Rand Paul: “On another subject dealing more with foreign policy, I would like to address what is going on in Iraq. Mr. Speaker…”

“On another subject dealing more with foreign policy, I would like to address what is going on in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq War or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is, ``Aren't the people of Iraq better off?'' The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it is still too early to declare, ``Mission accomplished.'' But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate in the first place. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means? {time} 1815 The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing U.N. resolutions as justifications for our invasion.…”