Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann Spar Over Nuclear Iran (VIDEO)

Amid a lengthy back and forth over the proper way to handle a potential nuclear threat from Iran, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) drew the ire of official foreign policy strawman Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) by stating categorically that a recent International Atomic Energy Agency report had said Iran would have a nuclear bomb within months.

Ignoring the threat from the Iranian president, Bachmann said, "would be the greatest underreaction in world history ... We have an IAEA report that recently came out that says literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon."

"That is not true," Paul responded. "There is no U.N. report that said that ... They produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence that there has been enrichment."

The IAEA report in question, which came out in early November, did claim that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within six months, but it notably did not include any "smoking gun" -- as one diplomat told the Los Angeles Times -- that Iran actually had any intention of doing so.

That may be an important distinction, since Bachmann wasn't merely attempting to claim that the weapon was a theoretical possibility, but that it was a very real danger.

"We have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off face of the earth," Bachmann said.

Earlier in the debate, Paul repeated his strenuous objections, made during earlier debates, that entering in to a new war with Iran would be a catastrophic decision, and one that cannot be taken lightly.

"This is another Iraq coming," he warned. "This is war propaganda going on. And to me, the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact and we will soon bomb Iran."

Related on HuffPost:

 

 

Comments

[cma cma]

09:57 AM on 12/20/2011

The Obama-Paul line of accommodation, apology, and appeasement towards radical Islam and Iran. "...for you to say maybe in a year they might have a weapon, there's a lot more saying they don't have it.” The only evidence that Paul will accept is an atomic weapon in Iran's hands. His policy of submission to radical Islam is the blueprint for national suicide for the U.S. I trust Michele Bachmann. She is as smart as a whip and tougher than steel--the little lady with a spine of titanium.

[Sean Ballhorn]

02:30 PM on 12/19/2011

They say, "What will you do if Iran gets a Nuclear Weapon". I say "I will fear no evil: for thou art with me."

War mongering in the form of juxaposing massive American death with Paul's stance not to "Presume Guilty until Proven Innocent", is a form of terrorism. They want you to visualize a nuclear mushroom cloud rising on an American city so that you are fearful. In that fear is CONTROL. Look at what control we gave in fear after 9/11, look at all the Liberty we gave up.

NDAA, which language includes effectively ending the 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments, Posse Comitatus, and allows YOU to be declared a terrorist for things like "having more than 7 days of food, owning gold or silver, using binoculars, taking pictures, and owning guns" to name a few according to the DHS, but really consolidates ultimate power to the POTUS to arrest, detain, torture and execute YOU an AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR TRIAL. The NDAA is terroism.

I will not fear terrorists; be they Radical Muslim's or Our Own Government.

FEAR NOT!

[PerotVentuSheehCarte]

05:20 PM on 12/18/2011

I don’t need your war machine
I don’t need your ghetto scene

Colored lights may hypnotize
Sparkle someone else’s eyes

Michele Bachmann

[feraltyger]

03:00 PM on 12/17/2011

Ron Paul is the real hope and change America has needed. Take care of your own house before you go clutter up someone else's. I really hope America keeps waking up and seeing that he is what we need to change the war mongering ways and repair America.

[trconsulting]

07:36 PM on 12/17/2011

As long as Ron Paul plays the Republican't stooge, he's off limits. Let him declare his candidacy as a Libertarian. That's where he belongs. Without allegiance to the Republicant's.

[Lego87]

08:04 PM on 12/17/2011

If he goes 3rd party he won't even get in the debates. The only reason Perot did was because he could afford it.

The republicans and democrats have it to we're it's tough to run 3rd party.

[Magic 62]

09:19 PM on 12/17/2011

Why? his ideas are the same as social conservatives.

[Java McPhearson]

12:24 AM on 12/17/2011

Oh Bachmann, when you lie to a congressional committee it is called perjury, but when you lie to the public on matters of national security it is called SEDITION. The IAEA reports say nothing of what you claim. To incite the US to War over intentionaly false information is to repeat the failings of Iraq. Under current law what you speak is an act of terrorism in itself.

[Buster000]

02:07 AM on 12/19/2011

Also, the Iranian president never said he would use a nuclear weapon against Israel and the US, nor did he ever say he would wipe Israel off the map. He did say the Imam hoped the Zionist regime would disappear from the page of time. Albeit it is hate speech and of concern, its a far cry from the lies Bachmann is telling the listener.

[Endogenous Light Nexus]

11:13 PM on 12/16/2011

Bachmann is such a walking parody of rwing loop-dee-loop extremism it's almost funny but it's scary too because there are all too many people who actually think like she does. Using "think" loosely here, but she and her kind definitely have some loose screws in their heads.

[Liteworkr]

06:31 PM on 12/16/2011

It seems at the end of the exchange that Michele realized that she sounded like a crazed attack dog.

[trconsulting]

07:44 PM on 12/17/2011

Sounded like? Realized? The latter response indicates that I believe you give Bachmann too much credit. The former response indicates that you are a master of understatement.

[Alan Ray]

03:26 PM on 12/16/2011

I'm so tired of hearing from all these pro-war jingoists. Did they forget what happened when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Now they want us to get into a war with Iran. How many other countries/empires have fallen because they stretched their military forces so thin? If these people actually cared about the U.S. they would only involve us in wars if it was absolutely necessary not because we're a "shining city on a hill" which is entitled to police the world.

[trconsulting]

07:48 PM on 12/17/2011

"Pro-war jingoists" is very creative. I prefer tergiversating, coprophagous Republican'ts. Did you know that, among her other government funded projects, Bachmann raises dung beetles? Not much upkeep required as the beetles happily feast on her table scraps.

