One Republican candidate openly declares a dictatorship

[kpete]

October 10, 2007
The only debate news came after the debate: One Republican candidate openly declares a dictatorship

........................

The only worthwhile moment came from the lips of Ron Paul, who audaciously noted that only Congress can declare war. This, of course, did not sit well with Rudy, who can't seem to distinguish between "19 thugs," as Paul correctly called them, and nation-state threats.


But an even better and far more Republican-defining moment came later on MSNBC's Hardball. Interviewing forum-participant Duncan Hunter, Chris Matthews asked if he were president, would he seek congressional approval for any military strikes. He would, he said. Well, pursued Matthews, what if Congress denied such approval. Would Hunter proceed anyway with military action?


Hunter's reply: "I would."


Cut to commercial, which gave me time to pick myself up from the floor.


At least one Republican presidential candidate was willing to announce with no hesitation or qualifications that he would actually enhance George W. Bush's dictatorial war-making schemes -- that he would, from Day One in office, treat Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as null and void.

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2007/10/the-only-debate.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Make that two Republican candidates that want to be dictators!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3593802

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Good thing Hunter doesn't have a chance in hell of being prez. n/t

[0007]

3. Didn't you think Hunter's facial expression were more presidential

than junior's?

[Pyrzqxgl]

7. Duncan Hunter looks like the dictator of a small Eastern European Country.

or maybe "Fearless Leader" in the Bullwinkle cartoon.

[BuyingThyme]

4. Republicans hate everything about our country.

Think about how evil a person has to be to ongoingly look for new explanations for Americans in uniform to die, while at the same time claiming to "support the troops." Never do they have a problem with "the troops" dying for under false pretenses because they can always come up with another excuse. No WMD? Well, then it's democracy. Theocracy? Well, more women are going to school. Less woman are going to school? Well, they now have water and electricity. They don't? Well, they moved the WMD to Syria.

Never do they ask for answers. They only try to justify their lack of support for "the troops."

It's a disease. They're all evil.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Huckabee said the same thing DURING the debate and is polling well ahead of Hunter

so it's odd to highlight Duncan Hunter.

The fact that supposed "nice guy" Huckabee said the exact same thing deserves wider notice.

[spanone]

6. duncan hunter is completely against our democratic system. he is dangerous. imho

[Hydra]

8. Dur!

the only reason to become President if you don't want to fix things(and 90% of the candidates are in this camp- 100% on the pubs side) is to take advantage of the enormous holes in our constitution that Bush has created.

In other words, if you want to be a tin pot with one of the world's best armies, this is your best chance EVER.

[zestfolly]

9. Duncan Hunter hates free speech

Hunter: I Will Try To ‘Cut Off Funds To Columbia University’ Because Of Ahmadinejad Speech

Appearing on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto after the speech, Hunter said that he plans to follow through on his threat and will now “initiate legislation, and try to get as many people as can see it my way, to cut off funds to Columbia University.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/24/hunter-columbia-funding/

[TankLV]

16. Maybe they can get another dig a MoveOn while their at it -

along with a few Medals of Honor for limpballs and the swiftboaters...

Gotta make sure history is written "right" ya know...

And of course, most of our Dems will be sitting around with their fingers in their respective assholes and occasionally taking them out and smelling them to be reassured, while the rest of them rush to "not look like they're not supporting our "fine" military" or some other such bullshit...

[theredpen]

10. Sad Truth about the President and Military Force

Ron Paul was correct that only Congress can declare war. What tends to be overlooked is how much military action can be conducted without actually being at war. A formal declaration of war essentially makes the President into a Constitutional dictator who can exercise authority over what is normally private and civilian (primarily industrial production). You really don't want a formal declaration of war unless the American people are behind it and trust the President.

As Commander in Chief of the armed forces, however, there is all sort of military action that the President may engage in without any permission whatsoever. It's tempting to remove this latitude from the Presidency, but it could be an impediment to legitimate national security actions and may present a separation of powers issue (I'm not sure). For example, when President Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike to try and take out Osama bin Laden, the strike missed by only and hour or so. How far off would it have been if Clinton had needed Congressional approval to order the strike? If bin Laden had been hit, it would have been vindication enough of a President's ad hoc authority over the military.

President Nixon took this authority way too far with the "police action" in Vietnam. As a result, Congress narrowed the President's authority to use force outside of a formal war to 60 days. The President gets 60 days of military engagement, but can ask for an addition 30 citing special circumstances; this still means that the President can act for at most 60 days without any permission from Congress. Unfortunately, our Congress, including many Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, provided Bush with the necessary AUMF — Authorization to Use Military Force — in Iraq and some of them seem like they're willing to do it again for Iran.

Thus, the President does not need any permission to stage a bombing raid in Iran. He (or maybe she?) would need Congressional approval for any military action against Iran that would last more than 60-90 days. That works out pretty nicely for Iran hawks: launch a strike against Iran for some contrived reason, wait for Iran to retaliate, and then get approval for a longer engagement which everyone is riled up about Iran's response. Of course, Iran might be smart enough not to take the bait.

The bottom line is that Bush hasn't actually violated any Constitutional restrictions on the use of force. I really hate to give the bastard credit for that, but it is the truth.

[Hydra]

13. He didn't have to

he asked and he got. Never take what you can get a mark to give you.

[slackmaster]

11. At least he's consistent

You can count on him to address every issue, answer every question posed to him, with a military option.

[Disturbed]

12. Most Repugs do not believe in a Representative Republic or

democracy. Most present Repugs believe that a RWing Fascist State is the best form of Govt. RWing Fundies believe in a perverted form of Christian Theocracy. Authoritarians are abundant in Amerika.

[zestfolly]

14. the warning signs

[zestfolly]

15. dupe

nt

[zestfolly]

17. Who Needs the Constitution?

But the dreams of a benevolent dictator who will protect us from the bad guys overtook advocacy for a President who actually follows the law.

Duncan Hunter said it would be OK to skip the whole declaring war step, as long as the target was “fleeting.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/11/4479/

[zestfolly]

18. the decider is the shredder