Mitt Romney 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
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.

 

[Lucille]

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.

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 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 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.

 

[JohnAshman]

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

Yeah, that must be it

 

[James Madison]

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

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

 

[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.