I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama....
I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.
October 8, 2012
Romney's foreign policy speech at VMI: "The Mantle of Leadership."
Text here. Excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
140 comments:
what's romney's strategy? his afghanistan strategy is the EXACT same as obama's. handover in 2014. being bellicose is not a strategy. romney has no foreign policy experience. neither does ryan. this is a farce.
Well written passage. What the hell does it mean?
Sounds good enough.
Like his debate performance, the main thing Romney needs to achieve is countering exactly what tacotaco says -- the perception that he doesn't know anything about foreign policy.
If he sounds reasonable and competent, then he's a plausible alternative to President Obama -- which is sufficient to shift the focus to how well (or poorly) President Obama has actually handled the job over the last four years.
How much play is this getting in TV media? Is this just something wonks and bloggers are hearing, or is he managing to "move the discussion"?
If there is substance to Romney's statement that we need to use "America's great power to shape history" more than we have been doing, and not leave ourselves at "the mercy of events" in the Middle East, that would seem to mean more intervention in the Middle East. A return to the foreign policy approach of George W. Bush, in other words.
That's a good debate to have.
If that's not what Romney means, then I guess we just have more shiftiness and obfuscation.
taco - You should read Romney's remarks. He is NOT committed to a 2014 pull out. He criticizes Obama for that position and, again, states that he will pull the troops out based on the facts on the ground, not some arbitrary calendar.
"And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. . . . I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation." Same as Obama. Further, both will continue to use drones to attack the leadership of the Taliban and al Qaeda, should the latter show up again there. There is not difference. This is just posturing. Thanks.
What the hell does it mean?
Did you go to public school?
by "continue to use drones," i mean use drones in the pakistan/yemen fashion we use now for attacks without a ground presence in the harboring country.
If there is substance to Romney's statement that we need to use "America's great power to shape history" more than we have been doing, and not leave ourselves at "the mercy of events" in the Middle East, that would seem to mean more intervention in the Middle East. A return to the foreign policy approach of George W. Bush, in other words.
No, it's not a return to George W. Bush's foreign policy, it's a return to the foreign policy of Truman, JFK, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton. Obama's foreign policy is a return to Carter.
Romney needs to hammer Obama on Libya in the next debate.
For a man who campaigned against ill-conceived military adventurism, Obama sure knew how to commit military force to totally upend a nation's politics without having a plan for what happens after.
And then, after an Ambassador of the United States is murdered, to lie about it, to flub the investigation, to have it revealed that incompetence and stupidity on the part of the State Department is almost certainly the reason why the attack was successful...
If Romney can't destroy Obama with a hand-wrapped gift box like that, then maybe he really can't do foreign policy.
Re: Libya...
President Obama, on his own initiative, without consulting Congress (despite the War Powers Act), took us to war in Libya, explicitly to pursue "regime change."
It's hard to see how he can blame *anyone* else for the failure of his policies there.
I look forward to watching him try.
"No, it's not a return to George W. Bush's foreign policy, it's a return to the foreign policy of Truman, JFK, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton. Obama's foreign policy is a return to Carter."
Wait, Romney's gonna drop the bomb on Japan? Arm an anti-Castro invasion? Invade Granada? Obama's gonna send troops on a mission to free hostages in Iran? Both of them consider the Soviet Union to be our number one foreign policy challenge?
We're in worse shape than I thought! Third party candidates anyone?
Taco - There's a huge difference in position between Romney and Obama. Obama is committed to pulling out our troops at the end of 2014 without regard to conditions on the ground. Romney will keep them there, if necessary, beyond 2014. Both are committed to turning over primary responsibility to the Afghan security forces by the end of 2014, but Romney makes our complete withdrawal conditional on how successful Afghan security forces are in maintaining the peace. Obama, like he did in Iraq, will leave the country no matter the conditions on the ground.
Let's see what foreign policy experience did Choom have before his election. Ah, yes, he spoke before 100,000 rock fans in Berlin sponsored by G Soros. And Choom reads whatever they write for him on the teleprompter. Impressive.
"I'm Chris Stevens and I would have approved this message. But I'm dead. Thanks Barry."
"Hope is not a strategy"
Press that point, over and over and over.
That is a winning slogan against the dreamer, do-nothing-in-chief in the White House.
I saw Romney's speech on TV as he made it. It was masterful. Suddenly there's an adult in the room.
--What the hell does it mean?
Did you go to public school?---
Correlation is not causation, but in this case?
Since when did watching out for American interests become "bellicose"?
Most Americans understand that the killing of our ambassadors is bad and intrinsically understand that things are not going well in Afghanistan. I am among those who want us out of Afghanistan ASAP ( we can't accomplish anything more than we already have), but that does not mean I want the current president conducting US foreign policy.
America, due to our standing in the world, will always have to react and adjust to world events and bad things will happen, but America is always better off when it tries to influence events and show it has a hand on the tiller of the world. Bad things happen when America's hand is off that tiller.
