• With: Ron Paul

    This is a rush transcript from "Your World," September 3, 2013. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

    NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: And that has been the challenge for Secretary of State John Kerry, to show that the evidence is irrefutable and that that intelligence is solid.

    Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.

    How solid is it? Well, the secretary of state saying that the information has been scrubbed and re-scrubbed, that the use of chemical weapons is now beyond all doubt, and that Syria has used this recklessly and inhumanely, and it's up to the United States to do what must be done to protect Syria and to protect our interests in the Middle East.

    But it is an uphill battle. At a time these congressional hearings are lining up like planes at La Guardia, this is among the first that will be seen as Congress itself makes its way back from vacation, including on the House side, where they're going to be exploring this. We have a number of top guests to look at the pros and cons of all this.

    But I do want to -- before I get to that next fellow Ron Paul, who is against our getting involved in this, I do want to take a look at the corner of Wall and Broad, and show you what was going on today. We were up about 23 points. I hasten to add, earlier in the day we were up well north of 100, and when they got word that John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, was all of a sudden saying that he would be for the president's mission, limited, if it had to be that, for going and striking Syria, all of a sudden that combined with the likes of John McCain, Eric Cantor, Lindsey Graham, in other words, key Senate and House Republican leaders going along with a strike on Syria, that sort of brought out the sell signal on Wall Street.

    We are going to get into that in more detail.

    But earlier the view had been that that would not be the case. Now, when it looked more likely that it could be the case, well, these guys got worried because it just added to the uncertainty.

    All right, well, it leaves me speechless, but it does not leave Ron Paul speechless, who joins me, watching these hearings very, very closely.

    And, Congressman, right now, we're told that if things were to be voted on now, it would be a close vote, but it would be a yay vote for getting involved in Syria. You say that would be a mistake. Why?

    RON PAUL, R-TX, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Oh, obviously, because we don't have any business there. It's just going to cause more trouble.

    But you also cited this -- the polling is pretty good. The American people don't want to go into this -- into this war. And the people in Britain didn't want to go in and they had a positive vote for peace. So, I would say, Neil, I'm feeling pretty good. I have been in some lonely battles before, whether it be one, or two, or three, or four, arguing the case for minding our own business, but I think there's a sea change. There's a shift.

    The American people are waking up. They're tired of it. They don't have the money. The world -- they keep talking, well, the world has to stand up to this guy. Who is the world? It's not the British. It's not the U.N. It's not NATO. It's not the Arab people. It's not the Russians. It's not the Chinese. But the world has to stand up to them. That means Obama, he has to save face because he drew a red line.

    And...

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: Well, do you think that if he did not make that red line statement, Congressman, we would even be here today, we would even be debating this today?

    PAUL: That's quite possibly, because politicians are pretty naive. They think if they don't follow through -- they're very insecure people, and I think lack of security in making a decision is the biggest problem with politicians.

    And right now those who are in the middle don't have the sense of security and understanding of why they're on the right side, because they believe that you have to listen to the propaganda. Then they weigh it, oh, what if something happens and I will be blamed for it? And they're very insecure people. And I think Obama was very insecure. He made that statement sounding like a tough guy, and then the Republicans played into his role and made it a partisan thing, said, look, yes, you drew a line.

    The McCainites and the Lindsey Grahams, they love this stuff. They have been screaming for war for two years.

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: Well, apparently, what got them thinking along the president's lines, Congressman, was this idea that it would not be just sort of an in-and-out, non-regime-change move, that this would do something to incapacitate the regime. I'm paraphrasing there. But that's a little further than the president first wanted to go, right? So what does this tell you? Does it worry you? What?

    PAUL: Well, it means that it's just talk, because it doesn't mean much, because, once we get into it, all kinds of things can happen. There's always unintended consequences. There's always going to be blowback. There's always going to be costs. There will always be deaths.

    So if we're trying to save face because we have to stand firm, you have to say, well, if we're not going out all war and sending 600,000 troops in there, how many people do we have to kill? Well, no, we don't want to kill anybody. We just want to blow up the airfields. But people are going to die, and a lot of innocent people are going to die.

    CAVUTO: So, you don't think this will be like a Bill Clinton Bosnia strike deal, where that never got any congressional approval? The difference was, of course, it did have some NATO cover it to. But here we would be going alone, with or without congressional approval. Right?

    PAUL: Well, that makes it worse, but that doesn't justify what Clinton did either, and we will read about that for a long time. And a lot of people died then too. And were they all guilty of war crimes, the people who died?

    Why do we have to always solve these arguments within a country's civil strife, civil wars with our military? That's the only thing we have to offer is our military and our goodness, our greatness, that we know what is best for everybody and we can speak for the whole world. It's getting old. The people don't like it. We can't afford it. It's going to cost billions of dollars.

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: Well, what do you think changed, Congressman? Last week at this time, the president seemed pretty strong about going on his own, and then maybe it was the British vote in Parliament, I don't know what, but then he kind of pulled back and dumped this in Congress' lap, which maybe constitutionally obvious as the thing to do, but something must have happened. Something changed. What was it?

    PAUL: Well, I think the vote was a big thing. I think the polls in this country showed it.

    I think he has difficulty making decisions. And he backed down. And he really threw it back at the Republicans. The Republicans were going, yes, we have to have a say. We have to say on this.

    CAVUTO: Right.

    PAUL: And they're going to get their say, and unfortunately I think there will be some type of authority given, and it won't matter. He doesn't say he needs it.

    And if they give a little bit or a lot, they will abuse it. Just think about what has been going on for 12 years under the global war of terrorism. We have killed thousands with our drones, and here we are joining up with a group of thugs who kill Christians. A thousand Christians have been killed over there with the rebels, and that's whose side we're going to go on. So, the thing...

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: Though we don't know for sure which rebels we would be siding with. Right? There is some confusion.

    PAUL: Well, that's a big problem.

    CAVUTO: Gotcha.

    PAUL: That's what makes my argument.

    And it's really easy to be a noninterventionist, because we don't have to have this all-knowing wisdom to sort out three groups of rebels...