See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Romney, Candidate for King, Denies He Would Need Congress’s Approval for War
Source:
antiwar.com
URL Source: http://antiwar.com
Published: Jun 20, 2012
Author: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/06/18/r
Post Date: 2012-06-20 22:51:35 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 853
Comments: 35
Making the rounds is this clip of a Face the Nation interview with Mitt Romney. In it, he declares the Constitution irrelevant and argues he alone can make the decision to use military force against Iran. Putting aside for a moment the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, just consider for a moment that the Republican nominee can now openly say that as president he can make war without the consent of Congress. That’s what passes for a campaign pledge from the Grand Old Party’s leadership in 2012. Obama also believes in the president’s ability to make war on his own, despite laws mandating he seek the consent of Congress. But at least Obama does it in secret or by proxy. That said, the Obama administration, terrible as it is, has expended considerable political capital in staving off a US-Israeli war on Iran. Obama officials, from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, have been paraded in front of Congress for months emphasizing their estimate that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has demonstrated no intention to do so. Then Obama secretly contacted the Supreme Ayatollah through Turkey’s prime minister in a diplomatic fashion. He then released to the press the results of a Pentagon war simulation which demonstrated that war with Iran would result in the outbreak of a regional conflict which would be almost impossible to contain. The administration did this while getting hammered by the GOP candidates and the Israeli leadership. As Pillar has written, Iran has “ample reason” to believe, “ultimately the main Western interest is in regime change.” I believe that too. But as of right now, it appears the Obama administration views the military option as too costly. Even establishmentarian voices, like Aaron David Miller, who I’ve personally witnessed saying “a unilateral attack [on Iran] would be totally discretionary. It would be a war of choice,” not of necessity. George Perkovich of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace interjected Miller’s statement for emphasis on what an unprovoked military strike actually is, saying “it would be illegal.” Daniel Larison writes that Romney excerpts like this make it clear what kind of president he would be. “No one should have any illusions about how Romney would conduct foreign policy if he is elected,” he argues. Maybe. It’s also possible that Romney would conduct foreign policy indecipherably from Obama and is just saying this to show he is tougher and get Republicans to vote for him. Either way, watching Romney talk about foreign policy makes one thing abundantly clear: he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
#2. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
He got that idea from every sumbitch who has occupied the White House since WWII (which was the last war that Congress actually declared like the Constitution says they are supposed to if we get involved in one). Reagan waged war against a tiny little country that is probably not as big as most of our smallest states without any Congressional declaration of war. Both Bush's waged war without any congressional declaration of war, so did Clinton and so has Obama. Why would Romney not believe that if he gets to occupy the White House that he can't be king too?
But everyone of them except Obama sought Congressional approval of their proposed military action, even GW Bush. Obama now has a Congress which does NOTHING if he decides to launch wars against Libya, Syria, and Pakistan, amongst others such as the Sudan and other African hellholes. It is a very dangerous path we're on, and it's scary knowing that Obama is the more moderate choice for the next president.
I don't know what you're smoking that would cause you to believe that Obama is any kind of moderate but since it distorts reality so bad I don't believe I want any. And "seeking Congressional approval" is not the same thing as asking for, and getting, a declaration of war. All the wars/police actions/whatever you want to call them since WWII have been illegal.
So yeah, Obama is waging wars without any Congressional authorization whatsoever. BUT, as bad as THAT is, Romney will do worse than that. He'll ignite WWIII with reckless abandon in order to appease his Israeli/NWO masters. At least Obama has thus far refused to go along with that idea.
Rand Paul offers exclusive sneak preview of Obama Romney debate at the March 2011 Congressional Correspondents' Awards Dinner. 1 minute video segment. Ron Paul 2012.
And that's how just recently he showed his true colors and did another impression of Romney, this time demonstrating how Mittens flip flops on everything he says.
