http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCWCycejqxU&feature=related

I'd like to see what others think about this line of questioning.

since I have no idea what you are raising your eyebrows to, I'll elaborate.

Dr.Paul had some things he'd stated were for the record, but the one question he wanted answered by Crocker and Petraeus was does the President have the authority to authorize the bombing of Iran without Congressional approval.
Ordering the premptive bombing of another Soveriegn nation, without specific authorization from Congress isn't a power given to a President by the Constitution.

Dr. Paul is a very wise man and I have a lot of respect for him.

A conservative who disagrees with the war and take someone like Christopher Hitchens (a very articulate liberal) who agrees with the war and you've got an interesting variety of opinions in play. I don't have an issue with Ron Paul's questions but it's really almost like the General didn't really need to be there. Paul wasn't asking questions, he was making a speech in question form for the public which is sort of annoying to some extent.

Part of the issue with Ron Paul that is frustrating is that he wants everything to run the way it did in 1776 and while that is a romantic vision and noble to some extent it isn't the world that we live in today. Ron Paul is a state's rights advocate and I don't disagree with him on that. But a country did not attack us on 9-11, a group did and so how does Congress really declare war on a method (terrorism) as opposed to a nation?

People make a lot of the fact that there was nothing at all tying Saddam to 9-11. I'd remind people that Mohamed Farrah Aidid was not responsible for any terrorist attack on the U.S. but Clinton raced in to Mogadishu to remove him. Where was the hue and cry from the anti-war crowd then? We lost Delta and Army Rangers there. Where was the national threat? We killed innocent Somalis there. What had they done to us?

My point here is two-fold. One, the scale of a war is irrelevant if the motivation is identical. Second, Ron Paul would have had us do what in response to 9-11? I think Ron Paul is a patriot. I think he is also a massively unrealistic man who lives an ideology to the point of absurdity. And the electorate will prove me out on that. He never polls well and he never came close to making a real run for the White House.

What do I think of this line of questioning? Well, it's his turn on the floor and he's been elected to that post. I respect his right to ask forty questions to "the record" and only one to the General sitting before him but I do think that is also why Ron Paul will never advance any farther in national politics.

-Drew

Dr. Paul nails it on the head, as usual. He doesn't ask stupid feel good questions that liberals do pertaining to the war--he asks real, substantive questions pertaining to our messed up foreign policies.

Again, the U.S. does nothing but look like a hypocrite. The Founders would be ashamed of us.

Warmachine--you seem like a good guy and so my response to you is meant not as an attempt to bait you into an argument but to debate the right reserved to Congress to declare war. It does say (as you've stated) that Congress shall have the power to declare war. It is also true the the President cannot declare war. Where I think it gets tricky however is whether every military action needs to be a declared war. Again and I swear I'm not picking on President Clinton, but should have have asked for a declaration of war when he went in to get Aidid? We did take some heavy guns there that afternoon and it was a military action. But just because a President cannot declare war doesn't (I don't believe) mean that a President cannot order military action without that declaration.

-Drew

As far as the intervention into Somalia, I don't understand the motivation behind it and it ended badly for alot of our soldiers. You're not gonna find a pro clinton guy, when you talk to me...
I'm not sure I get this:"One, the scale of a war is irrelevant if the motivation is identical." Do you mean that if the scale is irrelevant if the motivation is irrelevant as well?
Ron Paul after 9/11 would have not let half a dozen Bin Ladens get on a plane without having the FBI question them first. Dr. Paul wouldn't have had all the evidence dumped in a landfill or used for pot hole filler, before Investigators had a chance to go over the area with a fine tooth comb. Dr. Paul also would have made for sure that first responders knew the air wasn't safe and would have set aside funds for them if/when they got sick from it.
Dr.Paul would have sent our best to get Bin Laden and wouldn't have deviated into this bizarre bomb it, build it and bomb it again style of Nation building that we have in Iraq and in Afghanistan to a lesser degree, when we had him cornered in Tora Bora, Dr.Paul would have gotten Congressional approval to get the job done.

I don't get why noninterventionism is considered to be some old world concept, when it's really a newer ideal, tyranny, oppression and occupation, what our Federal government is practicing now, those are the old world principles that always fall apart. Nonintervention managed to keep the swiss from getting invaded by Hitlers army, when he was occupying everyone else he could.
The Dr's approach to foriegn policy is one of peace, trade with people, travel to their lands and let them travel to ours.Kick someones butt if it needs to be kicked, But don't destroy a nation over the actions of a handful of thugs.

I think he posed his questions for the record and one to the General and Crocker because he knew he wasn't going to get a straight answer on the one, why bother trying to get them to answer all of them. I mean, Petraeus, when he took his oath to gain entrance to the military, swore to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foriegn and domestic. Do you think he or any of the other high ranking officials that have, right up to Pres. Bush, sworn an oath to what is supposed to be our guiding document, our Charter if you will, are protecting and defending it?

It's hard to offend me and I know when you get into topics like these everybodies got opinions. My point of posting it was in fact to read comments like the one you replied with.
As far as Clinton goes, he should have went forward with congressional approval. I think that there shouldn't be any american soldiers preemptively shooting people without Congressional oversight and approval. The President may be Commander in Chief, but that doesn't give him the right to sacrifice men and women, because he thinks it's the right thing to do. We're supposed to have checks and balances for a reason.