[JenniferBridges]

03:22 PM on 12/16/2011

Dr Paul should explain his Foreign Policy As:
Is China less safe by not being all over the world fighting needless wars? China is more safe. China saves their money by buying our debt, while creating wealth within their borders. They build their military without fighting. Our #1 national security threat is debt. Nobody doubts China's military strength and everyone knows they are enslaving us with debt. We need to build our defense without war. That is how we won WWII. By coming in years after everyone was already stretched too thin with a strong fresh military. We are stretched now and less safe.

[Syllogizer]

03:19 PM on 12/16/2011

The journalist reporting this seems to have failed to notice: Ron Paul got it wrong, too. For he said, " they have no evidence that there has been enrichment."

Not true. The evidence of enrichment to 20% is open. Iran is even proud of it. The problem is that if they could do this, what could they also be doing that we do NOT know about? It only takes a few more rounds in a centrifuge to turn 20% into 90% -- perfectly usable bomb material.

So although the IAEA report does not unconditionally state that Iran could have the bomb in a few months, that IS a reasonable conclusion.

[Magic 62]

04:35 PM on 12/16/2011

The 20% UF6 is already sent to their fuel fabrication facility under IAEA and will be converted to fuel palets. No fear of of UF6 being enriched further.

Also, if we didn't want Iran to enrich to 20%, we should have sold them the fuel they needed for their medical reactor.

[Java McPhearson]

11:02 PM on 12/16/2011

Enrichment is exponentially difficult. the first 20% is easy, the next 20% is more than twice as hard, etc. Go back to school and stop stirring the pot.

[Syllogizer]

08:50 PM on 12/17/2011

No, you are the one who has it quite backwards. It is the first 20% that is hard, after that it gets easy.

[ScaningTheWaves]

02:44 PM on 12/16/2011

Ron Paul 2012 for some sanity in America

[Syllogizer]

03:20 PM on 12/16/2011

There is nothing sane about Ron Paul's insane devotion to misinterpreted history. R. Paul actually believes his fairy-tale version of Libertarianism is a historically accurate version of what the Founding Fathers were trying to set up.

[apell1992]

06:12 PM on 12/16/2011

Well let's see...our Founding Fathers hated being taxed at the extent they were being taxed, hated being overruled by a patriarchal government and wanted to empower the people with a revolution that would finally give the individual control over his own life. Pot was legal, gay marriage was legal (if you found a priest to do it), our economy was growing steadily without booms or busts (until 1913), guns were not only legal but recommended to own should we fall prey to ANOTHER tyrannical government, and we got to keep the fruits of our labor, for the most part.

You have a skewed perspective on history because this is 100% in unison with what Libertarians fight for.

[sloeoeoeoemu]

10:29 AM on 12/17/2011

You can call it whatever you want, the Founding Fathers were basically Libertarians. Still very much influenced by Christian values. but Libertarians nonetheless.

[Aisles45]

02:00 PM on 12/16/2011

Regardless of his other policies Ron Paul should be admired greatly for his courage on the issue of foreign policy. For thirty years the man has promoted peace and spoken out against unjust war all while being admonished by the right, left and the media. He may not get the proper recognition in his lifetime but time will prove him right on foreign policy.

[Syllogizer]

03:21 PM on 12/16/2011

Oh, has he? How did he speak out against unjust war in the Caucasus?

[Sam Winchester]

01:59 PM on 12/16/2011

Can someone please explain why Iran is our enemy? What did they do to us?

[Syllogizer]

03:29 PM on 12/16/2011

How could you really not know? They are our enemy because they invaded our embassy, which is an act of war. Also because they provided the sophisticated explosives and timers for suicide bombers in Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Alan Ray]

03:36 PM on 12/16/2011

-In 1953, the U.S. overthrew the government of Iran and implemented the Shah who used the SAVAK to kill, torture, and imprison thousands of Iranians with the help of the CIA. TIME magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."

-Throughout the Iran-Iraq war, the US provided Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons, along with more conventional weapons to use against Iran.

-In 1988, a USS guided missile cruiser in Iranian waters, shot down Iran Air Flight 655, which was over Iranian territorial waters and on its usual path at the time, killing 290 people.

[Magic 62]

04:39 PM on 12/16/2011

There hasn't been a suicide attack on Israel for years, and back then and in Iraq and Afghanistan suicide bombers are supported by our good friends the Saudi.

[Just logic]

12:39 PM on 12/16/2011

I somehow remember that Bachman said that she sits on some board that is privy to classified information back about 10 debates ago. I fast forward to last night’s debate and here she can’t even figure out what a non-classified document written to the world says. This is pretty enlightening. Now she wants us to vote her in to have the ability to push a button and wipe out a country. Wow this just in “Milk is white” says UN. Bachman says, I have a UN report saying that Iran is trying to poison us with white milk because were white. The proof is every American knows milk isn’t white its dark like the color of chocolate. Lets bomb them.

[Justin Tribble]

01:52 PM on 12/16/2011

Wait a minute... wait a minute... you're saying some awfully radical things here, Mr. Are ya sure you're not trying to develop a nuclear bomb? Hmm? I think you might be. In fact, I think we should just bomb your house, JUST to be sure. Can't be too safe.

[miket23]

02:14 PM on 12/16/2011

haha... amazingly, that is an awfully accurate summary of this absurd neocon inspired hawkish Iran foreign policy.

[Syllogizer]

03:23 PM on 12/16/2011

Better idea than any out of Bachmann's mouth;)

[p-junkie]

11:53 AM on 12/16/2011

War-mongers remind me of wife-beaters. Some men have to beat their wives to feel like REAL MEN...

[Will98]

12:15 PM on 12/16/2011

you are absolutely right. They beat their chests and call for murder of others to make themselves feel like real men.