Posted on 06/20/2012 6:59:50 PM PDT by Mozilla
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
And the Muslim Brotherhood increases its influence in the middle east. I guess you must be waiting for the 12th Imam
Not of the full Congress... he did meet first with Congressional leaders from both parties, though.
Mittens has a tin ear. If he gets in and tries to act like Obama, we will probably be able to impeach him for violating the constitution.
well maybe he was and that part is fine since Obama hasn’t done squat on Iran except maybe encourage them.
What is not fine is going to war with Iran or any country without congressional approval. Emergency action where time is of the essence is one thing but this deal with Iran has been going on for many, many years. There is absolutely no excuse for not getting a declaration of war in this case if that is what is desired.
Israel should lead the way, that is for sure.
As fox hole sand bags?
brilliant....but we don't send anyone anywhere...they all volunteer....get over it, Romney will be the next president and will win re-election
Is there some reason why the other country can’t defend itself? I support protecting our allies, but we don’t have to fight their wars for them.
Romney should get approval from Congress first. It is in the constitution.
For what? A draw, a loss, and the verdict is still out on the latest two - OIF and OEF.
And here we have yet another Neo-con boasting how he will bypass Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution once again.
Words simply escape me - that can be posted under Jim's guide lines anyway!
If it wasn’t posted here you wouldn’t have anything to bitch about. Then what would you do?
The same reasoning, given the circumstances at the time, could also be applied to non-state actors (such as Al-Qaeda). Of course, pirates (at the time), like the Islamo-fascist terrorists we face today, were considered to be "outside the law", and all rules applicable to State actors (other Nations) could be disregarded. Like shooting a rabid dog....
Oh boy, here we go :-(
But you said “But NOTHING without Congressional consent”. That is not the same thing as meeting first with Congressional leaders. So if Romney called Boehner and McConnell first it wouldf be okay? You are intellectually dishonest to bash Romney.
Errata: So if Romney called Boehner and McConnell first it would be okay? You are being intellectually dishonest to bash Romney.
How`s that equate to “bashing” Romney?
Another point.. we here in FR bitched left and right that 0bama didn`t seek Congressional approval for the Libya attacks. So it would be intellectually dishonest not to hold the GOP to the same standard.
Go back and re-read what Romney said against what was reported by the Atlantic. The Atlantic implied something different as to what Romney said. The Romney-haters here ignored the obvious intentional distortion by the Atlantic to bash Romney. If Romney were to use the military a full air, naval, and ground attack on Iran, or a sustained air war, I would expect, that he would seek Congressional approval. However, if he were use limited air strikes, then, as Reagan did, I would expect some sort Congressional notification.
What 0bama did in Libya is not the same thing as what Reagan did. Sustained air attacks is not the same thing as a retaliation for the LeBelle disco bombing. Again, you are distorting the issue to bash Romney. Freepers bashed 0bama for being a hypocrite over the War Powers act. The 0bama administration never acknowledged it application to the situation in Libya and never sought to abide by it. That is the issue.
The US fought three wars, the Quasi-War with France and the two Barbary Wars, under the presidencies of Adams, Jefferson and Madison. Three presidents we can assume were familiar with and supportive of the Constitution. Madison being commonly referred to as “the father of the Constitution.”
We never declared war on France or on the Barbary powers.
The president cannot wage war, at least not for long, without Congress authorizing the necessary funds. Their doing so constitutes the functional equivalent of Congress agreeing to the waging of the war.
It also allows Congressmen to try to weasel out of responsibility if the war does not go swimmingly, a major consideration for most of them, the careerist cowards.
The common meme you are referencing is that the “non-declared” wars is a recent, since WWII, issue associated with the UN. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We were involved in many more wars and police actions in the 19th century than in the 20th, with only three of the 19th century wars being formally declared by Congress.
None of which is to say that our getting involved in future wars, particularly in the Middle East, is a good idea. Only that the notion that until recently only Congress could authorize the use of force is not historically accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.