“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”
Romney agreed with what the President’s been doing with regard to foreign policy, a lot, is what I’m saying. I think Mitt Romney just may vote for Obama after the last debate.
current: “The people of Detroit don’t forget.”
Obama Attacks Again And Again In Last Debate: President Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney again and again, on issues from foreign travel to domestic spending, at a foreign policy debate that doubled as the incumbent’s last chance to personally recast the public’s view of a suddenly strong challenger.
current: Finally, some specific numbers from Romney!
current: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”
AND OF COURSE: BAYONETS AND HORSES FTW!
thedailywhat: #horsesandbayonets of the Day
current: “We have fewer ships than we did in 1916. We also have fewer horses and bayonets. The nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called ‘aircraft carriers.’”
Thumbs up, indeed Willard!
apsies: (Photo credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)
I won, dammit! Don’t interrupt me… I’m thumbs upping!!
Think Progress: below are five facts we think you should have on hand during tonight’s third and final presidential debate (see the link for more detail):
- New reporting finds that protest against anti-Islam video played role in Benghazi attacks.
- Romney harshly criticized Obama’s pledge to send U.S. troops into Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden.
- Iran is not enriching weapons-grade uranium.
- Romney will increase military spending by $2.1 trillion, with no plan to pay for it
- Israeli leaders have praised Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security
Topic: Foreign policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS)
The format for the debate will be identical to the first presidential debate and will focus on foreign policy. The debate will focus on foreign policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator. Subject to possible changes because of news developments, here are the topics for the October 22 debate, not necessarily to be brought up in this order:
-America’s role in the world
-Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
-Red Lines – Israel and Iran
-The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
-The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
-The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
When conservatives want to put another version of George W. Bush in charge of U.S. foreign policy:
OFA: In a series of interviews, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Senator John Kerry, Admiral John Nathman (ret.), and Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy explain why Mitt Romney is not prepared to be commander-in-chief. They each lay out how President Obama’s leadership has made America stronger, safer and more secure while Mitt Romney has nothing to offer except bluster, chest-thumping, and a commitment to endless war. As Monday’s debate will demonstrate, blunder and bluster are no substitute for strong leadership.
Mitt Romney’s Neocon War Cabinet: “Romney is loath to mention Bush on the campaign trail, for obvious reasons, but today they sound like ideological soul mates on foreign policy. Listening to Romney, you’d never know that Bush left office bogged down by two unpopular wars that cost America dearly in blood and treasure. Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.”
Romney’s immigration plan: If you go into military service, and presumably, come out alive, you can stay. You won’t get actual “citizenship” — you’d earn “permanent residency” — but, hey, you won’t have to leave.
Other thoughts on Mitt Romney and the wars and military service he champions:
“The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that’s the way we’re going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.” — Mitt Romney, August 8 2007 in Iowa
The Republican Party either needs to get itself some warmongers who aren’t chickenhawks, or it should stop relying on war profiteering to line the pockets of its benefactors. It’s an ugly business when certain men want to send other people’s children to war and call it patriotic. It’s uglier that ordinary people approve.
Nicholas Kristof: “DIPLOMACY is a minefield, and Mitt Romney spent the last week blowing up his foreign policy credentials to be president. He raised doubts about his capacity to deal with global crises, and we were left hoping that if that 3 a.m. call ever went to him, he’d have set up call forwarding.
“The essential problem is that every time Romney touches foreign policy, he breaks things. He went on a friendly trip to Britain — the easiest possible test for a candidate, akin to rolling off a log — and endeared himself by questioning London’s readiness to host the Olympic Games. In the resulting firestorm, one newspaper, The Sun, denounced “Mitt the Twit.”
“[...] Then there was the Romney trip to Israel, where he insulted Palestinians and left some Jews uncomfortable with stereotyping by praising Jewish culture in the context of making money. Hmm.
“[...] Yet with the Middle East exploding in recent days because of a video insulting the Prophet Muhammad, Romney dived in with a statement that hit a trifecta: it was erroneous, inflammatory and offensive.”
