Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval

[Lucille]

I guess he asked his lawyers and got the A-OK. Or maybe he doesn't need to even do that anymore, since Obama set the precedent.

Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/mitt-romney-says-he-could-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/258607/)
Like President Obama, he proposes circumventing the Constitution. What will his anti-war endorser Senator Rand Paul say?


On Face the Nation on Sunday, Mitt Romney said that if elected president he wouldn't have to get congressional permission for a military strike on Iran.
[...]

I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions.

All those actions must be on the table.

If a President Romney waged war without Congressional approval, it would be the first time a sitting president violated the Constitution's separation of powers and the War Powers Resolution since President Obama did it in Libya.

Says Daniel Larison:


The United States survived decades of containing Soviet power. America outlasted what may have been the greatest security threat in our history partly because of a policy of containment. Iran is far weaker than any threat the USSR ever posed. If the U.S. could not survive a nuclear-armed Iran, a President Romney would be powerless to change that. On the other hand, back in the real world, if the U.S. has little to fear from a nuclear-armed Iran and is more than capable of deterring any threat from Iran, there is no reason to listen to anything Romney has to say on this subject.

Romney obviously does not believe war is a last resort, and he clearly doesn't believe that the Congress has anything to say about attacking Iran. According to Romney, it is something that the president could do tomorrow if he believed it necessary. The Constitution is completely irrelevant to Romney, and so is the consent of the American people expressed through its representatives. No one should have any illusions about how Romney would conduct foreign policy if he is elected.

More at the link.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Restrained Romney, everyone.

[jkr]

fucking TRAITOR!

and they want us to vote for this garbage?!?!?!

K.M.A.


NOBP!

[schiffheadbaby]

Does Randy Paul endorse this too ?

[Brian4Liberty]

It's the teo-con version of following the Constitution. "Commander in Chief" means the President can attack anyone. :rolleyes:

[Lucille]

Doug Mataconis (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitt-romney-has-some-very-disturbing-opinions-on-presidential-war-powers/) says it's even worse than Obama's Libya actions.


If anything this an even more brazen thumb in the eye of Separation of Powers and Congressional War Powers than Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya, which was limited mostly to Americans acting in a support role while the British and French conducted most of the combat operations. What Romney is saying is that he, as President, to decide on his own to commit and act of war on behalf of the United States that nearly every analyst who has looked at the issue concludes poses an extremely high risk of exploding into a wider regional war and/or inspiring acts of terrorism against the United States, Israel, and American interests abroad. Economically, the consequences of such a decision could be catastrophic if it results in the explosion in oil prices that most experts in that field expect would come out of any attack against Iran. And Romney believes that, under the Constitution, he would be perfectly free to make the decision to take that down that road all by himself.
[...]
He’s essentially claimed the powers of a dictator, and someone needs to ask him why in the world he thinks an American President should ever have such power.

From where I sit, the American people want a dictator. AF has also been right all along: Americans don't want to be free.

[James Madison]

The draft-dodger-in-chief Mitt Romney is too important to risk his life in pursuit of American hegemony. Thankfully, you aren't important so you'll do.

[James Madison]

Doug Mataconis (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitt-romney-has-some-very-disturbing-opinions-on-presidential-war-powers/) says it's even worse than Obama's Libya actions.



From where I sit, the American people want a dictator. AF has also been right all along: Americans don't want to be free.

Humans are designed to seek approval from a supreme authority figure, which manifests as the state. The more powerful the state becomes, the more people will seek its approval.

[JohnAshman]

We are raised by dictators. Our parents. It is difficult to get off of that. It is also a difficult to break habit to want to control others in retaliation for being controlled all of our lives.

[specsaregood]

If a President Romney waged war without Congressional approval, it would be the first time a sitting president violated the Constitution's separation of powers and the War Powers Resolution since President Obama did it in Libya.

Really?! all that time since obama did it in libya? If romney did it, it would be the first time a president did it since obama? you don't say!

[NIU Students for Liberty]

But I thought Rand said that Mitt was coming to our side regarding foreign policy...

