President Pawlenty Would Confer With Congress Before Starting Wars, But Only as a "Courtesy"
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty claimed during a Q&A after his speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations that the War Powers Act doesn't apply to Libya, but that he would've spoken with Congress about starting a third war, just to be nice:
Tim Pawlenty said Tuesday that the War Powers Act "does not apply" to the U.S. intervention in Libya, but that he would have consulted with Congress anyway if he had launched the mission as president.
During a question-and-answer session following a speech on foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, Pawlenty said that he would confer with members of Congress "as a courtesy and gesture of respect," but that he does not believe congressional authorization would be required for such a mission.
To put Pawlenty's remarks in context, conservative leaders are, for the first time in over a decade, decrying the rise of "isolationism" on the right. Here's the reaction from the Truman National Security Project's Michael Breen to Pawlenty's speech:
"Governor Pawlenty got one thing right in his speech today: Conservatives are retreating from America's global leadership. From Libya and Afghanistan to development and diplomacy, isolationism is the new litmus test for senior conservative leaders. What they fail to understand is that if America won't lead the world, someone else will. In the middle east it will be Iran. In the rest of the world, it will be China. America has a special role to play and to retreat from it risks our security and our values."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What they fail to understand is that if America won't lead the world, someone else will.
I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to this POV... but I don't see how the Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or Libya interventions have been necessary to continue leading the world. In fact, by pissing off our allies, overextending our military, and bankrupting us at home, they're probably counterproductive to that aim.
Agreed. Somehow "leading the world" involves unconstitutional wars and involving ourselves in matters we have no business involving ourselves in. There happens to be a difference between "leading the world" and trying to control the world, I would not expect this douche to comprehend the difference.
Agreed too. You have to pick and choose, and it could not hurt to follow the Constitution. My guess is that congress would have declared war on Afghnistan if requested. Bush, you have to give him some credit, came close to getting that. Iraq would have been more difficult. Yet he did get some approval from congress for that one also.
Having said that, why didn't we just kick the Taliban and Al Qaeda's ass, and then leave? And remind them that we can do it again, and again.
What they fail to understand is that if America won't lead the world, someone else will.
It worked well for Britain too until they couldn't afford it anymore. Guess where the US is at. UK circa 1973.
Wtf, where's my tricked-out Bond tech.
Governor Pawlenty, you sir are a fuck stain.
That is all.
You don't have to bomb the shit out of everyone to be a leader.
As a courtesy? Is he using that word in the Full Metal Jacket sense?
YOU FUCKING SCUMBAG COCKSUCKING COMMIE SYMPATHIZER, YOU SEEM LIKE THE KINDA FUCK THAT WOULD ENGAGE IN AN ILLEGAL WAR AND NOT HAVE THE COMMON COURTESY TO GIVE A REACH-A-ROUND!
Yes, that sense.
"If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is 'poontang'."
We can add him to the ranks of unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian shit
I extended a courtesy to Gustav Hasford by not filming the second half of his script as well as the first part.
Courtesy...with extreme prejudice.
Sadly conservatives seem particularly prone to that old saw, conflating "leading the world" with "ruling the world".
It's akin to liberals talking about "economic freedom" when they actually mean "redistribution".
Everybody wants to rule the world.
All men wanna be rich, rich men wanna be kings, a king ain't satisfied until he rules everything.
While sowing the seeds of love.
Tears for Fears
Should be the neo-cons favorite band.
Spoken like a true Christ-fag, Jim.
...differentiate himself from President War-bomb-a?
England, France, and Germany all used to be the ones "leading the world" and now they are not. They don't really seem any the worse for it.
No, but that was after their collapse or near collapse while they tried to continue "leading" it.
That's because the US is a relatively benevolent hegemon.
I don't think you want to see what a world with 150 PRC bases scattered across every continent and unquestioned PRC dominance of the sea looks like.
Since they don't even have a blue water navy, I'll take my chances.
The US didn't have a blue water navy at one time either. It's not like they're impossible to construct in a short time.
And of course, it profits PRC little to have a powerful navy while we're still 10x as powerful. We should aim to keep it that way, methinks.
boogity boogity.
It's not necessary to participate in a boxing match every week to stay in shape. You could just exercise. It would be a lot easier on your body.
Let me know if the metaphor needs explaining; I'm not too sure it's ready for prime time.
I made roughly the same point above. I oppose the Afg, Irq, and Lby interventions.
However, some non-interventionists (apparently Mr Akston included) argue that we need to close our overseas bases and bring the entire navy back inside of 12 miles of our shores. That's what I'm arguing against.
Surely though, you could at the very least see the rationale in closing something approaching half of those bases and bringing home a significant number of troops.
