Ron Paul Didn’t Expect This Response From Hillary Clinton

Date: 4/22/2009
Venue: House Foreign Affairs Committee
Channel: C-SPAN 3


Howard Berman: The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul, is recognized for five minutes.

Ron Paul: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Madame Secretary.

I have a general question I want to ask about foreign policy, but leading up to that question I would like to mention first that the election had something to do with bringing about change in tone with our foreign policy. And I think there have been some very positive changes in tone and many of us have argued for more diplomacy rather than more threats, so many of us are pleased with that. It goes back to the old saying of, “Speaking softly and still be willing to carry a big stick”. But sometimes I wonder whether that big stick doesn’t get wielded a little too often.

But I do want to caution all of us that what we say is very important and can be very beneficial, but what we do is also very important. So that may cancel out the benefits of speaking more softly and being willing to talk and negotiate. Some people say that we shouldn’t talk to our enemies, but I remember the cold war rather well, and we did talk to kruchev and Mao Tse Tung when they were great threats to us. So, sometimes I think that when we look at how we stood up to tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, that we should be cautious as far as what we might do in Pakistan and put it into a proper perspective.

But my big concern is whether or not we can reverse the empire mentality that I think we have adopted over these many, many decades, and also the relationship of this to our financial burden. Though we are speaking more softly and would like to get some troops home, the first thing that was done was that our DOD budget was increased by 9% in a time when our national debt in the last 12 months went up 2 trillion dollars.

All great nations have been brought to their knees for economic reasons. We didn’t have to fight the Soviets. The Afghanistan adventure that the Soviets were involved with was very significant and I don’t know how we can ignore that.

So, I would like to ask the question about whether or not you can give me some signs or indications or some encouragement that maybe we shifted policies in the slightest manner. Have we brought any troops home? Are we less involved in Iraq? Will that war ever end? Or we really going in the opposite direction because we’re seeing Pakistan as so necessary, we need more troops, more expansion, more money, more DOD funds.

So, coming from my perspective I can’t see the difference even though, like I said, I am pleased that there is a willingness to talk and try to work things out and I think that is very positive. I always think that people who aren’t willing to talk are insecure. This whole idea that we are so strong, to me, it seems that we lack confidence if we can’t talk to people. And we are strong enough. Nobody is going to attack us militarily.

So, I see it as very important that we change our tone. I think it’s good that you got rid of the term “war on terrorism”. How can you have a war against a tactic? It doesn’t make any sense. But I am not sure “overseas contingency operation” is more specific. So could you address that and maybe give me some answers that maybe we may be seeing actually some shift in our policy.

Hillary Clinton: Well, thank you, Congressman. I think that the president’s actions in these nearly 100 days do match actions with words, although I admit there is a lot more to be done. We are still sorting out everything we’ve inherited and trying to make sense of it. We want to protect America’s national security, but we think there are better and more effective ways of doing that. So we are ending the war in Iraq. There is a definite end date for our troops to be there. The president did close Guantanamo. The president is looking for ways to engage with those who nobody wanted us to talk to, which is a sea shift in how we are proceeding.

Words and actions both matter. I mean, at the end of the day actions count more. But you have to begin by at least articulating a new approach. In our budget we have asked for more money for diplomacy and development. And the budget committee, in both the house and the senate, cut back the president’s request. It’s kind of old thinking, in my view. I mean, the secretary of defense has said that there are fewer foreign Service diplomats posted oversees than there are sailors and marines on one aircraft carrier. There are more musicians in the military bands than there are diplomats across the board. So, we are trying to shift this gigantic ship of state, Mr. Paul. And we are looking for your help to do so.

And at the risk of going over our time, I just want to say having campaigned during the last presidential election, you had the most enthusiastic supporters of anybody I ever saw.

Ron Paul: I love to hear that.

