In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney ignored the war in Afghanistan as if it doesn't exist, and failed to even mention veterans. He was, as the AP noted, "the first Republican since 1952 to accept his party's nomination without mentioning war."
On Friday, after the most favorable setup imaginable on Fox News, Romney tried once again to explain the neglect away.
For those who can't watch clips online, Romney told Bret Baier, "When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things you think are important, and I described in my speech my commitment to a strong military, unlike the president's decision to cut our military. I didn't use the word 'troops,' I used the word 'military.' I think they refer to the same thing."
This isn't much of a defense. In a time of war, those who intend to be Commander in Chief have unique responsibilities. Understanding the difference between the military as an institution and servicemen and women as individuals matters, as does the ongoing conflict Romney is ignoring.
Indeed, I'm struck by the notion that candidates are expected to "talk about the things you think are important" at their convention. By this reasoning, does Romney believe the war in Afghanistan doesn't qualify as "important"?
The Republican tried a slightly different line on "Meet the Press" yesterday, saying, "[W]hat I've found is that wherever I go, I am speaking to tens of millions of people. Everything I say is picked up by you and by others and that's the way it ought to be. So I went to the American Legion and spoke with our veterans there and described my policy as it relates to Afghanistan."
There are a couple of problems with this. The first is the notion that Romney doesn't think the war is worth mentioning two days in a row. The second is that he's lying -- in his American Legion speech, Romney didn't "describe" his policy "as it relates to Afghanistan."
If Romney were a Democrat, there's simply no way Republicans would let him get away with this.
Leave a Comment:
My favorite bit was when he was asked if he regretted the omission, and his response was, "No, but I regret you bringing it up day after day." So unbelievably tone deaf, my God.
I was surprised and disappointed that didn't become a bigger deal in the press. In a just world, that would have been a gaffe for the ages.
The "military" is full of actual people, Mitt. People who like to know that the civilian who orders them into conflict zones will be fully cognizant of the weight of that order. I don't for a second believe you have such capacity.
'Indeed, I'm struck by the notion that candidates are expected to "talk about the things you think are important" at their convention. By this reasoning, does Romney believe the war in Afghanistan doesn't qualify as "important"?"
It ISN'T important by any measure. If it was, we wouldn't allow our troops to be killed by the Afghan units they're supposed to work with on a regular basis and have them commit suicide at the highest rates in history. Also we wouldn't be conducting basically a rear guard action to allow the Karzai junta to steal millions more before they fly out of Kabul just before it falls on a C-5 provided by our government
What do you think Mr. Romney would do (if elected) to change all that? Of course . . . you can only speculate, since he has yet to give us any details.
Also, I suggest you run your "It ISN't important by any measure," point of view by the next soldier you meet and see what he or she thinks of it.
That's like the story that Johnny Cash used to tell about giving his prison concert and being asked by the warden not to sing Folsom Prison Blues because it would remind them of where they were.
"Do you think they forgot?" was his answer.
The soldiers and their families know they'been abandoned to their fate, much better than you.
Why do you think they are committing suicide?
Again . . . what would Mr. Romney do about it?
...I'm confused. Your argument here is that it's OK for Romney to have left this out, because the rest of America has left the troops? If your argument is that you don't think politicians should be giving lip service (as opposed to actually doing something) I'm right there with you. But not talking about it and not doing anything about it is only slightly less douchey than talking about it and not doing anything about it. So I'm not at all comprehending what your complaint is.
If the rest of America has forgotten about our men and women in uniform then I would think that would put more imperative on our elected officials to speak out and give support to our troops (as opposed to less). Therefore it seems to me you'd be arguing that Romney's omission is even more egregious, not less. Yet your conclusion seems to be that it's actually better this way.
Clearly I'm misunderstanding something
I am not in favor of Romney but making the general point that we already HAVE forgotten about them and the longest war in US history. That's the secret to long wars, keep the casulaty count relatively low and limit it to those families who serve across generations and Joe Citizen could care less because their lives aren't touched at all.
Except that "we" haven't forgotten:
Bush did. Didn't even include the war in Afghanistan in the budget.
But Obama DID.
AND Obama actually has a plan.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-21/us/us_nato-summit_1_international-security-assistance-force-nato-forces-isaf?_s=PM:US
Somewhere (Balloon Juice?) I saw an apt comment about Romney thinking that servicemen and servicewomen are just another asset in the military's portfolio. Tanks, guns, people, land, buildings -- to Romney, they are all just a list of assets on a balance sheet, not actual human beings with families and friends.
