Mitt Romney: giant foreign policy goofball

By: Rob
Published On: 8/16/2007 7:25:42 PM

TPM destroys Mitt the Flip.

Man, is there any GOP contenders who have even the slightest grasp of foreign policy?  We already know that Rudy's got none.  I would've said McCain until he waltzed through a Baghdad market to show it was safe -- with full armor on and a battalion of troops around him.

But, man, does this Mitt Romney guy take the cake.  What a stupid argument made in such a stupid way.


Comments



Watching Romney and Hannity Reminded me of... (FMArouet - 8/16/2007 8:45:21 PM)
a passage from the neocon catechism:


Orthodoxy means not thinkin--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.... As he watched the eyeless face with the jaw moving rapidly up and down, Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.

--George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four



My favorite Mitt nickname (Chris Guy - 8/16/2007 11:34:40 PM)
is the one Ted Kennedy came up with in their 1996 debate, "He's pro-choice, he's anti-choice, he's multiple-choice."

Multiple-Choice Mitt



All this time I've been annoyed at Dubya (Catzmaw - 8/17/2007 1:43:19 AM)
for being a true believer, but at least he's passionate in his stupidity.  They're calling Edwards a Ken doll??!  Look at this clown.  Every word out of his mouth is glib and slick.  Passionless, manipulative pablum.


Don't forget Fox Pox (Teddy - 8/17/2007 7:17:49 AM)
Fox News is the vector for Fox Pox, faux news, which hypnotizes regular watchers into believing they are seeing and hearing the truth about what's going on in the world. Note not only Mitt Romney, who looks soooo presidential (as did Harding in the 1920's, and he was another Republican macho-appearing disaster). Note also Hannity's spin as he blatantly asks the loaded question leading to Mitt's self-important answer.

Then again, think about Air Power. These comments are evidence of an old argument among the military, and there is an entire doctrine which posits that bombing can win wars and make the infantry on the ground unnecessary, a sort IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of war. The Air Force has constantly pushed this theory as a reason to get the lion's share of Defense budget money... just as the Navy has pushed Sea Power as the primary protector of America from foreign invasion in order to get the lion's share.

But time and again it has turned out that neither Air Power nor Sea Power can do the job alone. It always, always takes boots on the ground in a serious conflict.  Afghanistan is a new example of this; listen to the Ambassador's recommendation of "small unit of commandos" to helicopter in and snatch and/or kill the bad guys in the little village, rather than destroying the whole village with megabombs. Hmmm, do you suppose the ambassador is on to something here?

If Dubya had not been so locked on Saddam, and withdrawn our forces from Afghanistan when he did, we would doubtless have accomplished to goal of a reasonably stable, reasonably democratic government in the country, and have prevented the return of the Taliban.