We don't need the false choice of full-blown empire and ostrich isolationist. We can maintain a healthy invovlement in world affairs, and the necessary tools to project force if the arises, without being so widely spread and omnipresent.
I'd be fine with closing the bases but having a strong navy that exercises and visits foreign ports regularly.
Worked for Teddy, Xenocles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet
Huh. So someone did subscribe to The Truth's newsletter.
Pretty sure TheTruth would get a white stain on the front of his underpants at the sight of PRC global dominance, rather than a brown one on the back like I would.
Pawlenty has made the poll-driven decision to be a Tuff Gai. Only problem is, he can't sell it. Not in a million years.
If you're a nerdy little geek, go with it. Don't act like you can go around kicking sand in people's faces and get away with it.
Another soulless power seeker. What a surprise.
Obama's re-election is 100% dependent upon the state of the economy next year. Any republican that comes across as marginally sane to the middle class is a shoo-in.
So you're saying Obama shouldn't be worried about Bachmann at all.
Maybe he, Romney and McCain will merge and become Captain Planofattack.
Don't forget Kerry. He'd be very mad, and make a long face.
Which means he would be Major Sanctions.
Pawlenty has fallen off my list of not-so-terrible alternatives to Obama.
I reached the point where I pray nightly for Obama to succumb to an early heart attack (like many middle aged black men) so that we can bide our time during the grayness of the resulting Biden administration.
Don't waste your time. Cornell West says B-Rock isn't really black.
I'm hoping that he's still sneaking cigarettes and eating fatty foods with Michelle isn't looking.
I also hope his cholesterol is approaching 300.
Ya, I kinda liked him too. I was pretty much expecting to find a reason to hate him though, and now I have it.
Hey, Pawlenty... when you have My level of power, you don't need fuckin' permission.
Do not try to declare war, that's impossible. You must realize there is no war.
Pawlenty said that he would confer with members of Congress "as a courtesy and gesture of respect," but that he does not believe congressional authorization would be required for such a mission.
B-b-b-ut I wanna be an Imperial President too!
The Team Red insiders would love to see a Romney/Pawlenty showdown for the candidacy.
People are still paying attention to Tim Pawlenty? Shut the fuck up, Tim Pawlenty.
"Still"? When did they start?
How many non-US bases does the US have all over the world??? Six, seven hundred??? And how many un-wars are we engaged in??? And how many non-interventions are we engaged in covertly that none of us have a clue about??? The absurdity of talking about the horrors of isolationism should be obvious to even the dimmest of bulbs. Tim Pawlenty for example.
So according to Michael Breen, "global leadership" means sending a bunch of our young adults off to die in foreign lands in order to show tinpot despots how big Uncle Sam's dick is. All largely at someone else's expense.
Hey Michael: send your own kids, if you feel so strongly about it. Or cash in your retirement account and go hire some mercs. With your own money. Dickwad.
Oh yeah, the same for Tim Pawlenty. Whoever he is. Dickwad.
Dickwad.
Michael Breen and Tim Pawlenty, along with the lion's share of the political class, all believe in the same fundamental theory: God gave America the biggest dick so we could piss on the rest of the world.
"Tim Pawlenty said Tuesday that the War Powers Act "does not apply" to the U.S. intervention in Libya, but that he would have consulted with Congress anyway if he had launched the mission as president."
Jesus Christ, can this tiny little shitstain give a straight answer to anything? He has to try to please everyone with every sentence out of his mouth. I guess if you can't be dynamic or interesting, be loud but agreeable.
I think this is a pretty straight answer. If he were elected president, he would be courteous while violating the constitution.
The USG's job is to protect American citizen's rights, NOT to 'lead' the world. I am in favor of several interventions, but most of America's 'power stuff' should be drawn back (and focused on invading Iran)-unless the PRC were to try and take over the world, which I doubt is going to happen.
Iran is surrounded by enemies, just like Israel. There would be no invasion necessary
That's funny.
I don't recall an election where the world chose America's government to lead them.
Maybe i was sleeping late that day.
But it remains odd, since so many people have given me the impression that *if* there was an election, they would have certainly not chosen America to be their leader. To put it mildly.
I thought these guys were lawyers. Why don't they read the law:
50 USC ? 1543. Reporting requirement
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced?
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
America has a special role to play
Beacon of freedom and liberty works for me.
Bacon of freedom and liberty really works for me.
Wow, what a dick.
Why, thank you. I was hoping you'd all be impressed.
He's right! I just read the text of the War Powers Act and by Gawd, there it was! In small print at the very bottom...."This does not apply to Libya."
Hot bagels!
Can someone please explain to these asshats that isolationism =/= non-interventionism?
Just because we don't want to stick our military noses where it doesn't belong does not mean we want to shut ourselves off from the world.
is good