Kinda like household pets and employees who find themselves under Bain control?
That's what you get when you "think like a CEO."
Tanks, guns, land, buildings, aircraft -- those are assets.
People are liabilities.
The best spin I can put on that is, that since his position is not demonstrably different than Obama's, he doesn't want to mention it. Because that recognizes that the president is doing something right. So don't waste precious convention air time agreeing with your opponent.
(You know Mitt is doing really badly when I start helping him with spin!)
Troops are to Military as People are to Corporations.
So, yeah, it makes sense that Mitt doesn't see the problem with his use of the word "military". Because after all, spending billions on fancy weapons is the same as funding the VA, right? "CEOs of Military Contractors are people too, my friend."
Agree with your post but with one difference both he and Obama are doing something wrong, not right in Afghanistan.
No, Romney isn't doing squat in Afghanistan. Not even visiting on his international tour last month.
Obama is cleaning up a mess that GW Bush made and then neglected. Perhaps you would like US to cut and run, but having toppled the Taliban it is not wise to just leave and let the country fall into full-scale civil war, or to have neighbors Iran and Pakistan take it over.
Certainly, every single girl going to school and every woman in the workforce now wouldn't think so.
"Obama is cleaning up a mess that GW Bush made and then neglected. Perhaps you would like US to cut and run, but having toppled the Taliban"
Yes about Bush who was the worst, but the "cut and run" thing is stupid and jingoisitic like you're at a GOP convention wearing a funny hat.
If we've "toppled the Taliban", then who is killing our troops?
Sorry. "Toppled the Taliban government." Better?
I'm actually giving Romney the benefit of the doubt that his policy would be similar to Obama's. This is all Mitt said about Afghanistan, to the American Legion audience:
"And we are still at war in Afghanistan. We still have uniformed men and women in conflict, risking their lives just as you once did."
This isn't even a "stay the course" message. It's obviously not a "change course" message. This has all the moral authority of opening an umbrella to signify that you are aware of the rain.
Please understand that I'm not saying that Romney would be good on Afghanistan. He would be awful, just like Obama has been.
Please enlighten us as to how President Banned Again would be better on Afghanistan than these two.
You call me stupid and jingoistic to use the term "cut and run" so I assume you are not in favor of immediate withdrawal. I am not the least bit bellicose nor do I believe is President Obama. It is simply a matter of trying to pull out responsibly, as was done with Bush's other disaster, Iraq.
I brought this up with you once before banned. You are assuming that things could be done differently, but you are doing so without any evidence. Unless you can provide empirical proof that something different could be done then I think you're getting angry about a situation that cannot be changed. While you're certainly free to do that, it seems to me to be a waste of your time and energy.
I happen to agree with Mike that regardless of who was president you'd have the same actions being taken in Afghanistan. The only difference that might have existed, at least it seems to me, is that a Republican may have been less willing to bring our troops home on a deadline. Starting next year we hand control over to the locals and take a step back (just as we did in Iraq in our transitioning phase). By the end of 2014 we're set to leave. That means they will have roughly a year to establish their own stability before we leave (just as we did with Iraq). And then from there they have to take the lead. Perhaps there is and was a different way to carry the war out- I do not know- but from what we've been told (and no I don't mean by politicians, I mean by the military leadership in charge of our strategy in the war) this is the only way we can leave the country. I think it's presumptuous for people to assert that we could have done X or we should be doing Y without having ample evidence to support it. For the record no I am not saying that our solution is also the only solution or that it even is the best solution. I think skepticism is the only option here and skepticism means that you take no position of authority.
It is true though that as long as we're at war with multiple deployments, as long as we are a nation with a crappy health care system, as long as we are a nation that doesn't value it's veterans there will be massive suicides. Some of this is social and will not change unless there's an equally strong social movement. The rest is policy based and can be changed if we put our minds to it. That, to me, should be our focus since it seems to be the only area where we actually can do something.
We got out of Iraq within two years under Obama. We got out of the Korean War in 18 months under Eisenhower.
We EXPANDED the Afghanistan war, to no apparent point and will be there 6 years under Obama before we are out (if then).
"u call me stupid and jingoistic to use the term "cut and run" so I assume you are not in favor of immediate withdrawal"
That is exactly why I said it was jingoistic, because an immediate withdrawal in the first year would have been the best possible solution.
the Karzai government will collapse whenever we leave, 2010 or 2014 it doesn't matter at all.
That is a LIE:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-21/us/us_nato-summit_1_international-security-assistance-force-nato-forces-isaf?_s=PM:US
Your attempt at not being a troll is failing, bb.
