Josh Rogin recently tried to find out what Mitt Romney's position is on U.S. policy in Afghanistan. It didn't go well.
Republican candidate Mitt Romney's policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing, complicating attempts to either support or criticize it during the campaign, according to leading senators from both parties. [...]
[W]hen it comes to what a President Romney would do differently from Obama on Afghanistan if and when he became president, the details remain sketchy.
Rogin asked around on Capitol Hill, and couldn't get any good answers there, either, even from Romney's allies. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said, "You would have to tell me what exactly you mean by 'his policy.'"
This morning, Luke Russert asked Romney campaign adviser Tara Wall for the candidate's position. She clearly had no idea what to say, and offered a strange, meandering word salad (via Ben Armbruster).
For the record, the presidential election is less than four months away. Romney is headed abroad. We're in the midst of the longest war in American history. Isn't it a little odd that we have no idea what the candidate intends to do in Afghanistan and members of his own team can't speak about the subject in complete sentences?
Leave a Comment:
How can he have a position - no one told him what is position is because he was too busy dressing up as a comic book character. Presidential Canidate my A$$, if the Republicans really care about this country run someone else.
Cheney will be his foreign policy adviser, with Shrubs old staff
Perhaps Romney should leave foreign policy to the "Foreigner," who is decisive, commanding, and well-informed?
Romney doesn't have a policy because no one has told him what it should be or he is keeping it a secret. We know some Republicans want to keep the war going past 2014. The neocons want the war to continue not to pursue some foreign policy, but rather to put money in the hands of defense contractors. Without a war, the need for defense contractors abates. Follow the money and see who is contributing to the campaigns.
We'd love to but shhhhhh it's a big secret dontcha know .
Sanctioned by the most powerful court in the land .
Mike, I think they've told him. He just doesn't want to tell us.
Romney has a policy on socialism, so next time mini Russert gets a crack at the Romney folks maybe he could ask about the socialist policies supporting our veterans. EG:
I am inclined to agree that Romney is keeping his policy secret because he knows it will not work for him during the election. Public opinion is for ending the war in Afghanistan. Romney is not going to be able to slide to election day being ambiguous. It won't sell with independents and gives them more reason to distrust Romney. And that applies to every issue.
Mike, I just wondering how the neocons will act if the defense budget takes a big hit January 1.
To be fair, Romney is a "Big Picture" sort of guy. The one with "Vision". He leaves the petty details to his subordinates; you know, the hiring and firing, the outsourcing, the offshoring. I expect his cabinet will be a busy bunch!
("Guys, I feel we ought to invade someone- work it out, and let me know when the Marines are ashore. Dubya tells me photo ops are the most important part.)
He doesn't have a position because it's not his problem; his sons aren't the ones fighting it, his money isn't invested in anything in Afghanistan, so he doesn't care.
I was witness to this "strange, meandering word salad" this morning. I was screaming "Really???... Really??... Really?" at the tv this morning as my cats froze in fear that my rant was directed at them. These guys should have a substantive answer to all policy questions. It boggles my mind that this guy and his team may be vote into office and running things next year! Vote!
@RuhRoh
I know what you mean - am constantly scaring my cat.
Why didn't this person have a more coherent answer? Not well prepared staff person - or no actual answer from the candidate>
my husband keeps telling me to stop yelling at the tv........
My cats keep turning away when Romney speaks. They're pretty discerning.
It's a good thing for him that cats can't vote. That feline demographic wouldn't work out well for him. Probably would lose the canine vote, too, after the Seamus incident.
And my father used to yell at the television and actually would scare me and not just the cat.
Yeah, right there with the rest of you in the cat-scaring department. Mostly happens to me while I'm online.
Maybe I should just go to google news whenever they decide its time to traipse across the keyboard and block the monitor.
Don't get angry, laugh. That was the most pathetic attempt to run out the clock on a live interview that I've seen in a long time.
I really don't like Luke Russert . He is not a broadcaster . Cronyism
His father would have had this idiot on the ropes .
He wouldn't have let her change the subject and if he did he could have stopped her cold .
"Maligned small business "
How has he maligned small business . Explain that to me , give me an example
See journalism isn't that hard.
My next question:
Was your talking point directive signed by Ailes and Murdock .
I can't take it anymore ...
You're right about Tim Russert. He is missed as host of MTP. David Gregory lets these idiots get away with too much nonsense. Questioning Republicans is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, but Russert would have done it much better. Romney could never have survived Russert's interrogations.
It's not fair to compare Luke to his dad. (And no, that's not a Star Wars reference.) As mpguy points out, David Gregory is no Tim Russert either. Tim is gone, and there's no one like him anywhere. Maybe that's because these days, people don't feel they have to do MTP. They have options. They can stay with Fox, or do CNN.
Back in 2008, Luke got some airtime just for being Tim's son. Now he's doing his own thing and I don't think anyone is paying him for his last name. No he's not as hard-hitting of an interviewer as his father, but if he was, possibly no one would want to be booked on his show.
hmm, I would suspect that Romey's policy toward/in Afghanistan will be whatever makes his donor companies the most money. But since he can't say that, he says nothing.