Hillary Clinton: Well, I mean, my goodness! Everywhere I went they were literally running down highways holding your signs. So, I’ve never had a chance to tell you that, but your message obviously resonated with a lot of people.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Howard Berman: You’re going to encourage him.

  • Europe? take away greece and it becomes a great system. and no I dont balieve that greed is the reason people move away from the gold standard, they leave the gold standard when they run out of gold, thats why it doesnt work. Yes was is a reason becasue countries need more money at that time. I like the gold standard, I do I just cant see it working in the 21st century. I wish it would though

  • I’m assuming you didn’t understand my prior post because it states why nations get away from the gold standard in the long run (wars, greed, eventual welfare states, big government). I’ll ask you the same question, name one fiat currency that’s been successful in the long run.


  • I’m assuming you didn’t understand my prior post because it states why nations get away from the gold standard in the long run (wars, greed, eventual welfare states, big government). I’ll ask you the same question, name one fiat currency that’s been successful in the long run.

  • ok, please show me one example of the gold standard that was succesful in the long term. please

  • You need to learn your history greg. EVERY fiat currency in history has failed while gold has always been worth something. Historically nations that use the gold standard thrive because it prevents the government from getting too big so it needs to keep it’s spending in check which provides liberty for it’s people. Nations get away from it to finance wars and when it’s over the currency drops in value b/c inflation hits. e.g. It happened after the revolution, civil war, and WWI for Germany.

  • True!¨’

  • ok, your agrument is so invalid because this the gold standard has never suceeded, however the system the world uses right now has a very good middle class look at the countries in Europe, and Canada. The gold standard is only good in short term, for long term it fails and puts a country into an even wurse position than before

  • not to mention the inherent inflationary system always creates a welfare warfare state. you must have sound money backed by something to not only benefit the working man but put an end to the power structures ability to finance wars study economics carefully bro and read a book about free market economics because your a little sleep! a global system will only benefit the elite and thats why 1% of the world currently holds over 42% of its wealth that happenned through central economic planning!

  • did you not see what i just said its a fact that our experiment with true liberty and sound money backed by gold has produced the most prosperity than any other nation ever experienced in history. no nation has ever produced 1/10 of the wealth science and art that the U.S. produced thats another fact. you know what ALWAYS fails throughout history fiat currency. and it ALWAYS destroys the middle class like its doing now and it ALWAYS collapses…learn our and others economic history bro

  • good catch. this was posted in 2009 and GTMO certainly was not closed then and its still not closed as of now. Do some reading on how the US acquired the land in the first place. its interesting and im convinced there is more than meets the eye as to why it isnt closed. may be a good reason may be bad. who knows.

  • okey, then they can fail like every single country that has had this idea

  • greece and every other country is going down the in flames because of failed misguided centralized economic policies. free market works in both good times and bad besides if we get an audit of the fed and investigations on wall street im positive it will show their fraudulent policies and we can restore their looted wealth back unto the hands of the people and have sound money and truly free markets…you know the constitution says only gold and silver to be used as money for a reason

  • lol yes ron paul must be crazy for trying to return america to the gold standard and constitutional principles that allowed our country to undergo a period in history with the most upward mobility than any other country ever in history. the most people rose from poor to middle class and the most from middle class to rich…globalization has economically destroyed the world…we need sound money not more of what your advocating which is obviously not working. every country should have sound money

  • ohhh, yes you are right, as opposed to using the gold standard and fucking up the country, I suggest we make the global economy stronger, and not rely on a finite resource. I am an idiot yes you are right

  • yeah the lying bitch!!!

  • You are an idiot.

  • Why isn’t Ron Paul president right now? Because us Americans are stupid and like to complain about politicians and would never elect one that tells the truth.

  • i love how they are corgial to eachother and even share a moment of laughter. This is how happiness works. With happiness, it is easier to come to agreements and create more fluit and productive government.

  • She said he did close Guantonamo

  • because he has radical stances on the economy, which will in fact place the US of A into a wurse depression than that of Greece