I said this last time to you banned- you can NOT say that because a country is foreign or because the people in that country are brown or Muslim that this somehow means that the strategies are similar. The problems faced by every nation you listed- Iraq, Korea, and Afghanistan, are unique to each individual nation. If I had to pick one pet peeve about politics this would be it. You are using a one-size-fits-all solution, a black-and-white solution to a problem that is too complicated for such a solution. You want to know where your inefficient government comes from? This is it right here.
Afghanistan is a landlocked country which means we cannot use port or waterways to access the nation. We only have 1 route into and out of Afghanistan by ground and that is Pakistan. Pakistan for 6 months cut us off from using that one access road. I am not at all sure how, with this logistical problem alone, you are thinking that getting out of Afghanistan will be easy. You either have to fly everything in or drive it in by the one road. We did not have this problem in Iraq or Korea. Both of these countries are partially surrounded by water which allowed our Navy and US Coast Guard and US Army to transport necessary goods including troops, vehicles, and supplies by ship. Afghanistan does not have a developed roadway system- they had a limited dirt road system that was set up, but even THAT had to be built up and expanded by our nation because it was insufficient for us to transport goods, troops, and conduct operations. I do not know where you are getting that if it took months and months for us to build these things up that it won't take us months and months to tear them down or secure them well enough to hand them over to the locals. In the case of both Iraq and Korea they had a highway system. In the case of Iraq you could get virtually anywhere within the country via roadway. In Korea they had a limited, but paved roadway system for us to use.
When we invaded Afghanistan they had a rag-tag army that existed primarily from hand-me-downs we had given the nation to fight the Soviet Union during the Soviet occupation. Those soldiers were well trained after having spent nearly a decade fighting against the Soviets. Fighting against Al'Qaeda for them was a lot less of an extreme task because they were well organized, well supplied, and well armed as compared to their enemies. When we initially invaded things were going very, very well. We only gave them a handful of ground forces (national guard forces and US special forces/special operations forces) to fight the enemy. The rest was their doing. It was because of how good this US military-local military alliance worked that the Bush Administration got the great idea that it could invade Iraq and have that war go over swimmingly well. Had we stayed in Afghanistan and kept our eye on the ball we would've likely been out of that country by 2004 or 2005 (some estimates say as late as 2006). But it would've been with that limited force performing only targeted strikes and doing local building operations. It would not have been an expanded force carrying out nation building, attempting to set up a local government, and the like. I should also mention here that when we invaded Afghanistan there was a government in place. After we invaded and tore the place apart looking for Bin Laden we got bored and put our focus on Iraq. We kept preliminary forces there in Afghanistan and continued carrying out air-strikes against suspected Al'Qaeda outposts, but otherwise we basically ignored the country. That then allowed for the resurgence of the Taliban (they were NOT in control at the time we invaded). By the time Obama was elected the Taliban had retaken complete control of Afghanistan with the exception of the contested tribal areas where Al'Qaeda was a menace. Back in those days there was an entire army of Al'Qaeda operatives present in the contested areas of Afghanistan. After Obama took office he did exactly what he promised he was going to do in the debates- he put focus back on Afghanistan so that we could finally get out of this god-forsaken place. By this point in time the country had completely collapsed and at that point we had to rebuild it from the ground up. But we still had the problem with Al'Qaeda and now we had a new enemy- the Taliban- who also had to be dealt with.
Compare this to the issue of Korea: Korea had a well established government that we did NOT destroy when we occupied that country. When we entered into the Korean conflict there were two primary interests fighting: those of the north (who were backed by China) and those of the south (who were backed by the US). The rebelling population that would eventually come to make up South Korea had a strict military structure, they were WELL trained soldiers, they were WELL armed, and they were well supplied. The only problem they had was a lack of numbers and a lack of superior arms. Remember the Korean conflict had been going on for years before the US got involved (just like with Vietnam). Our involvement there was about supporting the southern resistance against the aggressive north to prevent the communists from moving south (or at least that's what my history book read- I suppose I still think the idea of "fighting against communism" stupid, especially because the mentality at the time was that naturally communism would fail. Seems to this 90's educated baby that if the latter is true then the former was entirely unnecessary, but I digress). If you recall the US went from preliminary force presence to a surge of forces (just like with Iraq, just like with Afghanistan). The difference though was that it was eventually determined that we were not going to win this war. So we established a secure zone and a cease-fire agreement. To this day the Korean War has never officially been ended. The Korean War simply came to a cease-fire. This is why we have a North Korea and South Korean and gigantic, very hostile, very scary DMZ between the two nations. In the case of Korea we did not have the same desperation and lack of order that we had in Iraq and have in Afghanistan. We also had waterways so that we could keep the nation supplied in a way that we do not have now with Afghanistan.
