Ron Paul versus General Petraeus (ontem)

"Why should the American People, continue to support a war that was justified by false information? Since Saddam Hussein never aggressed against the United States, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It has been said one must continue the war because we have already sacrificed so much, but what is moral about demanding more sacrifice of American lives merely to save face with a mistake of invading and occupying Iraq? Doesn’t it seem awefully strange that the Iraqi government, we support, is an ally of the Iranians, who are our declared enemies? Are we not now supporting the Iranians by propping up their allies in Iraq? If Maliki is our ally, and he has diplomatic relations with Ahmadinejahd, why can’t we? Why must we continue to provoke Iran, just looking for an excuse to bomb that country? Does our policy in Iraq, not guarantee chaos in this region for years to come? It is estimated that up to 2,000 Iraqi soldiers refused to fight against Al Sadyr’s militia. Why should we not expect many of the 80,000 Sunnis, we have recently armed, to someday turn their weapons against us, so they, as well as the Mahdi Army, detest any and all foreign occupation? Is it not true that our ally Maliki, broke the ceasefire declared by Al Sadyr by INITIATING the recen violence? Is it not true that the current cease-fire was brokered by the Iranians, who also condemned the attacks on the green zone? How can we blame all the violence on the Iranians? Is it not true that with the recent surge in violence in Iraq, that the March attacks are now back at the same level as they were in 2005? Does Iran not have a greater justification to be involved in neighboring Iraq, than we do, since it’s 6000 miles from our shores? If China, or Russia were occupying Mexico, how would we react? Since no one can define winning the war, just who do we expect to surrender? Does this not mean that this war will be endless, since our political leaders will not end it? That is, until we go broke, and maybe that’s not far off.

Paul: I do have one question, even though, there’s not enough time to get all of those questions answered. I do have one question I do believe there is enough time to answer, probably rather briefly. In your estimation, does the administration, have the authority to bomb Iran without further congressional approval?

Petreus: Uh, congressman, I’m the commander for Iraq, I do not know the answer to that question, and it’s not within my purview.

Crocker: Uh, Uh, eww, congressman n nor is it in mine, I uh uh umm I I, uh, my my job is Iraq, I, I’m just not competent to pronounce on an issue like that.

Paul: Well, it just seems to me, that we couldn’t get an answer like, NO. It seems pretty obvious, that under our constitution, that’s the way it works. We’re supposed to, confer with the congress, and it would be spreading the war. We know how the war spread into Vietnam, without congressional approval, and what that lead to. So, it seems to me, that to not say, Uh, NO, the administration does not have the authority to bomb another country, without getting authority from the congress. So, it disturbs me to no end, that we can’t get a flat out, NO on this question. I yield back the balance of my time."