President Obama spoke over the weekend at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, and spent a fair amount of time addressing "the issue that is such a focus for all of us today: Iran's nuclear program."
The relevant portion of the speech begins at about the 18:53 mark in this clip. Though Obama warned against the "loose talk of war," which only serves to benefit the Iranian government, the president also said Israel, the U.S. and "the entire world" have an "interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon." Among other things, Obama warned of a regional "arms race in one of the world's most volatile regions."
The president added, "[T]hat is why, four years ago, I made a commitment to the American people, and said that we would use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And that is what we have done.... Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
And then Mitt Romney decided to weigh in.
Just hours after President Obama described to a group of pro-Israel activists the steps he has taken and will take to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, Mitt Romney made a dire prediction about the consequences for that effort if the president is reelected.
"If Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the world will change if that's the case," Romney told a crowd of more than 1,500 in this suburb east of Atlanta. [...]
"This president failed to speak out when the dissidents took the streets in Tehran, he had nothing to say," Romney said. "This is a president who has failed to put in place crippling sanctions against Iran. He's also failed to communicate that military options are on the table and in fact in our hand. And that it's unacceptable to America for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
It's hard to know where to start with rhetoric like this. Obama didn't voice support for Iranian protesters because they didn't want U.S. backing; he did impose tough sanctions on Iran; the president specifically said, "I will take no options off the table," including military power; and Obama couldn't have been clearer about U.S. opposition to a nuclear Iran.
It's as if Romney heard the speech, and decided to tell voters the opposite of the truth.
But there's even more to this than Romney's deliberate efforts to deceive the public. Indeed, the Republican's remarks speak to two larger themes: fear and ignorance.
On the first point, Romney seems to be of the opinion that scaring the bejesus out of voters will translate into GOP votes. Notice the lack of ambiguity in Romney's rhetoric: Obama's election will practically guarantee an Iranian nuclear weapon.
And what does Romney base this categorical statement on? Nothing. He simply asserts it as true, without any facts or evidence. Romney does so because he's hoping voters will simply be so terrified by the prospect, they'll come rushing into the arms of an inexperienced one-term governor whose only international experience is opening Swiss bank accounts and stashing cash in the Caymans.
On the latter point, I still don't know why, when it comes to foreign policy and national security, Romney thinks he's ready to sit at the big kids' table.
His bravado over the weekend notwithstanding, Romney doesn't seem to understand U.S. policy in Iran at all. When he talked about his position at a debate in November, a bipartisan panel on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" literally laughed at him. BBC's Katty Kay said at the time she was "disappointed" by Romney’s remarks on Iran, because she thought he'd have "a more sophisticated understanding" of the issue.
Remember, this is the same candidate who is under the false impression that there are "insurgents" in Iran.
And it's not just Iran. Romney's own advisors think he's wrong about Afghanistan; he was recently found flip-flopping on Iraq; he couldn't answer a question about an al Qaeda affiliate, Al Shabab, controlling significant territory in Somalia; and his call for a trade war with China is nuts.
Worse, Romney has struggled in this area for quite some time.
Remember the time Romney told ABC News he would "set a deadline for bringing the troops home" from Iraq -- but only if it's a secret deadline? How about the time Romney, more than four years into the war in Iraq, said it's "entirely possible" that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the 2003 invasion? Or the time Romney pretended "Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood" were all the same thing? How about my personal favorite: the time Romney made the bizarre assertion that IAEA weapons inspectors were not allowed entry into Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
More recently, Romney tried to trash the New START nuclear treaty in an op-ed, prompting Fred Kaplan to respond, "In 35 years of following debates over nuclear arms control, I have never seen anything quite as shabby, misleading and -- let's not mince words -- thoroughly ignorant as Mitt Romney's attack on the New START treaty."
He's even picked a fight over President Obama's strike on Osama bin Laden, ignoring the fact that Romney took an entirely passive attitude towards the al Qaeda leader, saying "it's not worth moving heaven and earth" to get the terrorist responsible for 9/11. Around the same time, Romney said he would not order a strike into Pakistan to get bin Laden, rejecting Obama's willingness "to enter an ally of ours" to target the terrorist leader.
There have to be other issues for Romney to focus his attention on.
Leave a Comment:
Obama was magnificent at AIPAC, and if the GOP thinks they can bully him into making a big foreign policy error they clearly have another think coming.
It still bothers me that the party that hosts some of the most anti-Semitic politicians in our country has convinced Israelis that it is the one on 'their side.'
It's not the Repubs who will box in the Pres. It is Israel. Netenyahu has nailed him. God help us
Politifact Truth-O-Meter: "Mostly True"... (which means false).