I should also point out that we never stopped occupying Korea. That is a complete misrepresentation on your part. We have occupied Korea since we first occupied that country. We just aren't actively engaging in military conflicts because of the cease-fire. It's so strange to me that you'd used Korea as an example. I could understand the comparison to Iraq albeit I still think it's silly to compare. But at least there are more similarities there and the two wars were going on simultaneously so their being linked together at least makes some rational sense. Korea though is such a different level. I'm even somewhat amused by the idea that the Korean War has ended. I guess all those soldiers we send overseas are on vacation. And that DMZ is really just a giant slip-n-slide.
In the case of Korea we had an army that was allowed to stay in power. In the case of Afghanistan we could have had this had we kept our eye on the ball. We took our eye off the ball, people became desperate for work since we toppled the government, and so the Taliban came in (being the only force with the ability to pay wages). And that descended the country into madness. In the case of Iraq George W. Bush had to get his genius ass on an air craft carrier and proudly proclaim that the enemy should "bring it on" after having declared the war a "crusade." To the people in the Middle East who hate us this signified the start of jihad. It would be like the UN coming here in America and declaring that black helicopters were going to start taking US citizen's guns away. The right wing would just go bat-@!$%# crazy over that and begin killing every UN soldier it saw in sight. The same happened with jihad.
In the case of jihad Al'Qaeda operatives from nations all over flooded into the country to fight against US troops. In fact the majority of the enemies were fought after the initial invasion of the war were not Iraqis, but were actually foreigners pretending to be Iraqis to our ever so ignorant military. If they weren't members of Al'Qaeda then they were young men who entered the country simply for the promise of jihad. Most of these men came from nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Ever seen the HBO series Generation Kill? There's a slogan in that series in which one of the marines says that he was told to "never pet a burning dog" and that at the time he had been told that he did not understand what it meant. After their convoy was ambushed by Syrian jihadists he said he finally understood. Because at that point in time the US had opened a whole can of worms and they had taken out the one power structure (as opposed to working with it) that could've helped keep order. And that is why the Iraq war took so damn long to fight and for us to leave.
None of these wars are comparable. They have comparable elements, but even in my narrowed, oversimplified explanation of their differences you can see that they are totally different.
One more thing. In the case of Iraq, President Bush had started the surge in 2006 (before Obama took office). So the effects of the surge had already taken place. We officially left Iraq in 2010. That's 4 years. Obama takes office and then escalates the war in Afghanistan and now we're going to leave (after that has taken effect) after 6 years. You're complaining about a 2 year difference. I just want to make that context clear here. And given all the other problems that existed with Afghanistan can you not see how a 2 year difference is something not necessarily huge? This is why I get upset with people who just scream get out now! I'm not touting the we can't cut and run (I agree that, that's just empty rhetoric spewed to fit on a bumper sticker) line. What I am trying to explain here is that even if we wanted to leave right away there are many, many factors that have to be considered. Each situation is it's own. Ever seen the spaghetti chart? There's a reason why this war is so difficult. Over simplifying complicated issues only leaves to band-aid solutions that usually end up exasperating the problem as opposed to treating the problem. If we're going to have American lives lost on a venture- no matter how stupid and misguided- then I want that venture to be a solution and not a band-aid. Since Obama didn't have a choice in this I am glad he's trying to take the best solution process he can. I don't think, in this case, you can stop the bleeding. But he's at least trying to stop it with quick-clot and c-saver. What you're advocating is that he give the guy a shot of morphine and walk off and this is only after the previous doctor was taken off duty for being too drunk to treat the patient.
Mr. Benen,
It is unreasonable of you to expect pathological liars to tell the truth!
Pathological liars lie when there is no advantage to be gained by using a lie vs the truth...
Hence, "My first name is Mitt" spoken by Willard Mitt Romney...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeuY0TZbvp0
had i the military record of willard, there's no way in hell i'd bring the subject of war up anywhere, anytime (other than among fellow republican chickenhawks).
Besides...ending the war in Afghanistan would mean that Romney would have to start a new war someplace else in order to be able to justify expanded military spending. With no wars to fight, military spending can come down, and a Romney administration wouldn't want that to happen...
Romney, of course, is the guy who just flat out made up a fictitious anecdote attributed to the infallible St. Ronnie that has Ronnie telling his chief of staff after his first national security briefing that he didn't want any more national security briefings for the next hundred days because he was going to be focusing on the economy. The implication being that that's what Romney thinks he's going to do.
