Ron Paul Intellectually Pummels Mitt Romney Into Submission


Uploaded by KramerDSP on 21.10.2011

Transcript:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the
United States,
would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear
facilities?
MITT ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously,
the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United
States to protect us against a potential threat.
The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization
of Congress.
MATTHEWS: Did he need it?
ROMNEY: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he
didn't need to do, but certainly what you want to do is to have the agreement of all
the people in leadership of our government,
as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.
MATTHEWS: Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress
to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?
RON PAUL: Absolutely! This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why
don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without
a declaration of war.
Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if there's an imminent attack on us, we'd never
had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack
on the United States is preposterous.
There's no way. This is just -- (CROSSTALK)
Not an imminent attack, a fleeting -- (CROSSTALK)
PAUL: This is just war propaganda, continual war propaganda, preparing this nation to go
to war and spread this war,
not only in Iraq but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation.
It's a road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while.
(APPLAUSE)
VANDEHEI: Congressman Paul, this comes from Jay Majumdar (ph) from Roswell, Georgia. And
he wants to know if you agree with Senator McCain's statement that the United States
might need to have U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as even 100 years?
PAUL: I don't even think they should have gone, so keeping them for 100 years, where's
the money going to come from? (APPLAUSE)
You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And when I listen to this argument, I mean, I
find it rather silly, because they're arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree
with.
They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years?
And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should
have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country
or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire
or not, and how are going to have guns and butter?
You know, the '70s were horrible because we paid for the guns and butters of the '60s.
Now we're doing the same thing. And nobody even seems to care. The dollar is crashing,
and you're talking about these technicalities about who said what when?
I mean, in 1952, we Republicans were elected to stop the war in Korea. In 1968, we were
elected to stop the war in Vietnam. And, tragically, we didn't stop it very fast: 30,000 more men
died.
So when I talk about these long-term stays, I think, "How many men are you willing to
let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with our national security?"
There were no Al Qaida there. It had nothing do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our
national security. They never committed aggression. It's unconstitutional. It's an undeclared
war.
And we have these silly arguments going on about who said what when. I think it's time
to debate foreign policy and why we don't follow the Constitution and only go to war
with a declaration of war.
(APPLAUSE)
JOHN BROWN, VOTER: Osama bin Laden is dead. We've been in Afghanistan for ten years. Isn't
it time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan?
JOHN KING: Governor Romney, take the lead on that one.
ROMNEY: It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent
with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over to the Taliban
military in a way that they're able to defend themselves.
Excuse me, the Afghan military to defend themselves from the Taliban. That's an important distinction.
I want to say, first of all, thank you to you for the sacrifice of your family and your
sons in defending the liberty that we have and our friends around the world. Thank you
for what you've done.
KING: Congressman Paul?
ROMNEY: Let me -- let me continue. That is I think we've learned some important lessons
in our experience in Afghanistan.
I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but
instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals.
But I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of
independence for another nation.
Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban. Thank you.
KING: Congressman Paul, do you agree with that decision?
PAUL: Not quite. I served five years in the military. I've had a little experience. I've
spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran.
But I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief. I make the decisions.
I tell the generals what to do.
I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well.
And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan.
I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions
of dollars.
Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there.
MAN IN AUDIENCE: My question for you is, do you support opening the national nuclear repository
at Yucca Mountain?
COOPER: Congressman Paul, you oppose this?
PAUL: Yes. Yes, I've -- I've opposed this. We've had votes in the Congress. There was
a time when I voted with two other individuals, the two congressmen from Nevada. And I approach
it from a state's rights position.
What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage
in your state"? I think that's wrong.
But I think it's very serious. I think it's very serious. But quite frankly, the government
shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. And nuclear energy, I
think, is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies. Then they assume this
responsibility. Then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved in this.
And then we get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage.
So I would say, the more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights
and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved.
COOPER: Governor Romney, where do you stand on this?
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Congressman Paul was right on that. (APPLAUSE)
I don't always agree with him, but I do on that.
SNL HOST: Ron Paul, not going anywhere. Ideologically pure and tough as nails.