Not that Obama has ever flipped on any statement he's made. Well, maybe there are just a FEW exceptions. During his 2008 campaign, didn't Barack Obama promise to conduct the "most transparent administration in history"? Executive privilege, affirmed by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon, is historically limited to the president's own discussions. Obama is now extending it to his attorney general. Expanding executive secrecy contravenes Obama's promises on transparency, but it's not the first time the president has betrayed his high-minded rhetoric. (Obviously a part of Obama's war on the transparency he promised) Obama's latest excuse against probing eligibility. What's Barack Obama's latest legal excuse against probing his eligibility to serve as president? He's not the nominee of the Democratic Party. That's what his attorneys argued in a hearing today [6/18/2012] [...] At least the hearing provided an opportunity for [Larry] Klayman to argue the eligibility case in a public setting — something Obama's attorneys, the media and the political establishment seem determined to prevent at all costs. Klayman accused the Obama attorneys of playing a "shell game" and trying to put off the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated. The Enigma That Is Barack Hussein Obama, Pre-Election To 2009. [Scroll down] Obama as a freshman Senator from Illinois went on a congressional fact finding tour to Perm Siberia in Russia with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) in 2005 to verify the destruction of mobile missiles and their launchers under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (CTR). The trip was uneventful, that is, until it was time to depart the Russian military base where these inspections took place. All of a sudden, Barry and Senator Lugar were confronted and held by Russian authorities for three hours while the Russians sought permission to search the aircraft they were traveling in. Senator Lugar does not make any mention of this incident in his after-action trip report; the Chicago Tribune has a small blurb in passing on August 29, 2005. Numerous foreign news sources in Italy and other nations reveal that Barry was being held and questioned for espionage as being a spy for Britain. This is curious behavior from the Russians because the Cold War ended in 1991, and our nations have more to gain with mutual cooperation than hostility towards each other. Who is Barack Obama? As usual, when Obama is the subject, Americans can't count on the progressives in the Corporate Mainstream Media (CMM) for much help. [...] What happened next — after the inspections were over — was at the time reported by several foreign news sources but was never reported in the USA by the CMM. The Russians detained Obama and Lugar for three hours at the airport, demanding to examine both Obama's and Lugar's passports and search their plane. Some sources reported that the Russians accused Barack Obama of being a spy. But wait — there's more! According to an Italian source, the Russians did not accuse Obama of being an American spy; they accused him of being a spy for the British! The report went on to say that the incident ended up involving the White House, the U.S. State Department, and military officials, along with their counterparts in Moscow. Strangely enough, an official report from Lugar's office about the trip never mentioned the incident. Sealed records Who Is Barack Obama? The Question that Won't Go Away. Alternative sources of information are much more potent now than they were in 2008. It matters not if The New York Times closes ranks and buries a story. There are too many other instruments of disinterment. The news will out. And the more people know about Barack Obama, the more, I predict, they will wonder how this man became president of the United States. More at www.akdart.com/obama41.html
What it comes down to James, is whether or not you and your family are ready for nuclear Armageddon. Romney promises to start WWIII. At least Obama has resisted Israeli efforts to do so. It's a matter of whether you would rather have Stalin or Hitler as your president. You're screwed either way.
I don't want either one of the sob's and I can't imagine why anyone would talk either one of them up. People who are reasonably sane don't "prefer" communists or fascists to run the government or even to be the front men for those who do.
So what do you suggest? What real options do we have, other than just giving up and not voting at all, or voting for some 3rd party candidate who has zero chance of being elected?
Well, how do you propose that you (and the rest of us) get what we do want, or say we want, if people like you keep voting for what they claim they don't want? I say "people like you" because I damned sure ain't the problem, I don't vote for scumbags like Obama and Romney. And from your posts it sounds like you are going to vote for the Kenyan even though you must know he is not even eligible.
As I said yesterday, I plan on voting 3rd party, but if there's any chance of Romney getting elected, I may consider voting for the Kenyan for the simple reason I don't wish to see WWIII quite yet.
Even though I consider the mexican much more dangerous to the world than the kenyan, I'll vote L again this year. And then I'll wash my hands forever of national politics.
#33. To: Lod (#32)
Our country is pretty much finished, where every good thing about it has been crushed and our reputation across the world tarnished beyond repair. There was a day when people had higher principles and values, where even though politicians were most likely crooked, at least they'd publically follow the law in order to avoid impeachment or prison. Nowadays they get away with outright criminal actions and nobody even blinks about it anymore.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestPutting aside for a moment the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, just consider for a moment that the Republican nominee can now openly say that as president he can make war without the consent of Congress. That’s what passes for a campaign pledge from the Grand Old Party’s leadership in 2012.
#14. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
He got that idea from every sumbitch who has occupied the White House since WWII (which was the last war that Congress actually declared like the Constitution says they are supposed to if we get involved in one).
#15. To: FormerLurker (#14)
It is a very dangerous path we're on, and it's scary knowing that Obama is the more moderate choice for the next president.
#17. To: James Deffenbach (#15)
#19. To: FormerLurker (#17)
#22. To: GreyLmist (#19)
Rand Paul offers exclusive sneak preview of Obama Romney debate
#23. To: FormerLurker (#22)
And that's how just recently he showed his true colors and did another impression of Romney, this time demonstrating how Mittens flip flops on everything he says.
#24. To: James Deffenbach (#23)
(Edited)
#25. To: FormerLurker (#24)
It's a matter of whether you would rather have Stalin or Hitler as your president. You're screwed either way.
#28. To: James Deffenbach (#25)
People who are reasonably sane don't "prefer" communists or fascists to run the government or even to be the front men for those who do.
#30. To: FormerLurker (#28)
So what do you suggest? What real options do we have, other than just giving up and not voting at all, or voting for some 3rd party candidate who has zero chance of being elected?
#31. To: James Deffenbach (#30)
#32. To: FormerLurker, 4 (#31)
Replies to Comment # 32.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.