[angelatc]

Doug Mataconis (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitt-romney-has-some-very-disturbing-opinions-on-presidential-war-powers/) says it's even worse than Obama's Libya actions.



From where I sit, the American people want a dictator. AF has also been right all along: Americans don't want to be free.

Absolutely agree with that.

[WhistlinDave]

Hasn't every president for about the last 30 years been authorizing military actions that constitute acts of war without Congress?

I think where they get around Congress is by claiming there is an "imminent threat" to the United States, although that's quite a stretch of the imagination in most cases.

I think if either Romney or Obama wins in November, war with Iran is inevitable. The writing is on the wall and both of them have sharpie markers in their hands.

Why do they want the nuke? Because they've noticed that everyone we try to "spread democracy" to (i.e. wage war upon) doesn't have the bomb. If Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons it is because the U.S., with our preemptive bully foreign policy, has directly caused them to want the bomb so we'll leave them the hell alone. If I was in charge of any foreign country, with the way the U.S. has been acting, I would be trying to develop nukes too!!

If Iran gets the nuke and actually uses it against Israel, then Israel will fire their nukes at Iran and vaporize them. Iran knows this. I don't think they would cause the complete destruction of their entire nation just to take down Israel. They simply want the nuke so the U.S. will stay the hell out of their country and out of their business.

Just my opinion.

[phill4paul]

But I thought Rand said that Mitt was coming to our side regarding foreign policy...

It's incremental. ;)

[DerailingDaTrain]

We are raised by dictators. Our parents. It is difficult to get off of that. It is also a difficult to break habit to want to control others in retaliation for being controlled all of our lives.

Sounds like someone is still pissed they couldn't stay up eating junk food and watching TV all night. :rolleyes:

[JohnAshman]

Sounds like someone is still pissed they couldn't stay up eating junk food and watching TV all night. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that must be it :rolleyes:

[James Madison]

Sounds like someone is still pissed they couldn't stay up eating junk food and watching TV all night. :rolleyes:

I don't know about you but that sounds like an awesome childhood!:D

[RickyJ]

Iran is no threat, and has been peaceful to us since 1980.

Everyone knows they aren't developing nuclear weapons or we would have proof of it, and we have none. Iran is not so closed off a society that we don't have spies there, how do you think those viruses got on their nuclear enrichment computers? It wasn't the Internet, they had no connection with the Internet. We had someone inside there working for us! We know everything about their nuclear program and yet no proof emerges that they are even trying to build a nuclear bomb.

There has to be some other real motive for wanting to attack Iran, and it isn't just Israel either. Israel is not really concerned about Iran with their stock pile of nukes. Iran appears to be a target precisely because they are a nation that sits on a ton of oil. And it is not really their supply of oil so much but what they are trading for it, anything but dollars! The petro-dollar could bite the dust if other oil producing nations do as Iran is doing, and if it bites the dust so does what is left of the US economy.

But even though that is at least some motive to attack Iran, it is not the real reason the elite want to attack Iran. The real reason is to purposely start WW3. These are mad men that want to rule the whole world and reduce the world's population down to 500 million so they can better control the serfs and keep them in line. They know Russia and China are allies with Iran. They also know Pakistan would side with Iran in a war against the USA, especially since Pakistan explicitly said they would recently. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. This "little" war with Iran could quickly escalate into a much larger war.

[cheapseats]

But I thought Rand said that Mitt was coming to our side regarding foreign policy...


"Responsible...NOT reckless, NOT rash...mature," that's what Rand said.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/rand_paul_endorses_mitt_romney_on_hannity.html


HANNITY: "You are very well-loved in the Tea Party Movement. Will you go out on the campaign trail for Governor Romney?"

RAND: Yes. And I think I can be an asset in solidifying the conservative base of the party. But I also think that myself, my father, and the Moovement that he started attracts a lot of Independents also. So, a lot of these young people aren't necessarily the conservative base. . . . I came away from it feeling that he will be a very responsible Commander-in-Chief. I don't think he'll be reckless, I don't think he'll be rash. And I think that he realizes and believes as I do that war is a last resort, and something that we don't rush willy-nilly into, and I came away feeling that he'll have mature attitude and beliefs toward foreign policy."

