Associated Press
Romney met with Polish war veterans this week.
Mitt Romney returned to the U.S. yesterday after a week-long foreign excursion, which by any measure, didn't go especially well. But before the focus shifts entirely, I have a confession to make: I'd assumed Romney would make a surprise visit to Afghanistan.
The schedule called for a three-country trip: U.K., Israel, and Poland, in that order. But given that Romney has no foreign policy experience, no background in military affairs, and no real credibility on anything related to national security, I figured he'd have to make an unannounced stop in Afghanistan -- or at a minimum, to a U.S. military base somewhere in Europe.
In fact, I assumed Romney would stop in Afghanistan but had to keep the trip under wraps in advance due to security concerns, which would have been entirely understandable.
But he didn't go. In fact, shortly before he departed, one of Romney's policy advisors appeared on MSNBC and said "real Americans" don't want to talk about the war in Afghanistan anyway. It's the longest war in American history, and three months before Election Day, no one seems to know exactly what Romney's position is on U.S. policy in Afghanistan.
I'm reminded of an anecdote the Wall Street Journal recently published.
Mr. Romney made that clear at a July fundraiser in Montana as he rehashed the challenges Mr. Reagan faced when he took office. He recounted how Mr. Baker, a former secretary of state, held a national security meeting about Latin America during the first 100 days of Mr. Reagan's presidency.
"And after the meeting, President Reagan called me in and said, 'I want no more national-security meetings over the next 100 days -- all of our time has to be focused on getting our economy going,' " Mr. Romney recalled Mr. Baker saying.
In reality, this exchange between Reagan and Baker never happened. I don't know who told Romney this or whether Romney simply made it up out of whole cloth, but Reagan dealt with plenty of national-security meetings early in his presidency -- as all presidents do.
Putting aside the merit of Romney's vague ideas about government, does he fully understand the nature of the position he's seeking?
Does he realize that a president, especially during a time of war, can't simply choose which areas of interest will be important to him, and leave national security behind altogether?
If Romney takes the oath of office in January, he'll have tens of thousands of American troops on the ground in Afghanistan, fighting a war that began so long ago, he was still a liberal Republican at the time. Does anyone have the foggiest idea what he intends to do with those troops and/or how long he intends to keep them there?
Leave a Comment:
"Real Americans" only talk about tax loopholes, outsourcing, and offshoring. In 'quiet rooms'.
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor visits Yankee Stadium. Yesterday, July 31st SCJ Sotomayor, a life long Yankees fan who was raised in the Bronx attending a Yankees game. Seated in the "roughest" part of town at Yankee Stadium Sotomayor was fearless in her fervor & love of the Yankees. Joining in with the rest of the "Bleacher Creatures" as they carried out the "roll call" tradition known exclusively at the Stadium.
Thought it kind of cool that Sotomayor chose the cheap seats, running at 18.00 plus this week as the venue from which she'd watch the game. An entire 400 plus feet away from homeplate. I am certain she could have any seat in the place including luxury or owner's box seats. That's a humble move on her part. A true exercise of humility.
I tip my hat to Justice Sotomayor. I may not be appreciative of her positions she might take from the bench, but we can agree to join together in a chant from the bleachers at the top of the 1st, "Derek Jeter", "Derek Jeter" and so on down the roll call line.
Classy Move Justice Sotomayor.
Another whine du jour, Mitt isn't militaristic enough for us? Oh brother. I have no doubt the Bush denunciations would have been out and flying had Romney visited a military base.
Afghanistan is Obama's war now, with any luck Romney will just let it fade away.
What should he do? Just ignore the 10,00 plus troops that are there now until they're killed and then the war will just end? This is weak, even for Shooter.
No, he specifically denounces Obama's withdrawal plans.
I wonder how much the GOP/Rove/Romney pays you to troll sites that are enlightening and try to darken them with your ignorance?
When are people going to realize that Willard Mittens Romney is just a plain old COWARD?
Does anyone know if Romney has ever visited a VA hospital? I searched Google and I could not find one reference to Romney visiting wounded soldiers.
Putting aside the merit of Romney's vague ideas about government, does he fully understand the nature of the position he's seeking?
Or does he even give a sh!t?
Mittens needs know nothing about foreign policy. For that he has the neocons. Nobody would ever think that John Bolton as Secretary of Defense or State would be a disaster for the U.S.
Mittens needs know nothing about domestic policy. For that he has the cultural conservates to tell him what to do.
Mittens needs know nothing about fiscal policy. The reason he was selected to be president is to cut taxes on the wealthy. Beyond that, all he needs do is not enforce any regulations that the repukes are unable to completely gut.
I think you'll be surprised at how much Republicans love regulations. Maybe not the ones you would like, but there are plenty of them that suit them just fine.
This is a fundamental problem with the CEO-as-President model. Corporations are not democracies. At best there is a theoretical, marginally-democratic accountability after the fact through shareholder votes. But the CEO is used to being able to simply make commands and have them followed, to have extensive control over the agenda of the enterprise both on a broader level and in this afternoon's meeting.
The Presidency could hardly be more different, and there is no indication that Romney is prepared for those differences. To the contrary, the way he runs his campaign suggests he is in denial about them.
