Topic: Ron Paul
Petraeus' Self-Demotion Courtesy of Ron Paul, of course.by Dan Alba
(Libertarian)
Friday, April 11, 2008
Ron Paul has once again exposed gross negligence in the neocon ranks. This time, the target wasn't just any warfare-statist or empire-apologist: it was the top military commander in Iraq—one likely to assume some level of responsibility once the Bush regime decides to bomb and invade that non-aggressive nation.
During the April 8 congressional hearing on the surging situation in Iraq, the Texas Congressman posed about 17 questions to General David Petraeus (commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq) and Ryan Crocker (U.S. Ambassador to Iraq).* Each question packed more relevance to the American and Iraqi people than all the Petraeus-petting, warmongering non-questions slobbered by all those war propagandistsposing as public servants, combined. Most of his hard-hitting and somewhat rapid-fire questions were on U.S. foreign policy, and therefore could have been plausibly passed off to higher-ups. But the last question was different: it was inescapably vital to General Petraeus' legal and moral obligations. It was loaded with huge implications the general either didn't realize or simply wasn't bothered by. (If, like me, you watched the exchange only once on video, or caught it in passing during live coverage, then you probably didn't get the full impact of the Congressman's public statement. Consider the following.)
"In your estimation, does the [Bush] administration have the authority to bomb Iran without further congressional approval?" Paul asked both gentlemen.
"Uh, Congressman, I'm the commander for Iraq, and I do not know, uh, the answer to that question, and it's not within my purview," Petraeus replied, revealing why he is incompetent and dangerous.
Crocker's response was basically the same as Petraeus', confirming why he is nothing better than a regime lackey. But just for good measure, Paul tactfully confirmed both respondents' distinctions:
"Well, it just . . . seems pretty obvious that, under our Constitution, that's the way it works—that we're supposed to confer with the Congress.
"And it would be spreading the war.
"We know . . . how the war spread in Vietnam without Congressional approval, and what that led to. So, it seems to me that . . . no, the administration does not have 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."
And it should disturb us all.
General Petraeus' duty as member of the U.S. military is the defense of the U.S. Constitution against all foreign and domestic enemies. For Petraeus, that means knowing whether an order he is given is unconstitutional. If he doesn't know whether an Executive command to invade or bomb Iran would be unconstitutional, then on what legal and moral criteria does he decide whether he should obey? (Petraeus would follow the order, either way—made evident by, among other things, his reply to that simple, relevant, and extremely important last question.) His self-serving response—a callous hand-washing of responsibility—goes a long way in forming my opinion of this "yesman" for the regime:
David Petraeus is not a competent defender of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Republic, and the People of the United States of America.
Even if Petraeus' and Crocker's testimonies were not submitted under oath, Petraeus' apathetic display still borders on self-incrimination. If he can not answer whether aggression against Iran ordered by the President would be constitutional, then at best, he has publicly demoted himself. Knowing the constitutionality of an act of state is precedent when defending the Constitution, one would imagine.
But the general shouldn't feel lonely; fraud-smashing is nothing new to Congressman Paul. In the past year alone, for example, he has taken down every GOP presidential candidate multiple times on various issues. Last Spring, he caused Rudy Giuliani to expose himself on foreign policy and the motives for suicide terrorism against the U.S. targets. Earlier this year, John McCain exposed himself as being a numbskull and a phony in economic matters.
Ron Paul is always exposing the beastly underbelly of the state—with little effort and maximum results—one leech at a time. And he's always cordial about it. Usually, it's the state-worshiping frauds who do themselves in. Paul will make a point or pose a question; his opponents will then show themselves to be unethical or incompetent, merely by responding. Here are the other root-striking, fraud-exposing questions asked by Ron Paul on that day, in the order asked:
Why should the American people continue to support a war that was justified by false information?
What is moral about demanding even more needless sacrifice of American lives, merely to save face for the mistake of invading and occupying Iraq?
Doesn't it seem awfully 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 Ahmadinejad, 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-Sadr's militia. Why should we not expect many of the eighty-thousand Sunnis we have recently armed to someday turn their weapons against us, since they—as well as the Mahdi Army—detest any and all foreign occupation?
Isn't it true that Maliki broke the cease-fire declared by Al-Sadr by initiating the recent 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 the 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 6,000 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!
And if the warfare-statists in D.C. and Tel Aviv think those questions are impossible to answer honestly if they want to keep their hides, what do they suppose an ICC-Hague inquisition might look like? I'm generally averse to United Nations and "World Court" domain over U.S. affairs; but General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, and all other high-level members of state should think twice before traveling abroad or invading any more of those non-aggressive, militarily weak, resource-rich, second- and-third-world nations.
