Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Romney Will Give Americans Another War.

Image found at 3chicspolitico.com

It's no secret that the majority of Americans did not look favorably on our war with Iraq, or with the president that took us into that mess.  So why would anybody advocate another war with a country that has not provoked us?  At this point in time, it's a good way to commit political suicide.  

Enter Mitt Romney,  Someone forgot to plug him in the another night to recharge, apparently forcing a system-wide reboot.  A few flips weren't saved, so they flopped.  It was quite the disaster for his management team.

In an interview with Face The Nation's Bob Schieffer, Romney advocate bypassing Congressional authority if need be to attack Iran.  Here's the snippet (emphasis mine):

SCHIEFFER: Let me turn to foreign policy. Bill Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard this week, says we are reaching the time of consequence in our dealing with Iran on nuclear weapons. He says it is time for the President to go to the Congress and say, “I want you to authorize me to be able to use military force” if that becomes necessary. And he says if the President is not willing to do that, then the Congress should do it themselves. What’s your take on that?

ROMNEY: Well, I can understand the reason for his recommendation and his concern. I think he’s recognized that this president has communicated that in some respects, well, he might even be more worried about Israel taking direct military action than he is about Iran becoming nuclear. That’s the opinion of some who watch this. And so he wants the President to take action that shows that a military Iran, that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

And I believe it’s important for us to communicate that. 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 would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions. All those actions must be on the table.

See that?  Romney just showed us how little he understands the office of the president, or the powers that the POTUS has.  The president most certainly does not have that capacity now, although most on the Right argue that "our" war with Libya proved that he does.  I wrote about this exactly a year ago (found here), but here's an excerpt from that post arguing why Obama was justified in attacking Libya:

"The War Powers Act of 1973 is, essentially, unconstitutional to begin with, as it took away the executive branch's power to declare war and placed it under the control of the legislative branch.  While I agree that the legislative branch should have some control over whether or not the U.S. goes to war (it does or should, after all, represent we the people), it shouldn't have the last say in it.  That is the commander-in-chief's job.

"Here's a quote from the War Power's Act: "SEC. 8. (b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date."

"In other words, any treaty signed before 1973 does not adhere to the War Power's Act.  NATO was founded in the 1940's...

"And that's just on our side of the line.  NATO requires the involvement of all its members when something like this goes down.  If the U.S. were to pull out of the Libyan conflict now, how would that look to our 25 allies?  Pretty shitty, I'd imagine.  

Ten years down the road, if we were to be invaded, maybe those 25 countries will decide that it "unconstitutional" for their armies to come to our aid."

And just for some added spice (I do love proving a good point), here's a chart showing the difference between Iraq and Libya:

Image found at ThinkProgress
Romney is not saying that a war with Iran would be supported by our allies.  He is saying that, as president, he would (if necessary) circumvent the authority of Congress and invade Iran without assistance from other countries, creating a war that would spark anti-American sentiment around the world.  I don't think I need to get into how many lives would be lost, how much the cost of oil would skyrocket, or how angry the American people would be with the federal government if Romney's war came to pass. 

What pisses me off is that no one is calling Romney on his shit.  Why?  Look at all of the heat Obama generated from participating in a very successful invasion of Libya.  Sure, Romney isn't the president now, but there are enough stupid mouth breathers in this country that are willing to elect him come November. 

Will America speak up by then?  Or will it be too late?  Hold no illusions, folks.  A Romney presidency will be a violent presidency.  There's a reason why people are comparing him to that toddler-in-a-suit President Bush - they're a whole lot alike.

No comments: