Republican Debate- Iran and Iraq

10/09/07
Romney sits down with his attorneys at the 4:50 mark.

http://petulantweb.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Debate
• Iran
• Republican

[scj16]

"Those who would give up their liberty for a little temporary safety, derserve neither liberty nor safety."

(Benjamin Franklin)

[scj16]

People freakin read the Constitution! That is our country! The only time the prez has bombing authority is if a nuke is heading toward us in the air-otherwise you go to congress. Do what JFK did in the Cuban missle crisis! And why are we talking about bombing nukes that we "THINK" are there? My country is going down the drain.

[InYourMomsBox]

@rmccay88 oh yes it was. truly disturbing to see all of them so eager to engage in preemptive war against Iran.

[rmccay88]

God this entire clip was frighting with the exception of when Paul was talking. It shows that all those bozo's would break whatever laws they wanted too as long as it is under the slogan of "protecting us."

[jj3205]

Get the lawyers, my goodness. And this idiot Romeny, will get the Republican nomination in 2012.

[chunstiger]

Consult the attorney's indeed Mitt Romney... Good Grief are these guys clueless except Ron Paul again. Hey dipshits we elect representatives to represent us in congress. The president has to ask their permission to go to war. I can't even beleive how spot on Ron Paul is again.

[junkbx3r]

Huckabee, step off you unilateralist twat.

"we know they got a thousand centrifuges"

But he DOESN'T mention that you need something like fifty thousand centrifuges running 24/7 to pump out sufficient amounts of uranium hexafluouride in the cascade in a decent amount of time. He also didn't mention that the uranium Iran has access to tends to have a lot of cobalt in it and tends to wreck their secondhand RUSSIAN centrifuges.

Skirting the real issue, as usual.

[LaMouleQuiCoule]

Mike Hucacabee is such a fucking douche bag, empty rethoric, no convictions whatsoever

[css58]

now this is not to say I agree w/ our action in Iraq. but if you are going to rail against it, at least dont do so with horribly ignorant arguments

[css58]

Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution -- which refers to the president as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" -- has been interpreted to mean that the president may act with an essentially free hand in foreign affairs, or at the very least that he may send men into battle without consulting Congress.

[css58]

Supreme court precedent and past presidential action established that the Const. does not require the president to go to Congress before bombing. Congress must authorize war, but we are not technically at war. All you people who scream READ THE CONST are ignorant. the const cannot be read in isolation. the const is interpret in light of past precedent.