Don't underestimate the power of scare tactic like this. Cheney's rhetoric about electing a democratic president would directly bring another 9/11 to the country got Bush re-elected the second time around despite all the ridiculousness that administration had brought to the country at that time. And this is AFTER the country had had the attacked UNDER Bush' watch.
Jon Stewart put it perfectly: “I used to think your reality shaped your politics; it’s clear now, your politics shapes reality.” ~Jon Stewart
And that ladies and gentlemen why (as ridiculous as it might be) both Romney and Santorum have as big a chance of winning the election as President Obama in 2012.
(If only people know how much it pains me to write that last sentence)
Mitt, tough talk is cheap, when the only three AM phone call you'll ever get is a drunk dialing a wrong number.
Obama can silence those in and out of office by going to Congress and saying, "I need two things: A Declaration of War with Iran, and a tax increase to pay for it."
The problem with that statement is that it invites the worthless Congress to push out the former, and deny the latter "on principle" while Norquist laughs his ass off.
Not a good idea at all. What has Iran done specifically to us, The United States, that we should declare war on it?
Bush's real excuse for going to war with Iraq was that Saddam Hussein "threatened to kill my daddy," covered up with lies about them having weapons of mass destruction.
No single body of inspectors, intelligence or military analysts here and in Europe have ever concluded that Iran has such a weapon.
None of the four Republican horsemen of the Apocolypse seem to have any nuanced understanding of foreign policy issues whatsoever - and especially when it comes to the Middle East generally, and Iran and Israel specifically.
We've come to expect this sort of no nothing bloviating from Paul, Santorum and Gingrich but Romney is especially troublesome because it is as if he never picks up an American (let alone a British or European) newspaper, never reads Foreign Policy or any of the highly reputable and well-regarded foreign policy blogs that have been covering these issues for years and years. For a man who has been running for president for more than half a decade, you'd think he would have learned something about international issues along the way.
Republicans have had critizised President Barack Obama on "Not dong Enough" on Our Country's Foregn Policy. Now, that the President has "Commited" in "Backing" Israel against Iran, what other critizisms will the Republicans have now?
I want one of these saber-rattling candidates to volunteer their children to be the first of the invading troops. Which of the GOP candidates own stock in the defense industry? Do they not know their rhetoric goes world-wide? What a sound byte it must make for those who already portray us as the enemy. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" makes a ton of sense today.
It's as if Romney heard the speech, and decided to tell voters the opposite of the truth.
No, it's as Mitt didn't hear the speech and read a statement his handlers wrote for him. Someday we'll get Steve over his tendency to give these people the benefit of the doubt;>
When the members of Congress volunteer to be on the front lines, and that means any under 45ish members, and/or their immediate families volunteer to be on the front lines, then let them "wag the dog" for war. We haven't cleaned up the mess from these last two wars yet and already they are looking to pad the pockets of their rich corporate friends with another one.
Nailed it! Mitt Romney is a boob..
Hey Mittens, how many of YOUR children went to serve in Iran or Afghanistan? Thought not! Just like the GOP, send other peoples children to die for their needless aggression!!
This statement from Romney should disqualify him for the presidency: ""This is a president who has failed to put in place crippling sanctions against Iran. He's also failed to communicate that military options are on the table and in fact in our hand. And that it's unacceptable to America for Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Our nation is in a tense and dangerous international situation vis a vis Iran and Romney's reaction is to tell three outright lies about the President's position toward Iran! This kind of reckless rhetoric increases the likelihood of international confusion and misunderstanding leading to tragedy. Romney is endangering our national security in order to further his own personal presidential ambitions. This is unacceptable behavior. Romney has now demonstrated that he is unfit to be our nation's Commander-in-Chief. Period.
Mitt Romney is so insulated behind his wealthy moat, he fails to realize the real danger is loose lips - his in particular, and his Republican rivals in general - because loose lips as we all know will sink ships!
Mitt Romney would be the type of captain who would drill holes in the hull of the ship to let the water out as the ship begins to sink! What a fool he is, and what a fool's parade these Republican candidates are asking us to witness as this primary season grows old with the stench of malfeasant pandering for the ignoramus vote! You go Mitty boy! -Kevo
The ultra RightRepugnicanants live in FearYstan so the wannabeePOTUSs tell them what they already believe to get their votes.
I'm convince (have been for months) that the GOP machine does not want to win POTUS. They know their policies will not fix the economy and there is more advantage in their letting a Democrat try while they block all they can with the do nothing Congress.
The machine is focused on controlling the House; taking control of the Senate and getting control of even more state governments. We, thePeople, have to understand that the local elections are ever so much more important now.
Vote them OUT everywhere!
Romney has this figured out. No matter what you say during the primaries a.) the only thing that will hit the news is the most outrageous accusations your peronal mores and values will allow you to spout and b.) the mainstream press will never, ever, ever call you on it.