Most people in this nation understand that.
romney has no foreign policy experience
Laugh out loud funny.
"Did you go to public school?---
Correlation is not causation, but in this case?"
I'm curious -- what are the variables and what is the hypothesized causal relationship?
VMI? He's a neo-Confederate! He's a neo-Confederate!
The conclusion "same as Obama" evidences a lack of critical thinking skills.
It is Obama who is the outlier on foreign policy. JFK would not recognize the Democrats.
Same as Obama
Bullshit.
Go read the actual speech.
I went to public school, but thank goodness, I finished and got out of it.
It's interesting that the tactic most lefties seem to be using when trying to defend Obama's foreign policy is to not defend it at all but to simply attack Romney. In fact most lefties seem reluctant to attempt to defend Obama on his record in general and instead go on the offensive. It's better to change the subject when your argument is weak I guess.
To repeat my comments, the Obama foreign policy did one thing: It made our opponents in the EU, China and Russia decide to await for Obama to finish off the bankruptcy, energy strangulation and military disarmament of the USA...then they could attack us.
The day Romney wins is the day they will mobilize.
C'mon people, he was just an ambassador. You need to lower your expectations..
"romney has no foreign policy experience"
Sure he has. That European tour from a few months ago was the stuff of legends! He made a fool out of himself in almost every country he visited.
Now about the priest from the Indianapolis Archdioses............
Hope is not a strategy and change isn't always for the best.
Obama, like he did in Iraq, will leave the country no matter the conditions on the ground.
Arguing that we should have stayed longer in Iraq wouldn't be good for Romney.
I also want to be very clear:
The responsibility for the attacks lies with the attackers.
The responsibility for the success of the attacks lies in significant part with the Obama Administration, who provided inadequate security.
Of course Romney can't say that.
But I can.
I have to say that I think that the idea that we can have much influence over the Middle East is misguided, regardless of who so asserts. The issues in that area of the world simply will not be resolved by anyone other than those who live there. To think otherwise is naive; the best we can do is a "holding action" to protect vital interests such as the Suez Canal for as long as possible.
Michael Yon and his
September 24 dispatch is a devastating look at the failure of military leadership in Afghanistan.
Either fight the war with proper equipment and training or get the hell out.
--Sure he has. That European tour from a few months ago was the stuff of legends! He made a fool out of himself in almost every country he visited. ---
Yet we know what the budget for the 2002 Olympics was, London put theirs under lock & key for 15 years.
Advantage - Romney.
OLYMPIC SECRETS to stay locked up for 15 YEARS
We have top men working on the ticket conspiracy. Top men
A summing up in bullet points from NRO:
Romney as Reagan, Obama as Carter
By Bing West
October 8, 2012 2:03 P.M.
Mr. Romney’s foreign-policy speech reprises President Reagan’s belief in American exceptionalism and global leadership. Based on those two core principles, Romney enumerates a list of specific actions. As president, he would:
1. tighten sanctions against Iran — while going no less and no farther than President Obama in obliquely referring to America’s military sword;
2. increase military aid and coordination with Israel — a delicate maneuver since Israel would like a degree of military coordination that would complicate our freedom of unilateral action and our coordination with NATO and Arab states;
3. use our aid to Egypt as leverage to channel Egypt’s political course;
4. consult with our generals about the pace of withdrawal from Afghanistan;
5. stand up to Putin’s Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba;
6. champion free trade — unlike Mr. Obama, who signed one such trade agreement in four years;
7. insure Syria obtains the weapons “to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.”
1. Same as Zero. Is Iran a nuclear threat to us? If so, take action, if not STFU and stop {phony} sanctioning people.
2. I love Israel. I'm Jewish. But I'm also American first. Let's stop borrowing money from China to give to Middle Eastern countries so they can kill each other better. Let them figure out their own problems. Reminder - we're the brokest country that ever was.
3. Stop giving aid to Muslin Egyptians. Jesus. Why don't we just give them shoulder mounted rockets and visas so they can shoot down some planes.
4. Get the hell out of that hellhole now. Yiiii. Today.
5. Yes, let's start a cold war with Russia, China [our banker] and a couple of dinky little nothing countries too.
6. Free trade between countries is overrated, a lot like voting.
7. Syria ???? Omigod. Let that other hellhole work itself out.
Bottom line. Romney's likely military adventures are a good reason to not vote for him either [I mean, there's no good reason to vote for Zero].
garage mahal:
You were saying what? Something about indictments?
I want to be very clear
Please do not coopt this irritating phrase Obama apparently believes means "media lapdogs - this is the section I need your support on".
"You were saying what? Something about indictments?"
I guess you think this is some sort of big get.
Walker was subpoenaed today to testify at one of his aides though. Awkward! So does he risk perjury or plead the fifth?