HANNITY: "Alright, Rand Paul. I think that's a big endorsement coming from you, and we'll be looking for you out on the campaign trail. And, as always, thank you for being with us."

PAUL: Thanks, Sean.

[James Madison]

But even though that is at least some motive to attack Iran, it is not the real reason the elite want to attack Iran. The real reason is to purposely start WW3. These are mad men that want to rule the whole world and reduce the world's population down to 500 million so they can better control the serfs and keep them in line. They know Russia and China are allies with Iran. They also know Pakistan would side with Iran in a war against the USA, especially since Pakistan explicitly said they would recently. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. This "little" war with Iran could quickly escalate into a much larger war.

Don't forget about the Indians. They have nukes, don't like the Pakistanis, and can put a 100,000,000 man army on the ground if necessary.

[cheapseats]

But I thought Rand said that Mitt was coming to our side regarding foreign policy...



It's incremental. ;)


Evolving.

[cheapseats]

I think if either Romney or Obama wins in November, war with Iran is inevitable.


Gary Johnson is CLEARLY lesser of evils in November 2012, if he is up against Obama and Romney.

I find that the only people who argue otherwise are NOBP Ostriches, HASTEN THE COLLAPSE Schemers, OBAMA REELECTION PAVES WAY FOR RAND IN 2016 Dreamers, and the USUSAL SUSPECTS (Controllers & Controlled).

[LibertyEagle]

I guess he asked his lawyers and got the A-OK. Or maybe he doesn't need to even do that anymore, since Obama set the precedent.

Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/mitt-romney-says-he-could-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/258607/)
Like President Obama, he proposes circumventing the Constitution. What will his anti-war endorser Senator Rand Paul say?


More at the link.

Yeah, that's looking pretty bad alright. :(

[DerailingDaTrain]

Yeah, that must be it :rolleyes:

I'm sure whatever your "dictator parents" did to you it was for your own good.

YoungJA: Awww dad I don't want to go to school today! You're such a dictator! *slams door*

[BrooklynZoo]

So by referencing precedent (Libya) as justification for Presidential war powers, Romney is essentially saying, "Two wrongs make a right." Not only is this logically wrong, it's morally atrocious. Why does no one call him out on this? And why does no one ask him when exactly Iran ever started a war with anyone? The "wipe Israel off the map" comment would probably be referenced, and should immediately be debunked by any reporter worth his salt with the proper translation, "The regime in Israel shall vanish from the page of time." Isn't there a big difference between saying you're going to wipe someone off the map, or essentially stating that in time, no one will remember their corrupt government? At no time has Israel been threatened by Iran. In fact, Iran hasn't threatened anyone with pre-emptive war. Only the United States has.

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm sure whatever your "dictator parents" did to you it was for your own good.

YoungJA: Awww dad I don't want to go to school today! You're such a dictator! *slams door*

Parents are responsible for their children, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Parents are not a government.

As for Romney, fuck him and any all horses he rode in on.

[cheapseats]

Parents are responsible for their children, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Parents are not a government.

Ask fisharmor if Family is a Democracy.

PLATO held that parents bear some culpability for the actions of their offspring, so long as both should live.

I am inclined to agree, but not absolutely . . . in the manner of a Politician or a Parent or an Investor. HEDGING BETS = CONSERVATIVE.

[ARBITRAGING = SOMETHING ELSE, but I digress.]

Some people AIN'T RIGHT from the get-go. Some people are born with physical malformations, and some people's HARD-WIRING is wrongly crossed. Take it up with God.

Some people's CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY clearly do not trace to Nurture. Everything is fine, good and better, then someone/something goes BERZERK. Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome among Soldiers, by way of obvious example.

But "generally speaking", I'm with George Carlin: GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.




As for Romney, fuck him and any all horses he rode in on.