The only "fear" I've sensed the past few days is from the Left who realize that Romney is gaining momentum.
Romney is gaining momentum in the primary but he, along with the other candidates, is faring poorly against the president.
Mittens is gaining all the momentum that he billionaire buddies can buy!
The last paragraph hints at but does not directly state the awful truth that dare not be spoken aloud in this nation: that Al-Qaeda has had no greater friend in all the world than the Republican Party.
1. Who denigrated and undermined all of Bill Clinton's efforts to destroy Al-Qaeda in the '90's, saying Clinton was just "wagging the dog"? Republicans.
2. Who in early 2001 reallocated funding away from counter-terrorism in favor of (and I am not making this up) combating prostitution in the French Quarter? Republicans.
3. Who ignored Bin Laden's threats to attack within the United States, going so far as to dismiss a analyst who personally visited Bush to brief him with a curt "Alright, you've covered your ass"? Republicans.
4. Who made sure, at a time when every plane in America was grounded, that members of the Saudi royal family, many of whom were related to Bin Laden, were flown out of the country on government planes without the opportunity for any FBI interview? Republicans.
5. Who gave the order to allow Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora? Republicans.
6. Who diverted funding for the war in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda towards the boondoggle in Iraq? Republicans.
7. Which party's president said in 2004 that he really didn't consider Bin Laden to be important in a taped interview and then denied saying it in one of the 2004 debates? Republicans.
8. Which party took the position in 2008 that America shouldn't go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden even if we knew exactly where he was? Republicans.
9. Which party has been attacking Obama relentlessly for doing what they refused to do at every opportunity vis a vis Bin Laden? Republicans.
The Republican Party is treasonous and unAmerican. It is the party of Al-Qaeda. And its membership salivates at the chance to go to war with Iran and further damage this nation in fulfillment of Al-Qaeda's goals.
Hey alvinalvin, maybe you should apply for a job writing jokes for the Romney campaign.
Are all Republican audiences totally made up of ignorant lemmings? Was there no one in the room with a brain to contradict the lies that Romney tells? Even if Romney is your candidate, wouldn't it give one pause to support such someone who is either lying or too dumb to know what the current administration actually has done with regard to Iran? Republicans are both voting against their fictionalized version of the president (Obama is a socialist, etc.) and voting for their fictionalized version of a president (Romney-the-candidate isn't as dumb as he looks.)
That would assume that someone in the room knew he was lying, or that they have a clue what the current administration has done regarding Iran.
"It's as if Romney heard the speech, and decided to tell voters the opposite of the truth."
Mitt ALWAYS tells the opposite of the truth.
Ugh, war good peace bad! We must convert all them thar heathens by calling it operation freedom and calling Christianity "democracy". Ban Science and the bomb will simply fade into the past along with the web,medicine,clothing,hybrid crops and all this evil stuff. Ugh has spoken!
We have reached a level of mass hysteria and mass insanity in this country!
A rational discussion of Iran is taking place in Israel. A fair and rational discussion of Iran is not being allowed to take place in ameriKKKa. Only the Likud Party / AIPAC position is allowed here.
Fact: The American Intelligence Estimate is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and there is no evidence that Iran desires to have nuclear weapons.
Fact: The Iranians have a nuclear program that is almost capable of enriching uranium to the 20% level of purity needed for nuclear medicine usage. It requires 90% pure uranium for nuclear weapons. The Iranians have no way near that capability and there is no real reason to believe that they intend to!
Fact: The Mossad agrees with the CIA and the DOD that Iran developing nuclear weapons would NOT create an existential threat to Israel. It is only the Likud Party and their U.S. front man AIPAC who are pushing a preemptive war based upon the possibility that Iran may decide to develop nuclear weapons. There is an actual real and substantive discussion of this occuring within Israel; which unfortunately we are not presented to by our corporately owned media.
Even The Obomination and Steve Benen continue to allow the discussion to devolve into the repuknican / Likud Party / AIPAC level of deception of the ameriKKKan sheeple about the truth of Iran and its nuclear program.
For a rational perspective of what is going on politically, read what a real expert on the Middle East writes at http://www.juancole.com.
AIPAC does not represent Jews or American interests. It just represents itself- spy agency and enforcer of policies of the regime in Tel Aviv on our soil.
Pandering to AIPAC is counter to American interests and national security.
Though in an election year it is understandable what President Obama had to do taking into account the power that this agency has been allowed to wield over our lives over time.
Sad.
@ SadOldVeteran
So true.Very well stated.
I'm afraid that neo-cons and Christian zionists on our soil in league with their masters in Tel Aviv are driving this nation towards a disaster of unknown proportions and consequences.
Only if Americans would sit up and take notice.