Posted on 11/13/2011 5:15:53 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
Ron Paul, the outspoken libertarian congressman and Republican presidential candidate from Texas, disagreed with his fellow GOP hopefuls on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons at the CBS/National Journal debate on Saturday.
While Paul refused to rule out the possibility of war with Iran, he insisted a war would not be worthwhile and that the president should go to Congress before launching any military action.
“The only way you would do that is you would have to go to the Congress,” he said. “We as commander in chief aren’t making the decision to go to war. The old fashioned way, the Constitution, you go to the Congress and find out if our national security is threatened and I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq.”
Paul went on to say that he considered the Iraq War a “tragedy.”
Both former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were far more hawkish in their assessments of the threat posed by Iranian nuclear weapons program. Romney said “crippling sanctions” should be put into effect. If those fail to halt the nation’s weapons progress, however, Romney said military action should be considered because the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran was “unacceptable.”
“We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he said.
Gingrich said would adopt an “absolute strategic program comparable to what President Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher did to the Soviet Union” utilizing every “possible aspect short of war of breaking the [Iranian] regime and bringing it down.” He said the U.S. should also embrace covert operations “to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.”
Should covert operations and other activities fail, Gingrich said that military action should be considered. “I agree with Governor Romney,” he said. “If in the end despite all of those things, the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break the capacity to have a nuclear weapon.”
I see. You’re a dyed-in-the-wool Paulist. That explains the non sequiturs.
You’re right.
The president can just sit back and allow the country to be attacked.
Happy now?
Letters of Marque and Reprisal! GRRRRRRRRRRR...
Take those air-conditioners out of the Green Zone! THEN you’ll see the troops leave! {snarl}
Don’t build a fence on the border! It’ll keep us all IN!!
“And he is demonstrably anti-Semitic.”
Like I said, giving foreign “aid” to Israel’s sworn enemies is the truest form of Antisemitism. Ron Paul opposes it.
Further, placing demands on Israel to forfeit lands to their sworn enemies, is another true form of Antisemitism. Ron Paul also opposes these interventionist demands, as well.
So, what exactly does one have to do, in your view, to be labelled as “demonstrably anti-Semitic?”
I never said they were.
-----
It was NEVER intended to hobble a reasoned response by a POTUS to an imminent situation.
The Founders intended the executive had the peacemaking power and the legislative had the power to Declare war.
The CIC powers don't start until AFTER Congress has set everything in motion.
The CIC has NO authority to take arbitrary action....'immanent' or otherwise.
Since you've decided to blow off our conversation instead of even attempting to understand the Constitutional mechanics I'm trying to explain......
Not particularly.
I presume that INCLUDES a U.S. President’s response to a ChiCom or Soviet or Iranian “first-strike” nuclear attack ?
No. It doesn’t include those types of things that have never happened. It does include the wars we fought in Korea, Vietnam, both gulf wars, Bosnia etc. This isn’t rocket science.
If Ron Paul, crazy as a bedbug, wants to resign his American citizenship and leave the United States permanently, I volunteer to drive him to the airport!
Then lets declare war.
The next debate on Nov. 22 is supposed to focus on national security.
Ron Paul should be particularly entertaining in that one.
“The next debate on Nov. 22 is supposed to focus on national security.
Ron Paul should be particularly entertaining in that one.”
Entertaining in a trained surrender monkey kind of way.
:)
I’ll pay for the ticket to Tehran.
“Take those air-conditioners out of the Green Zone! THEN you’ll see the troops leave! {snarl}”
If we take away RuPaul’s Depends, will he leave the race ?
Just curious.
Anyone who believes the president has to sit back and allow the country to be attacked by our enemies because the congress wont act, is a left wing loon.
The constitution is not a suicide pact. If congress wont act to stop an attack that has the potential of destroying our very existence as a country, then the president can act to preserve our country.
The presidents first duty is to preserve our country regardless of what some treasonous SOB’s in congress might have to say about it.
LOLLOLLOL! Yeah, that’s me. LOL!
Anyone who thinks the federal government is the end-all and be-all of our protections is a fool.
-----
Every State has one of these provisions;
The Texas Constitution
Article 4 - EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 7 - COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF MILITARY FORCES; CALLING FORTH MILITIA
He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.
The Governors of the respective States are CICs of State forces. They would be the FIRST boots on the ground in the even of an attack..... NOT the feds.
-----
This is the extent of the federal CIC's power;
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
when called into the actual Service of the United States means just that.
Unless and until the Constitutional provisions are met, the President has no legitimate authority to take action.
We elect Presidents, not KINGS!
-----
Now...unless you have some type of Constitutional, historical or legal evidence of some kind to present in order to prove your position, I bid you good day.
I enjoy a good discussion, but this you're-wrong-because-I-say-so crap is a TOTAL waste of my time.
It's called checks and balance.
Congress simply cannot dictate to the president that he should ignore a threat to the country and allow the country to be attacked.
This isn't 1776 where the big threat was wooden ships sailing into a harbor and begin lobing cannon balls into a city.
A country a half a world away can destroy cities with the push of a button.
A hand full of members of congress do not have the authority to say we are going to allow a city to be nuked and the president can't stop it.
Because your replies to me on this thread have made zero sense, it’s an easy conclusion to draw.
It’s an easy conclusion to draw for a moron. Why don’t you try rereading your asshat post. It basically stated that I’d better watch it because I was sounding like a paul supporter. If you spoke that way to me face to face we would have danced.
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.