And let’s not forget how Romney recently broke things with Vladimir Putin and Russia…
“In a world of new threats and new challenges, you can choose leadership that has been tested and proven. Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did. I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. We have. We’ve blunted the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over. A new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.
“[...] So now we face a choice. My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy, but from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.
“After all, you don’t call Russia our number one enemy – and not al Qaeda – unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War time warp. You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally. My opponent said it was “tragic” to end the war in Iraq, and he won’t tell us how he’ll end the war in Afghanistan. I have, and I will. And while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want, I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.”
— President Obama, DNC2012
Huffington Post: [Libyan and Egyptian] diplomatic outposts had been the site of violent protests on Tuesday evening, as fundamentalist mobs swarmed in rage over rumors about an unreleased American film – promoted in part by the Koran-burning preacher Terry Jones – that supposedly projected the Prophet Muhammad in a harshly critical light.
The violence took a domestic political turn, in part thanks to a statement released early Tuesday by the staff of the Cairo embassy, which condemned the film and the “continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
So here comes Romney Shambles:
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” Romney said in the statement. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
[...] The Romney campaign’s statement seemed to be an attempt to capitalize on the appearance that the Obama administration… was capitulating to the sensitivities of an unruly Muslim crowd, rather than backing the right of an American citizen to release a disrespectful film.
But the statement criticized by the Romney campaign came early in the day, before the attacks on the two embassies, and was put out not by the White House, but by the Cairo embassy itself.
The White House later disavowed the statement as not approved by Washington, according to a senior administration official speaking to Politico. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt also commented on the statement from the Romney campaign. “We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack,” LaBolt said in a statement.
In a statement released late Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the attack on the mission in Benghazi “in the strongest” terms, and added that while the U.S. “deplores” the denigration of religion depicted in the film, it would not countenance such violent responses.
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
The Libyan government also released a statement condemning the attack on the American Consulate, calling it a “cowardly act.” And the Muslim Brotherhood, the ruling Islamist party in Egypt, said on its Twitter page that that it “regret the attacks on [the U.S. Embassy] by angry protesters, and we urge citizens to express their opinion peacefully.”
We don’t know much about Mitt and his specific foreign policies–or specifics on any other of other his plans and policies for that matter–but here’s one thing we do know: he’ll say anything to score political points with the extremists on the right, even if what he says is half-assed and ill-timed.
I wonder if that asshole Terry Jones feels at all responsible for the violence and the death of an American consulate worker? Does Romney wonder about that too, or is this kind of violence what they both privately hope for?
Right now Mitt Romney is only the Republican presidential candidate, but he’s already successfully blundered our foreign relations with Russia:
MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that a comment made by U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has made Russia feel justified in opposing America’s missile defense plans in Europe.
The Republican challenger to President Barack Obama has branded Russia the “No. 1 geopolitical foe” of the United States.
Putin said that statement shows Russia is right to criticize the U.S.-led NATO plan to place land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in several European locations. Washington says the shield is intended against a possible missile attack from Iran, but Moscow sees it as a threat to its security, saying it may eventually grow powerful enough to undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent.
Oops! Team Romney’s response? Foreign policy is a “distraction.”
An adviser to Mitt Romney referred to foreign policy as a “distraction” in this year’s presidential election… Romney aide Robert O’Brien accused the Obama campaign of “going from one shiny object to the next.”
[...] Romney has received widespread criticism — even from leading Republicans — for ignoring U.S. troops and the war in Afghanistan in his speech to the Republican National Convention.
But O’Brien’s claim that foreign policy is a distraction squares with a wider theme of Romney’s campaign. Another adviser told the New York Times back in May that “Romney doesn’t want to really engage these issues until he is in office.” [ed -- everything's a secret until after the election!] While it seems clear that the so-called “Cheney-ites” are running things behind the scenes… his recent foreign trip that was supposed to be a slam dunk in beefing up his security bona fides bombed, spawning the not-so-flattering moniker “Romney Shambles.”
Mitt’s the foreign policy disaster that keeps on giving… sort of like George W. Bush. Elect Romney and the GOP’s Forever War pushes onward to Iran.
Out of Romney’s 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it’s likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity — a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous. — The Romney-Cheney Doctrine