During his visit to Israel, he indicated that he was in favor of Israel taking on Iran in a preemptive manner, to stop them from proceeding on their race to a nuclear product. His statement encompassed nearly all Palestinian and Arabic nations. To be fair, Romney simply egged them on.
He is using his ignorance, and lack of cogent advice from his handlers, to attack President Obama on his handling of middle-eastern issues. The Libyan attack on our embassy comes first. Romney is trying to tell people that President Obama simply blew it, saying that our intelligence was not up to the task. Considering how the Taliban or Al Qaida work, using protests to launch a strike on our embassy in Benghazi, Romney neglects to inform his supporters – those who haven’t abandoned him for taking on Big Bird – that our efforts were focused upon the embassy in the Libyan capital of Tripoli, not the city in which the attack took place.
What difference does accuracy make, if Mitt Romney wants to attack the President? Not a single fact will guide Romney’s campaign. Romney wants to fix blame; President Obama wants to fix problems.
The question is: How can we expect a person who lies so much in a presidential campaign, not to lie if he wins the presidency? Simple answer; we cannot.
Mitt Romney spoke at Virginia Military Academy, pounding the drums of war to future warriors. Who would expect them to walk out? The reason these young people attend VMI is to get a head start on serving their country. Mitt Romney wants to kill a Big Bird, to add the 0.01% of the economy he would save to the defense budget; it’s self-explanatory.
“Full of platitude and free of substance,” former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said in a teleconference call organized by the Obama campaign to rebut Mr. Romney’s speech.
“How’s he going to turn the page on the failed policies of the past if he wants to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq?” added Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman.
“His position on Libya has no credibility since he’s been both for and against our Libya policy,” wrote Michèle Flournoy and Colin Kahl, Obama foreign policy advisers, in a memo to reporters. 1
President Obama called Romney’s bluff in foreign policies, reminding people that his administration brought down Kaddafi in Libya, ended the war in Iraq, is drawing down troops in Afghanistan, and took out Bin Laden. The administration is treading lightly in the mess that the Middle East has become, in line with how the majority of Americans see the USA responding to the uprisings: cautiously.
A comment on the above NY Times article was to the point:
Critical issues are at stake in a dangerous world. It would be wise for foreign policy dilettantes to keep their mouths shut and their flammable opinions out of the press while the seasoned pros work toward peace and national security – with full understanding of the backgrounds and actual facts. Those currently dealing with foreign situations – from USA’s commander-in-chief to assets in the field – are focusing on serious world diplomacy, not PR and opinion polls.
According to MSNBC, GOP foreign policy experts are wary of Mitt Romney’s so-called foreign policy stance. General Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, while Powell was Secretary of State, Retired Colonel Wilkerson “skewered Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team on Monday (10/8), saying their policies make his stomach turn.
Wilkerson took particular aim at John Bolton, former President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations—and now an adviser to Romney.
“The man scares me to death,” Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army colonel told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. “He would defeat all the enemies in America and the world—and believe me they’re plentiful—and he’d do it with everyone else’s blood. John is like Dick Cheney, never served a day in his life and wouldn’t serve a day in his life … These people make me sick.”
Wilkerson’s harsh rhetoric comes on the heels of Romney’s foreign policy speech earlier in the day, in which the former Massachusetts governor laid out a hawkish approach. 2
Without any details – a Romney signature – he vowed to go after Iran, to make sure they do not get a nuclear weapon, to pursue the people who attacked on the embassy in Libya, and ensure that rebels in Syria get the weapons they need, to topple their government.
Wilkerson’s mention of John Bolton, the man who makes him sick, was clearly stated.
Bolton, Romney advisor, was a policy advisor to Dubya, a well-known foreign policy expert … not!
If Romney can change his mind, so can this writer. We cover the debate on October 11 between VP Joe Biden and Paul Lyin’ Ryan. Even the review from Fox News, telling the world that Ryan lied his way through his GOP Convention speech; not enough to make Ryan rein in the lies he told in the debate. Joe Biden termed what Ryan said “Malarkey,” and “stuff.” Anyone who remembers George Carlin will know the meaning of “stuff.”
More on Romney’s foreign policy expertise, in another OpEdNews.com article, published on October 9, the author says:
“Last month our nation was attacked again,” Romney said, referring to the September 11 attack on the Benghazi consulate. “Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions.”
Romney made no effort to answer these “right” questions, not even trying to explain how any current threat was “so much worse” than the threat of nuclear annihilation at the peak of the Cold War.
Romney’s argument is based in the implied analogy that suggests Field Marshall Erwin Rommel and the Nazi Afrika Korps in Libya and Tunisia, circa 1941-42, is somehow equaled in potency by the threat of a nameless Libyan terrorist cell whose compound was burned by unarmed Libyan civilians.
But that threat inflation was a necessary context for Romney’s argument that President Obama’s policies in the Middle East were inadequate. Contrasting himself with Obama’s somewhat nuanced relations with both Israel and Iran, Romney indicated he’d take marching orders from Israel even if it meant marching on Iran. 3
It is good of Romney to bring up the Nazis, as his party seems to be the logical successors to them, in their use of the Big lie: tell a lie big enough, loud enough, and often enough and soon, people will believe it.
Paul Ryan used that tactic in the VP debate when he often lied to the public. Vice President Biden called him on the lies, and the moderator asked Ryan for details, specifics. Ryan never gave either.
At the end, Martha Raddatz asked each man to explain what distinguishes them from other people. Paul Ryan said one word: Honesty.
This writer thought Joe Biden was going to come out of his chair; to his credit, he simply looked astonished.
Turning back to Romney’s speech to the students at VMI. He made some – to be kind – misstatements; downright lies. William Boardman said:
When he said, “I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region,” he ignored the fact that currently there is one such task force in the Eastern Mediterranean and two in the Persian Gulf.
When he said, “The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916,” he ignored the fact that the Navy is currently at levels last seen in 2005-2006.
When he said, “I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense,” he ignored the reality that military spending is currently more than $700 billion a year, an all-time high. When he said, “The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years,” he ignored the fact that Obama has signed three, with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.
Really, ask yourselves, “Where does Romney get this stuff?” Does he make it up as he goes along? An article published in OpEdNews.com (from DemocracyInAction.com), speculated that Mitt Romney is a psychopath. Gregory Paul said:
There is a psychological term for a person who is sufficiently lacking in guilt to sell a false line in a convincing manner. Psychopath. There is a very nice article about it in this month’s Scientific American, “The Wisdom of Psychopaths.” It explains that your socially functional psychopath (i.e. uses persuasion rather than violence in a social setting to con or convince the target, it’s the most common variety) are so charismatic, egotistical, confident, focused, and especially low on remorse that they can readily manipulate many others. And that often makes them very successful.
And what class of successful persons are often psychopaths? Why business leaders. CEOs. 4
Russ Baker, also in OpEdNEws.com (from DemocracyInAction.com) said:
How did we end up with a situation in which one of our two choices in November is a man who seems to know, or care, so little about the world? How is it possible that, with just weeks before the election, there is no dominant person or clique in Romney’s camp to articulate a vision of what the United States can and should do in an incredibly complex and explosive world? 5
Think about it. Fewer than five full weeks remain; there are still folks out there who are undecided. It is hoped that they will decide in favor of a fact-based presidential campaign, and that they have not waited too long to register to vote.
Vote, as if your life depends upon it. It does!