AS A SPECTATOR, I never saw Ann Romney as anything but grounded, gracious and sincere. REALLY sincere, in a STEPFORD kinda way. Even so (or maybe ESPECIALLY for that reason, I discerned/judged her to be more "FIRST LADYLIKE" than, say, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But since you mention HORSES and broadcast DISDAIN, you have gotta gotta find the "news" clip wherein Ann Romney PROMPTLY TUNES OUT THE REPORTER/QUESTIONS the instant her eyes land on something off-camera. Y'know how Candidates will seem to lovingly &/or thankfully acknowledge a particular-but-unknown someone in the crowd? They point and mouth THANK YOU...maybe WINK, like Sarah Palin...maybe extend applause AT the mystery Supporter, maybe clasp their hands over their own heart...whatever, a GESTURE.

Ann Romney suddenly betrays mid-interview preoccupation with something off-camera...first MISSING the quote-unquote Reporter's question, then giving a canned uh-huh answer when the softball question was repeated. Aaaah, at last, the object of her attention...a HORSE.

Not any old horse...a well-bred, well-kept DESIGNER horse. The kind that come with OFFICIAL PAPERS, and command HIGH PRICES.

The interview was in a fancy-schmancy stable that is OUTTA TOUCH with real-time ground conditions of American Cowboys, Ranchers and Farmers.

[TheGrinch]

Does Randy Paul endorse this too ?
No actually he doesn't, so maybe y'all can cut out the Rand bashing until this all plays out. See link below:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381190-Rand-Paul-responds-to-Romney-comments-on-attacking-Iran-without-congressional-approval

[Vanilluxe]

So if US is in war with Iran, will Canada accept me? At least working as a mountie is better than being drafted to a war of attrition, right? ;)

[COpatriot]

So if US is in war with Iran, will Canada accept me? At least working as a mountie is better than being drafted to a war of attrition, right? ;)

If I were ever to be drafted, I think that's where I would go.

[Vanilluxe]

If I were ever to be drafted, I think that's where I would go.

Well, since you are young enough to be drafted, I heard the Canadian gov. is generous in pension plans if you pledge to the maple flag and join up the mounties.

[HOLLYWOOD]

fucking TRAITOR!

and they want us to vote for this garbage?!?!?!

K.M.A.


NOBP!Nah... Romney's a fuckin puppet, like Obama, like W. Bush, Clinton, Daddy Bush, etc etc... the Money Masters/Reptilians control their marionettes quite well.

[RonRules]

http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/mitt-romney-says-he-could-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/

Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/mitt-romney-says-he-could-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/258607/

Like President Obama, he proposes circumventing the Constitution. What will his anti-war endorser Senator Rand Paul say?


On Face the Nation on Sunday, Mitt Romney said that if elected president he wouldn't have to get congressional permission for a military strike on Iran.

To quote him directly (emphasis added):

I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions.

All those actions must be on the table.

If a President Romney waged war without Congressional approval, it would be the first time a sitting president violated the Constitution's separation of powers and the War Powers Resolution since President Obama did it in Libya.

Says Daniel Larison:


The United States survived decades of containing Soviet power. America outlasted what may have been the greatest security threat in our history partly because of a policy of containment. Iran is far weaker than any threat the USSR ever posed. If the U.S. could not survive a nuclear-armed Iran, a President Romney would be powerless to change that. On the other hand, back in the real world, if the U.S. has little to fear from a nuclear-armed Iran and is more than capable of deterring any threat from Iran, there is no reason to listen to anything Romney has to say on this subject.

Romney obviously does not believe war is a last resort, and he clearly doesn't believe that the Congress has anything to say about attacking Iran. According to Romney, it is something that the president could do tomorrow if he believed it necessary. The Constitution is completely irrelevant to Romney, and so is the consent of the American people expressed through its representatives. No one should have any illusions about how Romney would conduct foreign policy if he is elected.
This puts Senator Rand Paul in an interesting position. At the end of March, he was doing his best to preemptively assert that an attack on Iran or Syria must involve congressional approval, per the Constitution.

As Paul put it on the Senate floor:
Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the Executive. They were quite concerned that the Executive could become like a king. Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran. We don't just send boots to war. We send our young Americans to war. Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate. Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates. That the Executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the Legislature.

He has since endorsed Mitt Romney for the presidency, for which he's already gotten all kinds of grief from libertarians.

It's going to get worse.

[jkr]

got first strike?