Two months ago, Mitt Romney delivered an acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, which ignored the war in Afghanistan as if it didn'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."
The candidate took some heat for the oversight, but chooses not to correct the problem.
Mitt Romney delivered what he reportedly dubbed his "closing argument" speech today in Wisconsin and while he rattled off a series of attacks on the Obama administration for various alleged failures, the former Massachusetts governor entirely ignored foreign policy. Actually not entirely. Romney did repeat his "wrongheaded" claim that he would label China a currency manipulator upon taking office, an idea that pretty much no one thinks is a good one.
I checked Lexis-Nexis this morning, going through every public speech Romney has delivered since the third presidential debate, which was two weeks ago. How many times has the Republican mentioned "Afghanistan"? Zero. "Iraq"? Zero.
He's used the word "war," but only to refer to a "war on coal." Romney has mentioned "troops," but only in reference to Boy Scouts. In fairness, Lexis-Nexis did not include the transcripts of yesterday's speeches, and it's at least possible he unveiled new rhetoric yesterday, but that doesn't change the fact that the former one-term governor publicly ignored the ongoing war in Afghanistan, at a minimum, from Oct. 22 through Nov. 2.
Does the 2012 Republican candidate realize that he's running in a time of war? Does he understand that the responsibilities of a president include foreign policy leadership?
Rachel's recent segment on this continues to ring true: "National security is not something a president can say he doesn't want to work on."