I agree but thanks for debating in a civil way. The issue here is now one of history. The last declared war we were in was WWII (Vietnam, Korea, Gulf 1 and Gulf II not to mention numerous military excursions) have all been done without a declaration. And what is interesting to me about this is that it's been by both Reps and Dems. Neither have a great record with this. I suppose the check and balance that is still there as an option is that congress can shut down funding of a military action at any time. Presidents cannot write checks to keep the tanks running and so I have asked several times on this board why (if this war is so immoral to the majority of Dems.) why they haven't shut down funding.

-Drew

The best way to get results is to have a honorable discourse, that avoids ninnying, name calling and personal attacks.
I don't buy into the left/right anymore, both sides are full of immoral, corrupt powermongers and most of them are owned lock stock and barrel by the interests of the Globalists.
Actually, if you look at the history of where NeoConservatism finds it's roots, you'd see a history of people who have crossed Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution with the capitalist concepts of Wilsonianism and crossed back and forth spreading that mess across party lines.

Presidents cannot write the checks, you're correct about that, but they can authorize the repeated borrowing of billions from foriegn interests. I've repeatedly gotten the impression that Nancy Pelosi and several other high ranking Democrats are either in league with or scared of the Bush administration. The Republicans had no problem going after Clinton, after he lied about his adulterous behaviour.
All sorts of people, even Conservatives, are starting to throw around such heavy wording as War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and Nuremburg trials. For the superstar Dems to sit on their thumbs while the stepchildren like Kucinich scratch tooth and nail to get Impeachment under way is just a prime example of what I believe is our slow decent into facsism.
I know that facsism is a strong word, but the definition applies, when corporations hold the keys to controlling our Government, which they have proven they do, you are in a facsist state. Once again, another thing that both sides are guilty of, being on the take, so to speak.

This document is very broad, and is still in effect.

IMO, this is why Bush & Co was so quick to label the Axis of evil. This document gives him permission to pretty much order a military strike, any where he wants. As long as he says they are involved in terrorism!



One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html

Ron Paul sounded as if he was reading from a script, and one he had not read before hand. He didn't even care what the question was. Just whether or not it was confrontational!
I believe, it was a political tactic designed for Ron Paul to go on record as having asked the commander in Iraq tough questions!
Only the record wont say he didn't allot the general the time to answer.

Ron Paul, master illusionist, and proof that anyone can become a Senator!

Well, Fanta.
First, Dr.Paul isn't a Senator, he's a Congressman. 11 terms.

As far as the script, I take it you haven't seen his repeated spankings of Fed Chairman Ben Bernake. Now for anyone who has heard the Dr. speak more than once can tell you, he's far from Obama as far as it pertains to public speaking, I'm sure he had some comments prepared going in, but knowing Dr.Paul, he wrote on that thing a dozen times, changing it up, while he waited for his time.
He asked his question and returned his remaining time, both Crocker and Petraeus were given opportunity to answer, they chose not to answer on the side of the Constitution.
Was it a political tactic? Might be, but they couldn't even give a straight answer, it wasn't even a complicated question.

Yeah... I forgot about that one. There's quite a few of Bush EO and PDD's that are scary broad in their scope. PDD 51 for example. I just wonder if we are going to preemptively strike an Iran that had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think he would look for support at home first, build a case for it.
Kinda like he did in Iraq.
He does have authority, as a matter of fact check this out.

Joint Publication 3-12
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
Joint Chiefs of Staff!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf

It includes the First strike doctrine!

Lindyy says:

I will be quiet (for a change) and sit back, listen and learn.

Lindyy

I was going to click on Fanta's link then I saw this it's from "globalsecurity.org."

Last time I checked, American foreign policy does not apply to "global" security, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean--who comes up with these Orwellian terms anyways? Oh that's right, everyone at the CFR.

Secondly, "Bush & Co." (and by that I mean his inner circle) didn't even come up with the term Axis of Evil, it was created by David Frum, and well before the so called "authorization" of force. That said, every Congressional member who voted "yes" to it should have been thrown out of office by violating their constitutional oath, as they violated the Constitution by redistributing legislative power to the executive. Though an atrocious violation, it's hardly the first time. Serbia, anyone?

Thirdly, Ron Paul NEVER reads from a script. People may say that because he asks the same questions repeatedly; questions no one will answer. Petraeus during questioning said he could not comment on Iran. If he is truly ignorant to the geopolitical and military implications of a country bordering his command radius, then he shouldn't be managing that fight, period. That would be tantamount to General MacArthur saying he can't comment on China because his command radius is only in Korea. That said, I think his response was political posturing, an obviously he knows jack about the Constitution.

Lastly, Crocker is a moron and doesn't even deserve a response for his inane comments. These people really speak for themselves.

WarElephant, he wasn't being asked to "comment" on Iran. He was being asked a specific question about the constitutionality of being able to attack Iran without Congressional decree a question Mr. Paul knew he could not answer based on the fact that as a General he is not going to make that decision. Bring in a constitutional expert or scholar if that debate needs to occur (and it does) but that was a jerk move by Dr. Paul. As I've stated previously, I like Ron Paul. I think he's unrealistic and so he'll never go further but I don't dislike the guy. He would have and should have made better use of his time by asking questions that General Petraeus could in fact answer. I'm sure he has an opinion--but that wasn't the question. Do you really think that he reached the rank of General because he is incapable of commenting? Come on WarElephant, you are a really smart guy (seriously) you can see the difference there.

-Drew

Considering Bush did not even meet the criteria for the Authorization to Military Action from Congress for Iraq what makes anyone think it matters for Iran? McCain will be worse than Bush was with the warring actions. I think he is a little tilted mentally from his POW experience. I am very concerned over this