Late last week, Texas Representative Ron Paul expressed concern over legislation that expresses condolences to the people of Haiti in the aftermath of the large earthquake that rocked the area, citing concerns over the bill’s presumed long-term involvement of the U.S. military in the area.
Below is a copy of Dr. Paul’s statement:
I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.
I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.
Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.
So “reluctant opposition to this resolution” actually means “condem[n]s US condolences”… didn’t know that Steve.
Title of this article is a purposeful fail to get internet hits. There is no way to read Paul’s statement and come to the conclusion that he was condemning the U.S. condolence at all. He planly states, as this article mentions: “this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….”
Folks,
There was a reason why I put “condolences” in quotation marks within the title of this article; in reality, the bill wasn’t a sign of condolence at all – it committed the U.S. military to more expensive rebuilding efforts that we should not be responsible for, and Paul had every right and obligation to CONDEMN it.
It’s impossible that you are this stupid. I can’t believe I have to share the planet with idiots like this steve charracter. What you have done here is reprehensible and completely against the principles of unbaised journalism. You actually took 1/2 of what he said spun it into a lie & served it up as the truth. You are a monster. You should have your journalism degree stripped from you for reporting such trash. I curse you.
Steve – Thanks for the clarification. Then next time, title the article “Ron Paul condemns open-ended military occupation of Haiti” and use your title as a subtitle.
Steve,
Please re-read the statement Dr Ron Paul maybe a couple of times more so you could see what he is urging his colleagues to understand…, and I quote, “I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.”
Thank you. May you see the light.
Education is lacking here in the US. When adults don’t understand the implication of a word in quotations as it’s used in this headline, no wonder we put Obama in office.
Although I do agree that the education in this country is lacking any one just glancing over the article will immediately come to the same conclusion. That Ron Paul does feel bad for what happened to haiti and is an apathetic person.
The problem is only CONTEXT, without a further understanding of the article itself one would skip over it and think its just either more slander or genuine talk of Ron Paul.
So to the understanding of quotations used in headlines, generally speaking you need context to assist in its meaning.