I think this anecdote establishes that the Romneybot was assembled no earlier than 1982. Because anyone who lived in those days knows that living in a world where foreign policy wasn't a critical part of every election, and the overriding concern of the President's day to day job, is a luxury we've only had since about 1992.
If word had leaked out that Reagan was planning to ignore the Soviets and the rest of the world for three months, somebody would have invoked the 25th Amendment, both because the USSR had been his primary fixation for decades and veering from that would have signaled some kind of mental breakdown and because ignoring foreign policy would have been deemed objectively insane.
And, yeah, its still is. We may not constantly be three minutes from nuclear extinction the way we were in Reagan's days, but a world with a G-20 needs more, not less, attention than a world with two superpowers.
More precise Willard: Wars are good for corporations, and we have to worry about such "people" since they are my constituents, not to mention that wars are fought by "those people."
/snark
The only policy Romney has, is the one in which he thinks he can win a Presidency simply by sitting back and letting his rich friends help him. He is intending to Govern in the same way Bush did, by proxy, allowing the same people who are funding his campaign to call the shots. Instead of handing him this Presidency on a silver platter we need to give him the boot. He is not even acknowledging that the man he has picked for VP has obstructed justice and has everyone in this Country beleiving that the Republican Congress are Rascists who have aided in hateful practices towards our President, just short of a lynching. They have been exposed for what they did after President Obama was elected and not one of them has come forward denying the allegations. We do not live in a secret society and our elected officials should stop behaving like they do. Now that their prejudice has been exposed , you would think that they would seek help for their disease, before it spreads again like in the 1960's. Instead they have given themselves a name "TheTea Party".
Also loved the little Fux News headline above: "Romney: Many people don't understand Obama took car companies into bankrupcy." Another example of the reason people who watch that cable "news" channel are more uninformed than people who don't watch any cable news.
Exactly. As if Romney's solution (UNmanaged bankruptcy) was better. For sure Mitt knows the difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 or 13. But he ignores that knowledge to give the impression that what Obama did was the same as would have happened otherwise.
Obama saved GM and Chrysler, and a lot of their suppliers, from liquidation.
No. The conservative talking point is that they filed for bankruptcy so this therefore means the bailout failed. The conservative talking point is also, apparently, that the various levels of government involved in the process of declaring bankruptcy are in fact not government based (I find this one particularly humorous since anytime a major industry like the auto industry goes bankrupt the government always engages in some form of a managed bankruptcy- do people even realize that Romney's proposal is a complete break from US history???)
In today's GOP, you don't have to "support the troops", you merely have to slap a Chinese-made magnet on your SUV that says you do. He'll be forgiven the slight as he is much everything else.
I don't get it. Him, or the folks who plan to vote for him. Not against him. That, for much of the ugliness inherent in it, I understand, if not approve of at all. Why is anyone voting FOR this guy?
For
republicansReal Americans, Patriotism means to have multiple Chinese made 'Support Our Troops' bumper stickers on each of your SUVs.With exceptions for Queen Ann who does not want anything to be in the way of their houseboys cleaning of her Cadillacs.
Standby for the mass prison break out, coming soon:
"US hands over Bagram prison to Afghans"
http://news.yahoo.com/us-hands-over-bagram-prison-afghans-071435302.html
Again, your attempt at not being a total and complete troll is failing, bb.
This is just another issue where Romney is stumbling and fumbling. Considering that he has Bush foreign policy people as advisers, it makes me wonder if they are sabotaging Romney's campaign. And if they are, then at whose behest are they doing this? Maybe Romney's whole campaign staff is riddled with people that are intentionally sabotaging the campaign.
Be serious. They're not Job Creators, they're grunts. People like that you buy and sell as needed -- nobody cares about them as individuals.
Lie'n Ryan,,,, doesn't that just roll off the tongue? Why would a pathological liar pick such an obvious disparagement for a running mate.
Whereas just "Kitten's Mitt'ns for president" would be unbeatable in this policy void of an election.
I saw this segment and immediately thought about this PSA from the 80's from the Mormon church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thyffmWejtM
"When ya Tell one lie, it leads to another
Then ya Tell Two lies to cover each other
Then ya tell three lies - oh brother - you're in trouble up to your ears!"
The Mormon Church was blanketing the airwaves in the 80's with PSA's teaching kids not to lie. Am I the only one who sees the irony that the first Mormon candidate for President is also the most lying-est?