With his endorsement of Mitt Romney for President still in recent memory, Sen. Rand Paul published an op-ed in the National Review taking Romney to task for his foreign policy. The endorsement was a choice which caused many waves within the liberty movement, even after the Senator provided clarification in a Daily Paul radio interview (click here if you feel like reading, not listening). In this new op-ed, Paul charged Romney with being too similar to President Obama (and, by extension, former President George W. Bush) and harshly critiqued Romney’s indication that as President he would attack Iran with or without congressional approval. Paul wrote (emphasis added):
Where I don’t know if there is as much of a difference as I would like [between Romney and Obama] is foreign policy.
Let’s first be clear: President Obama was elected on a platform of ending wars, yet he has opposed every effort made by me and others in the Senate to do that. He opposed my resolution to end the Iraq War. He has refused my urgings to end the war in Afghanistan more quickly. He started another war in Libya, and this time went further into unconstitutional territory than previous presidents by not even seeking Congressional approval whatsoever.
I opposed him when he did that. Anyone who believes President Obama is less aggressive internationally than his predecessors is mistaken.
I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy. But I do know that I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were:
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.
This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war. […] I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional consent.
Read the full piece — which includes much more extensive discussion on the constitutional requirements for war — here.Published in