Transcript
Madam Speaker: And being the wise legislature that he is, Dr. Paul elected to stay here, and so he gets to ask his question. Congressman Paul of Texas is recognized. I’ve learned not to say anything negative about Ron Paul.
Ron Paul: Welcome, Madam Secretary. I do want to get your comments about the stir that was caused by the apology over the Quran. And the administration has received a lot of criticism about this, and I think you’ve expressed some point that maybe this doesn’t help your job any by stirring up the resentment. But the whole issue about apology I think is an interesting one from a national level, and I recall what happened after Mac Demurer wrote his memoirs and he was apologetic about what happened and about how he orchestrated the Vietnam War. And a reporter asked him if he should apologize, and he said, “What good is an apology if the policies are wrong. You have to learn something from it and change the policy”. So a lot of emotions come out on this issue of an apology.
And I keep thinking that those who didn’t criticize him, I don’t think they criticized the last administration when President apologized for using the Quran as a target. So, sometimes apologizes aren’t always all equal. But with even that said, there were torture photograph before and they were very aggravating. Recently, there was urinating on bodies, on corpses, we didn’t particularly apologize for those, did we? I mean, there weren’t apologies there. But some of these things are emotional. But what about the whole idea of invading a country and occupying a country and disturbing their country, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees and suffering. Does it ever get to a point where apologizing about the Quran is rather minor to some of the other problems that we have created in these countries, could can comment on that?
Hillary Clinton: Well, Congressman, first I appreciate the very measured comments you’ve made about our presidents, not only this one, but prior presidents offering apologizes when we are deeply sorry for unfortunate incidents that occurred, that were not intentional, and which we know have emotional resonance with people. The larger question you ask, I think it’s also important to put into context that President Obama promised to wind down the Iraq War, he has done so. He’s in the process of transitioning out of Afghanistan in a manner that is done appropriately in keeping with the very large decisions that have to be made about helping the afghans defend themselves, working with our partners and allies in that effort. And, I think the underlying premises, certainly one that can be debated among Americans of good faith, I believe that we were justified in going to Afghanistan, which is …
Ron Paul: I want to apologize because I don’t want to get on that subject.
Hillary Clinton: And I accept your apology.
Ron Paul: Okay, there you go. But I do want to touch on something else to get a little different perspective on the nuclear enrichment in Iran. Because we hear different stories, even in Israel there are debates. Tamir Pardo actually said that if they get a weapon, it’s not an existential threat to Israel, so I’m sure there’s probably a more nuanced debate in Israel than there is here sometimes. But isn’t it true that Iran has the right to enrich up to 20% for peaceful purposes? The way we talk and hear discussions, most people believe that they have absolutely no right to enrich. And don’t they have that protection under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? But it never seems to have a balanced approach to that. And the best I can tell from what I read, there’s no evidence that they have a bomb, there’s no evidence that they’re on the verge of getting it, and even the administration, whether it’s the Clapper or general Dempsey, are saying, “It won’t make any sense to have a preemptive attack on there”. Could you give us a sense of a proper balance here, because a lot of people are convinced it’s Syria and then it’s Iran, and I’m personally concerned about that, because the last thing the American people need is another war. We don’t have the money, we don’t have the resources, and the military is not ready for another war.
Hillary Clinton: Congressman, I would direct your attention to the most recent Director-General’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, it’s not an American document, which outlines the concerns about the non-peaceful use of civilian nuclear power. There is increasing evidence that what the Iranians do is not consistent with their right to have the peaceful use of nuclear power. And I’ll be happy to get you a copy of that, because I think you asked a very important set of questions.
Madam Speaker: Thank you so much, Congressman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
—
This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.
Processing your request, Please wait....
Link my chann. for my brand new InfoWars report on: RON PAUL ASSASSINATION? …. RON PAUL & ANONYMOUS 2012
»crosslinked«
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I sound like who? Don’t know who that is but she must understand that Hussein Obama has broken his oath of office to defend the US constitution. That is a FACT and it is also a FACT that his name is Hussein Obama. Why do facts scare liberals so much? Look, it’s simple. If you support Hussein Obama you are a traitor to the USA. There is no fine line, if and or buts about it.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You sound like Ann Coulter… Nobody calls people by their middle and last name. Plus it sounds kinda racist when people call him Hussein. Anybody who calls the President “Hussein Obama” is gay. ANYBODY!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RON PAUL = O U R P L A N
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
What did that liberal bitch say? He needs to read some international letter for reasons for us to go to war? WTF? That’s what Hussein Obama did to Libya, bypassed congress and went to the UN for approval. Nobody sees any problem with that? WTF? ANYBODY that supports Hussein Obama is a traitor and an enemy to the republic. ANYBODY!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Bring all troops home now.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Can’t wait til the next false flag so we can call them out on it and the people will rise up and say no, no. You know what? YOU did this government. Fuck. You.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
wow…. NO one else, Okay maybe “4″ political figures are not Bought to SHUT UP! Everyone is BOUGHT!
