** Ron Paul agitates Jim Baker during hearing [Youtube] **

[mrchubbs]

Thanks to LadyJade for pointing us all to this when she requested help in getting it
on youtube...

Here is the youtube of Ron Paul grilling James Baker on War Powers during
a hearing yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfS79EbKtTU

Enjoy.

[ClayTrainor]

Nice, thank you... and thanks LadyJade :cool:

[unconsious767]

Well done all

[MRoCkEd]

Thanks! Ron Paul has such integrity

[USAFCapt]

http://digg.com/educational/Ron_Paul_agitates_Jim_Baker_over_War_Powers_Act

[TruthisTreason]

What exactly is Ron asking at the end of this? Gets sort of confusing....

[torchbearer]

What exactly is Ron asking at the end of this? Gets sort of confusing....

He is stating that the power to start war is reduced to the president and 1/3 of the congress.

[LiveToWin]

The guy sitting behind Ron looks like he is Very Sad/Crying....

Such intresting people sit behind Ron when he speaks......

[TruthisTreason]

He is stating that the power to start war is reduced to the president and 1/3 of the congress.

I got that much, I just fail to see the scenario Ron is talking about, and then Baker seems to be talking about a totally different scenario...?:confused:

[torchbearer]

I got that much, I just fail to see the scenario Ron is talking about, and then Baker seems to be talking about a totally different scenario...?:confused:

When Baker talking about Ron losing the vote?
As in, Baker is saying, tough shit.

[TruthisTreason]

When Baker talking about Ron losing the vote?
As in, Baker is saying, tough shit.

I just fail to see the way this would play out. Are they talking about Congress declaring War and the President Veto..ing it? Or what?

[tremendoustie]

I got that much, I just fail to see the scenario Ron is talking about, and then Baker seems to be talking about a totally different scenario...?:confused:

Baker didn't get it -- Paul was saying this: Even if congress tries to stop war funding, the president could veto it, and then a 2/3 majority would be required to overturn it. So, even if 60% of congress wants to end the war, if the president wants it, they're out of luck.

Baker thought he was talking about congressmen not showing up to vote or some other such nonsense.

[TruthisTreason]

Baker didn't get it -- Paul was saying this: Even if congress tries to stop war funding, the president could veto it, and then a 2/3 majority would be required to overturn it. So, even if 60% of congress wants to end the war, if the president wants it, they're out of luck.

Baker thought he was talking about congressmen not showing up to vote or some other such nonsense.

Makes sense..... thanks!

[torchbearer]

I just fail to see the way this would play out. Are they talking about Congress declaring War and the President Veto..ing it? Or what?

No- what they want is a select panel of congressmen and the president to have to power to go to war without declaring it.
In order for congress to stop them, they'd have to vote on a resolution to stop them.
Then the president could veto their vote, and 1/3 of the congress could help him keep it that way.
Meaning, a hand full of people will be able to destroy this country.

[torchbearer]

..

[raiha]

It's good to see some debate in these sessions. It's just really annoying when they stop when it starts getting good and it's Ron's turn!:(