Neil Cavuto: This is Neil Cavuto, and whether President Obama ends up sending troops or just some well-placed tomahawks, the President is in a very tough placed now. He’s already warned Syria that if he ever got proof it used chemical weapons on its people, there would be hell to pay, even if we can’t pay for that hell. Dr. Ron Paul says, the truth is, consequences costs, so quit offering ultimatums we can’t pay for, even if we did have the money to pay for them. The Congressman and former presidential candidate joins us right now. Congressman, you would just say, “Don’t even get involved, let the Syrians do whatever they want”?
Ron Paul: Yes, pretty much that way, because it’s not our business, our national security isn’t threatened, and it smells a little bit like the argument going into Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, poisonous gasses, and all that. He drew the line in the sand, or whatever he called it, but for him to worry about going over that line, I don’t know where the evidence is. No, they don’t have evidence, I think he overstated that in the first place, and he shouldn’t be in a dilemma, he should just stay out of it.
Neil Cavuto: What if they did have unequivocal evidence that Bashar al-Assad is using these weapons routinely against his own people, Congressman, more than the former President Bush had on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Ron Paul: Well, look how many hundreds of millions of people were killed in the 20th century by bad regimes? I would say that the likelihood of that happening is slim, so I would still argue the case for staying out of it, unless they were using it against us and affecting our national security. But they couldn’t possibly use it against us if we weren’t in their backyard. I mean, we’re in Jordan, and I’m sure we have plenty of CIA agents already in Syria. We support the Syrian rebels, so we’re already very much involved. So whether you’re machine-gunned, or you’re gassed or a drone missile kills you, it’s still very, very dangerous. But I think we’re looking for trouble by being there. And to answer your questions, no, just because there’s evidence that they do have a weapon, I would say that is not a justification to send our young people over there to get killed.
Neil Cavuto: In other words, killing people is killing people, whether you’re doing it with chemical weapons or shooting them on the streets.
Ron Paul: Yes, you want to minimize that. The responsibility for an American public official should be to make sure Americans don’t get involved needlessly, don’t get involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and don’t set the stage for a lot of Americans being killed. So there’s a lot of responsibility there. But I think going in is the worst thing to do, especially under these circumstances, especially because it would take a lot of convincing to have the American people actually believe that Assad is a threat to us and he actually has weapons that we’re threatened by. They’ve been through those lies before, and they’re not going to buy into it this time, I think they’re healthily skeptical of this right now.
Neil Cavuto: And we’re a lot poor than we were when prior threats were made, right, so we don’t have the money. But we could put it, as we do with so much else, on the credit card, I guess. But your point is that whether we can afford this or not, we just dig a deeper whole every time we do it?
Ron Paul: Yes, and that’s part of the reason. But the first reason is we don’t have the moral imperative to go there, we don’t the legal authority to do it, it never works and it backfires on us. And to climax the whole argument, we don’t have any money. And this is what brings great nations down, they think they own the world and they spread themselves around too much. It brought the Soviets down and it’s going to bring us down. Because this is one place I think the American people from the Left and Right could come together and say, “Let’s not close down the airports, and let’s not take away child healthcare, but let’s quit fighting these wars. These wars overseas are costing us trillions of dollars a year, and we have nothing to show for it except more enemies. So to me, the logical place to cut is overseas. But we keep expanding it, and it’s a sacred cow and we can’t cut a nickel out of the military. This proposal, which was all fictitious about cutting FAA funds and closing some of the airports and causing great problems for the American people, why didn’t they just save twice that much from some of this nonsense overseas? But no, they never suggest that, it’s a sacred cow, the military-industrial complex controls things, and you’re not even allowed to criticize it and say too much money is being spent.
Neil Cavuto: And, bottom line, we haven’t found replacement cuts for the workers, so points well taken. Ron Paul, thank you very, very much.
Ron Paul: Sure thing.