that I sent out an update.
I try to do this every week, usually on the weekends when I get a little bit of chance to catch my breath.
And I send it first to our Ron Paul Institute subscribers, exclusively to them.
You go to ronpaulinstitute.org and hit subscribe, and you can get it first in your inbox, and we can also keep in touch with you.
As I always say, we will not sell rent or loan your name or any information out.
It's just between us, but we want to be able to keep in touch.
Very good.
Over to you, Dr. Faulkner.
Okay.
And I'm going to talk for a minute in closing.
We'll talk about current events and foreign policy, but I want to refer to a historic event that I, in a minor way, was involved in back in 1983.
And that had to do with the Marines being killed in Beirut.
And this was a serious problem because I remember so clearly.
It was probably the first time that I got active on an issue in Congress.
And it was along with some progressive Democrats.
And that was when Reagan sent troops to Beirut.
And it was early on, as soon as the troops were sent there, that several of us recognized this was bad news.
But neither the Democrats I talked to nor the few Republicans that might have agreed with me, we had no clout, but we had one-minute speeches.
You know, we could go down on the floor and systematically, every day there were two or three of us would give our one-minute speech.
We did that for several weeks, warning, why are we in there?
Why are we in there?
What are we doing?
And then, you know, this evolved, and Ronald Reagan was questioned about it.
And he says, oh, no, I'm staying there.
And he was bold.
He says, I will never, I remember the words, I will never turn tail and run.
I'm there to solve this problem once and for all.
So then the tragedy hit, and our predictions and fears, unfortunately, were, you know, came about.
And that is, there were 280, what was it, 241 Americans, mostly Marines, and it was an utter tragedy.
Now, the big thing was, what did Reagan do?
What did Reagan do?
Now, this is, you know, and what he wrote in his memoirs, I think was fantastic.
And it was, you know, the Hawks will always quote Reagan.
Reagan did this strong on national defense and all this stuff.
And yet, his most powerful thing he did was he says, you know what?
He says he decided that was one of the worst things he did.
Here's a quote afterwards.
He says, in any case, sending the Marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and greatest sorrow.
And he said he would never do that again and brought the troops home and lived with it.
And he had to deal with Iran-Contra.
And he had a few words to say that in his memoirs because he thinks his staff failed on him to tell him.
And I believe Reagan, he says, I didn't know they were taking some money for the Contras.
I didn't know that was illegal, you know, that sort of thing.
But I think this is fantastic because so many members of Congress, I bet you all of them right now, the biggest hawks, I bet they would never say anything against Reagan.
I say it because I'm pleased to say something to Dell to defend Reagan, not so much because he made it, but because he had the willingness and the morality to change his opinion and say, I made a mistake.
I shouldn't have been in there.
So he is a real champion and a support of non-intervention under those conditions.
So that is one thing that we should learn from history.
I remember one time being interviewed by a Fox interviewer, and it had to do with Iran.
And I wanted to bring up the subject of history.
Don't you know, I told the interviewer, don't you know that we invaded or we participated in a coup and got rid of Mossadegh in Iran and started all this mess, and that's why we're still fighting with them.
And he cut me off.
I didn't even get to say that much.
He cut me off, he says, I don't want to hear anything about history.
So that is true.
They don't want to hear history, especially, I mean, this history of Reagan, I'm sure a lot of people know this, but they don't want to remember it.
So I think we should learn from history.
Export Selection