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 arent 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 Im afraid whats 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 nations 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.
congress declares it. but the commander and chief can start it.
See the war powers act.
I agree with Paul on this one. We’ve had to many presidents sending too many troops to war without a declarationn.
I agree with paul 100 percent on this. Let all the people go on record before we attack anyone.
“How come Paul seems to be the only candidate who stresses that it is Congress which declares war. I thought conservatives were supposed to respect the Constitution. In the old days they did. “
************************
The way things are...we can count ourselves fortunate we have one!
Semper Watching!
*****
Following the USC is crazy?
The president has the power to strike. After so many days, he must cease military action unless congress declares war.
Constitutionally speaking, how things actually happen are another matter all together.
Why should we worry. Obama is presidential and he will never attack Iran.
I will see pigs fly first
I know about the War Powers act and all of the twisting and turning that has been done since in order to give the president the power of an emperor. I do not agree with it as it is usually employed. Like Libya, for instance.
The idea that the President can begin a war without the Congress first declaring one is a perversion of the US Constitution.
Constitutionally speaking, how things actually happen are another matter all together.
Any act that isn’t authorized by the Constitution is illegal and the actor is a criminal.
I don’t think war with Iran should be decided by one person.
There are some things Paul is right on.
I guess it won’t be a sneak attack, then. What the good doctor doesn’t understand or recognize is that a pre-emptive defensive attack on Achmendidahanjob’s ILLEGAL nuclear arms program is not the same as declaring war on Iran. The president can legally act in this way to protect our nation and it’s strategic interests. He or She can only do it for a short period without congressional approval, however, unlike Barry’s outrageously illegal action in Libya, for which he should be prosecuted. Save the flame, folks, Reagan backed the War Powers Act.
I agree, but we all know that the constitution has been pushed to the side, now don’t we?
Ron Paul focused on the procedure, not the policy.
Of course Congress has to approve military action. That wasn’t the point of the question. Any POTUS can and will make his case for war in front of Congress before going to war. But Ron Paul made it a point to focus on the procedure.
Sort of like your wife asking you if you plan to go to the store on your way home from work, and you replying, “I plan to make a full stop at the stop sign at the corner of Main and Maple before proceeding through the intersection!”
The U.S. Constitution has been perverted so many times by this occupier of the Whate House that one more or less won’t matter.
End of the day, one must do what must be done. Glad the lead up to any upcoming events is not in the name of democracy, humanitarian aid, or similar nonsense we heard regarding Libya, for example. We are all paying for Carter et al's myopic & dumb decisions of supporting the 'revolution' & Khomeini 32 yrs ago in Iran. Learning from history & not replacing the current regime in Iran w/ an "Islamic-lite" one, hopefully, will be part of the lesson. But, somehow, I don't think so.
The concept has a major fallacy. It assumes the President will make war with Iran. Since he will do nothing, the whine is irrelevant on it’s face
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.