My friend, you are the kind of person who will be first in line for a pink slip when Romney takes over.
Perhaps Governor Romney was thinking instead of President G.W. Bush's desire to not pursue national security concerns, such as a bothersome report about the Taliban's intention to attack the USA. How did that work out again?
Shhhhhh, let us not disturb Mitt's dream...(tip toes carefully away)
I am struck by how good your posts are Benen. And how you seem to be on the same though wavelength as I am. I was also under the impression Romney would be making a surprise trip to the Afghanistan region. Did he really not meet with any of the american troops overseas? If Obama did this the right would be calling for his head.
He should not have stopped there as a candidate that would be undermining the sitting president. If anything a base yes -- our place of war as someone who hasn't even been fully implemented as the running candidate? No, absolutely not.
I have no doubt our soldiers are relieved he did not show up.
By the way Mitt--real Americans are bothered by the war-real Americans know some of the soldiers and might be related to them. Real Americans want the war to end. But then real Americans saw through the republican lies to justify the invasion to begin with.
As Rachel explained on the air last night, starting today, insurance companies have to provide preventive care without copays or deductibles, a policy that especially benefits American women, who can now receive everything "from pap smears to detect cervical cancer, to STD screenings, to other kinds of cancer screenings, to gestational diabetes testing if you`re pregnant, to breast feeding supplies if you're a new mom" effectively for free.
OversightandReform/Flickr
And, of course, part of preventive care also means birth control -- a detail that apparently still troubles some folks on the right.
If that's the case, then why do you and s Maddow have to continue to "re tell" the facts as you know them over & over? Why so defensive of what is so cut and dry an issue?
Because there is a legitamate "other side" of the issue perhaps? One you are NOT telling?
If it's ONLY about women's health benefits and "contraception for free" why the big deal? Perhaps because it's truly about "abortion, sterilization and abortificiants"??? That's clearly the wording verbatum taken directly from the AFC act itself.
If this is so much a "slam dunk" why not invite an opposing viewpoint on the program? Priests for Life is part of the suit vs HHS. Then have Fr Frank Pavone on TRMS and have Rachel Maddow talk/discuss matters with him. What's his point? What does he object to? EWTN is involved in an active suit vs HHS, why not have someone from Eternal Work Network on to discuss with Maddow the various objections. Heck, Maddow says she loves Nuns, evidence Sr Simone Campbell from "Nuns in the Bus" well.............. invite a NUN from EWTN ontp the show! That is of course if she's afraid to have Fr Barron or Packwa or Groeshel on. What about having Cardinal Dolan on???? He's right in NYC. How about Richard Thompson Cheif Council for the Thomas More Law Center :
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, criticized the federal rule.
“The Obama administration deliberately declared war on the Catholic Church by promulgating the HHS mandate,” he said July 26. “And contrary to what they want you to believe, this case is not about contraception. It is about the religious freedom of Christians, in this case Catholics, to peaceably practice their faith free from government coercion.”
He warned that if the government succeeds, “the religious freedom of all Christians is in danger.”
What does he mean by those statements? Isn't Maddow "fair"? What's at issue?
The Department of Health and Human Services mandate requires all employers with 50 or more employees to provide insurance coverage including sterilization, contraception and abortion-causing drugs.
Its narrow religious exemption does not include many Catholic health systems, charities and colleges, despite Catholic objections to covering the procedures and drugs.
Catholic employers who run secular businesses have even fewer protections in the mandate regulations.
The motion for an emergency injunction was filed before Judge Robert H. Cleland of the Eastern District of Maryland. It says the mandate violates rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Mersino told EWTN News July 27 that the mandate would have an “enormous impact” on Weingartz and his company.
“If you look at the 170 employees that he has, and at minimum the $2,000 fine (per employee) he faces annually, he’s looking at in excess of over $300,000 a year in fines for non-compliance.”
What are you afraid of TRMS? What is Ms Maddow afraid of? The TRUTH getting out?
Please don't be a cowering shivering pundit with no intestinal fortitude. You're the Rhodes Scholar, certainly you can easliy outdo some "right wing radical know nothing Pro Life Priest like Fr Frank Pavone!
Or can You?
@Irish Re: #12
Regarding the statement:
"He warned that if the government succeeds, “the religious freedom of all Christians is in danger.”"
As I have said before, if this means that the freedom of some to impose their religious beliefs on us all is in danger, I say "Hallelujah AMEN".
C'mon folks - Mittens is going to out-source foreign policy to the British, Israelis and Poles, hence his trip.
There are still over 90,000 Americans deployed in Afghanistan. I'm sure every one of them would like to know what is Mitt Romney's strategy for that country.
Those are "real Americans".
There are also over 90,000 families that I'm sure would like to know what the GOP candidate's strategy is for Afghanistan.
They too are "real Americans".
To say that "real Americans" aren't all that worried about what Mitt Romney plans on doing with Afghanistan is slap in the face of those serving in that country, those who did serve there, and their families who have endured and suffered so much.
I really expected better from a group that supposedly prides itself in how much it "supports the troops", and this statement both disappoints and angers me.