One thing plutocrats are in predictable.
It's amazing that the Romney camp refuses to answer ANY questions other than the economy and "job creation", pivoting away every time they're asked. Yes... these are important issues, but not the only issues. There are other things including foreign policy that a president has to deal with.
3, 2, 1...
"I have a secret plan to end the war...."
it's a secret, and we'll find it out after he's elected President
I can't have an opinion on the war in Afghanistan, for Pete's sake, I'm running for president.
Romney:" Oh you ask,what is my policy on Afghanistan?Well good,question!i'll have to ask the generals on the ground for that.I'll get back to you at a later date"
Bob:"Ok, according to the CBPP,your tax plan would increase the debt by 2trillion atleast?
Romney: "Well don't buy into the liberal lies.we'll close loopholes to make up for the short falls."
Bob: "Could you name some of the loopholes you'd close sir?"
Romney:"I will get back to you on that.If i tell you now,i won't get elected"
Bob: "But sir the CBO and CBPP say even if you slash social security,medicare,medicare,department of education,by [half] you won't get the 2+trillions."
Romney: "Well don't listen to the liberal spin machine.Let's talk about the economy"
Bob:"Sir, what is your plan to grow the economy?"
Romney:"Cut taxes for the job creators"
Bob:"Sir, how is that different from what Bush did?"
Romney:"I am Romney,not Bush"
Bob:"But tax rates are at their lowest in half a century"
Romney:"That's not true,don't read CBO and CBPP data--Obama has been a failure!"
Bob: "Thanks sir."
Romney:"Thank you."
Mitt Romney offers us nothing but confused hints of what his policies and plan are in all areas of our politics and government.
Leads me to suspect that the secret plan is the one he had for Detroit: "LET THE U.S. GO BANKRUPT" by lowering taxes without more revenue.
The lying son of a George can not answer questions about ending the war until his finance lawyers and handlers inform him which position is the most profitable, financially and politically.
Why do we not hear a policy from Romney well last time he offered policy was on the "bail out" of the Big 3 automakers and look what that got him.. Michigan is still upset over Romney saying to let the auto industry in USA go bankrupt and then after the bail out criticized the President on doing that.. Then Romney in most of Michigan voted against Romney during he primaries . Only thing that saved his butt was the comment Rick Santorum said about a speech that the late President John F. Kennedy stated on religion and his role as President. That and carpet bombing Michigan with ads against Santorum. Why do we not see Romney going to Freeport , Illinois to save those jobs that Bain Capital is sending to China? I have a theory on this. Romney set himself in a "damned if you do , damned if you don't" situation .. Romney states he left Bain Captial in Feb. 1999 and from then on has no involvement and no way could he have any influence on what the current Bain Capital's decisions. So if he goes it and starts to try to help those workers save their jobs then he in effect has shown that he does have influence on what Bain Capital does even after Feb. 1999. Then we will start wondering what other times has Romney used his influence after Feb. 1999 with Bain Capital. Then again he can stay away from helping those in Freeport , Illinois and be seen as being this person who does not care about workers that Bain Capital is trying to ship jobs of overseas. So you see he backed himself into a corner by the things he has said and done in the past. Then again maybe he just does not care about those workers and just cares about making wealth. That is an easier and simpler answer. But of course when has Romney said an easy and simple answer. .....lol. Well, I am from Michigan and I have heard that those from the Midwest have a trait of being ambiguous in the way they talk....lol . I have seen it in the way I and others I know from the Midwest talk....lol
Romney needs to realize the global leader's actions affect the national policy, including the economy. His position on Afghanistan is on the table.
I'm a 'Real American' and I do care.
The Romney campaign will do nothing to lead a country forward from a deep division by beating the definition of a "real American."
His policy appears to be Palinesque.
If you want to know about Romney's foreign policy intentions, look no farther than his current advisors--most of which are left-overs from Bush/Cheney. You do remember Bush and Cheney--the guys who, in the first speech to the American people after 9/11 told us all to not worry and to "go shopping." You must remember Bush and Cheney who immediately invaded Afghanistan, sending in thousands of troops in order to locate bin Laden. How can you forget Bush/Cheney who had no plan for winning a war in Afghanistan or an exit strategy to get us out? You know--Bush and Cheney: those guys who sent our troops into battle without adequate armour, without adequate battle gear, including helmets and body armour. It has to be coming to you now that Bush and Cheney are the guys who left it up to Cher to raise money to supply battle helmets to American combat troops.
You remember Bush and Cheney--the guys who lied about the existence of WMDs in Iraq and mounting an invasion of that country while American troops were already engaged in combat in Afghanistan. That's the same Bush and Cheney who had no plan for what to do once American troops reached Baghdad--and again, no battle plan, no preparation for the inevitable insurgency, and no exit strategy for getting us the hell out of that mess they created.
How can anyone forget Bush "landing" a fighter plan atop an American aircraft carrier adorned with a sign reading "Mission Accomplished" and then allowing the combat in Afghanistan and Iraq to continue for another decade. A decade--that's ten more years following the "Mission Accomplished" fisco, right?