Thank YOU Ron Paul for speaking truth!~
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Ron Paul 2012.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Uh uh a um a um ah um a uh um stfu
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i would love to see the evidence of threat, cause last time the only thing that made the attack on iraq logical was the mass graves, but still there were never weapons of mass destruction found,
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
would have loved to hear out Madam Secretary’s comments on the first question.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Prices went up, you agree, consumers pay the tab and you agree, the numbers are rigged/changed to favor your outcomes (keynes), these are all facts. So yes your growth may be there, but it is horrendous, if growth is this bad, then I dont want that growth, i want real growth, this is something your arguement cant get around. Fact brother, FACT! Your equating growth in 28 years, with progress, well the purchasing power of our dollar went down during this time = crap. Thanks Maynard
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On vous aime Dr Paul.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hillary: blah, blah, blah, oh for goodness sake.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love honest people, like Ron Paul.All the best Ron.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Proof that Hilary should stay in the kitchen , fixing sandwiches.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
New game! take a drink everytime hillary says “uhh”…….. oh damn im drunk
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is uh done uh appropriately uh……..DUYHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We’re starting to have an upswing again. RON PAUL 2012 “BULLDOG” “ROCK STAR” ” ASS KICKER” BOOM
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did you not read the first sentence in my last statement? GEESH
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, you are completely wrong.
There isn’t a single economist who denies the Postwar economic expansion, show me ONE source that specifically denies growth from 1945-1973
BTW I personally don’t decide the analysis techniques, I’m not an economist so stop referring to it as “you do this, you do that”. I NEVER advocated or would advocate for total control of an economy (that is Communism). Once again you have no idea what you are saying, WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO READ AND RESEARCH BEFORE COMMENTING?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
so prices go up, consumers pay the tab, and you call this growth, plus you change how the gdp is graded, also the cpi, plus the unemployment rate, and Wammy!!!! You get a good gdp growth. Hahahahhhahahahha. Seriously, your advocated for total control of an economy, a once free economy or market in return for a centralized controlled economy by the elite, did i get that right?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There was growth in EVERY sector from 1945-1973. I gave you the basics, average growth & then percentage of Public sector spending (which you can deduce Private sector from). I would need to write you an entire essay to answer every industry and year from 1945-1973 to show you the breakdown, what else do you want?
Seriously, READ: “A Great Leap Forward” by Alexander J. Field Ph.D (Yale). It covers in depth the economic history of the Great Depression, WW2 and the “Golden Age” (1948-1973).
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
but these changing winds can blow cold and hostile….
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously though this was the most adorable attempt and run around I have ever had, thank you for showing your true colors, says alot about you keynesians.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There you go insulting again. Okay so you deem yourself a loss. Couldnt of said i knew that was coming, lulz. Okay bud, have fun lying, or you could just name the sector. Lets be honest here you have done no educating at all, all you have done is recite and prove with your same story line, and in fact it was boring and wasteful, i wish you would’ve hopped around the point like you have just done with the above comment earlier, was more to hte point than your other comments. SECTOR? INDUSTRY?…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To answer your question AGAIN because you refused to read this comment the 1st time and have a hard time paying attention:
On average, GDP rose 4% annually from 1945-1973.
The percentage of GDP attributed to Govt Spending was 53% in 1945 (it had skyrocketed to almost 55% during the war) down to 22% in 1948 and then a somewhat gradual increase from there, by 1973 it was at 30%.
Now, do you support the idea of foreigners being able to backdoor fund U.S. presidential campaigns? Yes or no?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you incapable of reading? Why are you replying if you refuse to actually read?
I told you specifically which percentage of the growth between 1945 and 1973 were accounted for by the Private sector and the Government itself. I gave you percentages. Obviously you neglected to actually read anything I wrote, why should I continue to supply you with plenty of facts and statistics and answers if you refuse to acknowledge or READ them?
I’m done educating you, carry on you helpless idiot.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I LOVE how every ‘representative’ answers Paul with at least, 20 ums, and 30 ehhhs, Dr. Paul does it too but his fumbling is clearly buy overflow of motive, like when you have so much to say, but them it’s like, they’re scurrying for something to say haha
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Answer my question about what growth you speak of, what sector accounted for your amazing fact about keynesian economics and growth, what sector? Once you answer 1 of my questions, then I may pay attention to you.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with you that Super PACs and backdoor funding from both corporations and foreigners should be abolished. Then comes the question why would you support it by urging foreigners to get involved in U.S. Presidential election funding? Actions speak louder than words.
Don’t forget, it was the five CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices that decided to OK unlimited corporate funding on elections. The decision was 5-4 with the Conservative bloc voting for it, and the Liberal Justices against.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lying about what specifically? It amazes me how hopelessly confused you are.
Do you support the idea of foreigners being able to fund U.S. Presidential campaigns? Yes or no?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hang that bitch for war crimes , and for the KILLING of Vince foster who ‘killed’ himself with two bullets to the head !!!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Trust me I don’t want foreigners donating. It was to make a point about how bad SUPER PAC’s are, and are at their very core, backdoor polotics to begin with. The practice of SUPER PACS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY ABOLISHED. Any and all campaign donations (100%)should come from individuals themselves and NOT from corpartions of any kind NOR foreigners. That’s the danger of SUPER PAC’s.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0