* All quotations and bulleted items transcribed and edited by the author, from C-SPAN footage on YouTube [source]
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 51 thumbs so far
2008 Dan Alba, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, April 11, 2008
Last modified: Friday, April 11, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Alba only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Alba is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Seeing how many Flag Officers have either "retired" or "resigned" over the last 8 years, it should be no surprise that Gen. Patraeus will not give a definative answer.
Yes, Iran has supplied mortors and rockets to the Shiaa Militia, they want revenge for the Iran-Iraq War. That and they would like to have control of that nation for themselves. The US is affraid to call them out on it, and Iran gets away with it because they might have a nuclear device.
Good afternoon, Lloyd. I disagree on the nuclear part, and have a slightly different take on the Iranian arms charge. The way I see it, if Iran was officially supplying Shia militias which then attack U.S. troops, then why haven't drones and other high-tech aircraft been shot down by them? Unless I missed it while cringing through all those press conferences, U.S. officials haven't noted any such incidents. Most weapons referred to by the administration can't overturn tanks, and can be assembled by a fifth-grader if given the instructions and basic materials. "EFP" parts are easily accessible, and higher-impact explosives and technology can be acquired in every country in the Middle East, but especially Israel and Iran. If Iran wanted to run proxy wars against U.S. forces, the ordnance would be much more sophisticated and deadly than what we're led to believe comes straight from the Iranian regime. Fighters and drones would be targeted and hit. That's not to say Iranian weapons aren't going into Iraq, and specifically to the Mahdi Army—and I don't personally know if Tehran is doing it—but we have to put some perspective on things. The Iranian government has not been proven to have introduced anti-U.S. warfare into Iraq. There are weapons of many origins in Iraq, including, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, and apparently, Iranian. But what about the 190,000 AK-47s and hundreds of thousands of other small arms and millions of rounds—the ones that disappeared while on pallets and in U.S. custody? And in my view, nuclear weapons is really a non-issue; it has been trumped up from the beginning. Any false move on Iran's part, and Israel and the USA would counterstrike 100x-over. U.S. and Israeli officials are not shy about saying so. What U.S. corporate media won't tell us is that Iran has been more transparent than any other nation under UN-IAEA/NPT regulations. The nuclear issue is just another "diplomatic" wedge—like the similarly fraudulent repition, in coporate media and government circles, of the "wipe Israel off the map" mistranslation. It keeps the dumbed-down public believing that the neocons' chosen enemies are our own, and are so barbaric and blood-thirsty that they are an existential threat to "our way of life." While the Islamic regime in Tehran may be barbaric to most people, they are not even about to approach threat status. I'd bet that U.S. leaders fear Israel's nukes more so than they fear Pakistan's, Russia's, or China's.
It's sad but true though: If we'd just kept our arses out of everyone else's henhouse, we wouldn't always be leaving with the cow brand on 'em. If we'd just follow the Constitution, like Ron Paul advises, we wouldn't have to fret all this foreign he said/she said BS amongst members of warring states.
Did the US not acheive a longstanding Iranian objective when Iraq's Sunni government was toppled and replaced with a predominantly Shiite (as in IRAN) one?
Were there not rumors that Iraq had WMD, and did that stop anyone? Perhaps we should get "evidence" this time around, what do you think?
How many theocracies have been successfully converted to US-style "freedom" at the point of a gun? How much of their own freedom should Americans sacrifice for this cause? (Quick! Someone please remind me, again, exactly what is the "cause?")
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-14 09:04:24
Three countries decided to reneg upon our deals with OPEC that were made in the 1970s. They decided that all oil purchases didnt have to be made in USD and started excepting EUROs. This took away our ability to skim off the top of all oil sales internationally. Those three Countries are Iraq, Iran and Venenzuala.
Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement which says that countries may develope nuclear power and not arms. Irans contention is that energy is the biggest challenge facing developing countries and oil will not last forever (foresight from the savages?). His contends that the US has nuclear power then why cant Iran?
Iran has not had a history of aggression outside her borders for centuries, can we say the same about us?
Israel off the map? That is a full faced lie. His contention is Israel exists because the international community felt bad about the Holocaust which happened in Europe at the hands of the Germans, So why isnt Germany Israel? The MSM easily turns shit around with their propoganda spin. Watch the 60 minutes interview with Abrh what ever the hell his name is.
There is in fact a very large young popluation in Iran that want to be Westernized and understand Democracy, yet if we further sanciton or attack them, that populous will surely side with their native Iran and not the invading US.
Who's cause are Americans supposed to side with? The oppressor (Israel) or the oppressed (Palestinians)?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Dan Alba, all rights reserved.