'Course I'm biased but my favorite moment from yesterday's GOP debate was definitely when Dr. Paul took Romney to task over this evasive answer Paul later said the answer "outraged" him, which is clear from his reply (go to 1:45).
The question, essentially, is whether the president needs Congressional approval before he/she can start a war. (If you're new to this country, or a neocon, the answer is -- without hesitation or ambiguity of any sort -- "yes". There are even some who contend that the President is not allowed to start wars at all, and only has a mandate to use the military for defensive purposes, but that's a question for later, I guess).
Mitt's line is essentially "maybe, maybe not; these are intricate matters that should be left to lawyers and stuff" (not an exact quote).
Dr. Paul, who has evidently read the Constitution at least once, confesses to being "baffled" by this answer. I -- apparently -- am smarter than Dr. Paul, because I was not baffled.
Mitt's answer is perfectly in keeping with an unpleasant fact:
When it comes to the use of military power, America is not a Republic under the rule of law expressed in a Constitution. It is basically a plutocracy in which powerful interests wage any wars they see fit. They will often talk with their lawyers about how to articulate some sort of justification for them, but just as often they will simply conceal the intervention.
I hope the comments at HoffPo are correct, and that this idiocy cost Mr. Romney any chance at election. I also hope other candidates (in addition to Paul) start acknowledging *some limits -- *any limits -- on executive power.
So Mitt Romney is now Mitt "Double Gitmo/War Without Congress" Romney.
ReplyDeleteYep, he's really improved his chances there.
sadly, in our day and age, this kind of attitude is seen as courage. the plutocracy has done a very good job keeping the specter of terrorism about, so people are comforted by this idea.
ReplyDelete