Remember Bush who during his second term in office, after failing to capture bin Laden, told reporters that he didn't give bin Laden much thought anymore.
And you must remember Bush and Cheney with their business connections to Halliburton--and the sweetheart deals granted to Halliburton in the Middle East that netted the corporation billions of dollars while also padding the personal fortunes of Bush and Cheney themselves. (If you want a reason why we all should care about where and how Romney invests his fortune, look no farther than Bush and Cheney. Who's to say that Romney doesn't have holdings in companies that stand to profit by the US engaging in other unnecessary, immoral, and protracted wars?)
If you want to know about Romney's foreign policy intentions, listen again to his hawkish criticism of President Obama, lambasting the president for his "failure" to intervene in Syria. Of course, Romney has no notion of what forms such intervention should take. And he's obviously oblivious to the reality that if the US took any military action in Syria, that act would place us in direct conflict with BOTH Russia and China.
Think about the people who Romney might place in his cabinet. Can you imagine Chris Christie as Secretary of State? How about Michelle Bachman as Secretary of Defense? Afterall, Boehner has seen fit to place that lunatic on the Intelligence Committee. Wow, if that ain't an oxymoron, well....
Romney is a one-trick pony candidate. The only plank in his platform is his claim that he can fix the economy. And he doesn't even have a plan for that.
Romney is a menace, and he'd just likely to get elected because so many Democratic voters are "disappointed" with President Obama. At this point in the campaign, if the American people can't tell what a disaster a Romney presidency would create; if they can't decide that the man wants only to be CEO of USA, Inc.; and if voters still can't figure out that the only reason we have for being disappointed with President Obama is that we were too lazy to vote in 2010, handing Congress to the anti-government, anti-American tea party lunatics who have done nothing to serve this country, then we deserve the government we're going to be suffering under should Romney be elected.
That clip should really make everyone take a step back and realize things have gone horribly wrong.
When a presidential campaign (and a "reporter") finds it acceptable to say that our ONGOING WAR is not a real issue we should be asking about or one they are focused on.
While in college, Mitt Romney did dress up as a police officer and drive around in his Rambler. But more important than that, Romney protested IN FAVOR of the military draft. Of course, Romney asked for and received five (5) draft deferments during the Viet Nam War, spending two years as a missionary in FRANCE--a country he has repeatedly says he loves (while simultaneously criticizing President Obama for being "too French" in his thinking).
Years later, Romney claimed that he has always wanted to serve in Viet Nam.
Romney supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not one of his five (5) military age sons has served. Not one of his sons has even expressed a desire in serving.
If you look at the service records of Romney's advisors, well, you'll see that there are no service records. None of his advisors, as hawkish as they all are, have ever served in the military. The same is true of the Bush administration. Yet--these are the guys who, without any pangs of conscience, required thousands of our military personnel to serve 3, 4, 5, or 6 combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Romney wants to command a huge military/defense budget. But he's going to be the same kind of president that George Bush was--the kind of president who relies upon only 0.5% of Americans to serve in combat. Romney's policies will require just 1% of American families to bear the burden of military service, but it won't be that elite one-percent he cares about.
It's a pity we can't move the country while Romney is away.
"Mitt Romney Adviser: 'Real Americans' Don't Care About Candidate's Afghanistan Policy"
The Huffington Post, Amanda Terkel, 07/19/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/mitt-romney-afghanistan_n_1687081.html
I didn't notice any refrence to vets on Mitt Romney's campaign web page!
Stunned
Here we go again -- Romney or one of his surrogates publicly infers that some Americans are inherently more American than are others, and that real Americans are exclusively those that support his candidacy.
Unlike many self-righteous conservatives, progressives do not believe that some political parties and regions of the nation are more "pro-America" than are others, and we do not wrap ourselves in the flag and indignantly proclaim that patriotism is an attribute exclusive to those who share our ideologies.
News media to Romney campaign: "So what exactly are you proposing with respect to (fill in the blank)?"
Their reply: "Proposing? Nothing. It is not Romney's responsibility to present any specifics regarding his policy positions on the problems facing the nation. His job is simply to oppose and denigrate any and every policy emanating from the White House."
Actually, Romney has hinted that he is deliberately avoiding discussing any details of his vague proposals for fear that doing so would hurt his numbers in the polls.
I suspect that this is partially true, but he also appears to be clueless about the nuances of the complex problems facing the nation and therefore confines his discussions to vague generalities, banal sound bites, and hyperbolic rhetoric.
Mitt is vague about specifics on virtually every issue because, in most cases, there are no specifics. He'll continually flip-flop on his policy positions because he is a habitual panderer desperately seeking validation from the voters. He makes crap up because he cannot be bothered with doing his homework so that his comments are drawn from verifiable facts and reflect reality.
I would suggest that Romney lacks the courage of his convictions, but Mitt doesn't appear to have any convictions.
Most folks would regard these traits as weaknesses, but Mitt probably regards them as character attributes. Bottom line, if he believes that it will help him to get elected, it's all good.