Michael Waltz: “I find this interesting and sad. Since the last time we were here, for all the handwringing, all of the hues and cries…”

“I find this interesting and sad. Since the last time we were here, for all the handwringing, all of the hues and cries that the President was taking us to the brink of war, that he was a warmonger, that this was so reckless as we are still hearing today, well, what has actually happened? The problem with my colleague's argument is that it flies in the face of what is actually happened in the Middle East. What has happened is deterrence has been restored. It is relatively peaceful at this point. I say, ``relatively.'' The fact is that we don't have thousands of boots on the ground in Teheran or in Iran. What we all know who have actually fought against the Quds Force and fought against the Iranians is they are deterred by strength and emboldened by weakness. So this bill seeks to restrain the President, who has shown incredible restraint. Did he respond to the attacks on international shipping? No. Did he respond to attacks on world energy supplies? No. Did he respond to the attack on an American drone? No. Only after another American was killed--yet another American was killed--and our Embassy was attacked did he finally respond. And what did he do? A limited, proportional, targeted strike in Iraq--not Iran-- that had zero civilian casualties. And every American, from the lowest private to the Commander in Chief, has the right to self-defense. It was his duty. It was the President's duty as Commander in Chief to stop the Iranian escalation and to respond.…”