cheapseats
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
Mitt Romney Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval
- Thread starter Lucille
- Start date
cheapseats
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
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).
Last edited:
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
DerailingDaTrain
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,738
Yeah, that must be it
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2007
- Messages
- 231
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
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2010
- Messages
- 11,108
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
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
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 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.
Last edited:
TheGrinch
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,995
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
COpatriot
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,838
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 766
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.
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress’ Approval
http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constit...d-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/
Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...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.
http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constit...d-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/
Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...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.
Similar threads
