Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval
rdmatheny
2012/06/18 18:11:16
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
28% | |||
|
2 votes
|
|
5% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
28% | |||
Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval
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. Romney stated.
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.
Read More: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/0...
Top Opinion
-
DeeB 2012/06/18 20:23:56All of the above
+10Now will the neocons get the big picture of what they are going to vote for? I can't understand how the Obama freaks are giving the usurper a pass on everything he has done to us, but for the republicans to actually elect Obamas equal or even worse,is simply mind boggling. The insanity is just endless. Hello, is anyone out there with a functional brain? RON PAUL needs to win that seat so we may rid ourselves of all the psychopaths.
"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."
Where does it say he'd bypass Congress? Under the War Powers act, the President has 90 days to get Congressional approval or withdraw.
-----------------------------...
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 reaso...
-----------------------------...
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
yeah yeah its youtube, but you can also find the movie documentary on netflix. the youtube video is just a bootlegged copy. I hope you take the time to watch mwg.
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action, and again when troops entered Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Did he say 'wage war' or 'kinetic military action'?
He didn't use either term.
But President Obama used the term 'kinetic military action' for this and everyone seemed to buy in.
What is it about a Republican President that proposes the same thing but suddenly it's considered 'waging war'?
Doug Mataconis 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.
That would be a fail for you.
Just saying.
You say there is "no proof" what do YOU consider as proof? A nuclear explosion?