Mantle makes me think of a Carol Burnett skit. Romney comes walking out to the podium wearing a fireplace mantle. With a clock on it, pictures of family, a silk plant.
"I just happened to see this mantle of responsibility sitting there so I decided to shoulder it."
Another Bob Mackie triumph.
--What the hell does it mean?
You apparently went to one of our big city's horrible public schools.
I have to say, it rings a little false to me when Romney talks about defense spending and the military. He has a point, certainly, but he just hammers that point so hard. I mean, there was a bit in the debate where he said "military" like ten times in one minute.
Re: AF:
If there is substance to Romney's statement that we need to use "America's great power to shape history" more than we have been doing, and not leave ourselves at "the mercy of events" in the Middle East, that would seem to mean more intervention in the Middle East. A return to the foreign policy approach of George W. Bush, in other words.
We've been intervening in the middle east pretty extravagantly under Obama -- trying to help topple one of our allies in Egypt, bombing the crap out of Libya, etc. We've just been great at smashing the pots (or helping other people smash the pots), as it were, just largely ineffectual at shaping what comes after. Not that Bush II was great at shaping what came after -- he was as bad as Obama is. Either way, we need much better follow-through.
And do the whole debate wearing the Bob Mackie mantle of responsibility as if it were normal and win the hearts of cheering nation through laughter.Nothing else debate-related will ever be talked about without including this incident.
garage mahal, the mythology of Romney's disastrous foreign trip is foolish. If, as I assume, you really hope Obama wins, you and the people in your camp should realize that. American voters don't give a crap about whether Romney correctly criticized Olympic security or one of his staff correctly slapped down some media hack in Poland.
You gotta up your game. The nomenklatura don't get to vote. Unicorns don't either.
I see the trolls are in prevent defense mode, trying to salvage something out of Zero's sinking ship, in this case that there is some kind of foreign policy that must be saved.
garage mahal said...
Romney has no foreign policy experience
Sure he has. That European tour from a few months ago was the stuff of legends! He made a fool out of himself in almost every country he visited.
Guess again.
They loved him in Israel and he was right in Britain.
I might also add that, after 4 years, Zero's foreign policy experience remains to be seen.
Face it, this guy said his foreign policy cred was that he lived in a foreign country between ages 6 and 10 and his father was, and thus he is, Moslem.
We know how that worked out.
PS Nice touch, defining leading from behind as "leaving our destiny at the mercy of events".
Sure he has. That European tour from a few months ago was the stuff of legends! He made a fool out of himself in almost every country he visited
No, a legend would be when you visit Europe, get elected President, and 12 days into office you get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Now that's the stuff of legends...
12 days into office you get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I want someone to explain to me how that was Obama's fault.
"what's romney's strategy? his afghanistan strategy is the EXACT same as obama's. handover in 2014. being bellicose is not a strategy. romney has no foreign policy experience. neither does ryan. this is a farce."
The big difference is that we know how badly Obama has screwed everything up. Nothing could be worse.
Nothing
The Obamaos foreign policy can be summed up simply as an inverse gollum like evocation:
"We'll be nice to them, if they'll be nice to us," but in Obama world, it's "We'll be nice to you, and you'll be nice to us."
I think that leads to a much higher likelihood of a nuclear bomb being detonated in a major US city. And then what? Not everyone is nice, and even when they want to be nice, shit happens. And we know there are a lot of people over there who do not want to be nice.
My view, become energy independent, by getting to our oil resources over the next ten years, then give the whole ME region to China. They can pay us for it, and somehow, I don't think they would allow this to happen. The US can simply not manage that region, and I think it is safe to say the George Bush idea of bringing Democracy to that region has a low chance of success.
Chip Ahoy:
I know you being funny but I think the whole wearing a mantle might actually work!
Let's face it. Obama is the Michael Vick of Presidents.
If you say he is overrated you are called a racist.
He is a loser but nobody wants to point it out.
Most of all....Michael Vick kills dogs....and Barack Obama eats them!
Mitt Romney is Tim Tebow.
Just with more wives.
If nominated, I will not run.
tacotaco is a hardshill...
In fact I find Obama's FP to be a huge improvement over the previous 8 years of the Republican administration's mismanagment.
They loved Romney in Poland. Is Poland no longer part of Europe?
phx said...
12 days into office you get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I want someone to explain to me how that was Obama's fault.
Maybe you should first point out where soemone asserts it's Obama's fault.
phx said...
I want someone to explain to me how that was Obama's fault.
It wasn't. He could have graciously declined as "not worthy."
DKWalser said...
Taco - There's a huge difference in position between Romney and Obama. Obama is committed to pulling out our troops at the end of 2014 without regard to conditions on the ground. Romney will keep them there, if necessary, beyond 2014. Both are committed to turning over primary responsibility to the Afghan security forces by the end of 2014, but Romney makes our complete withdrawal conditional on how successful Afghan security forces are in maintaining the peace. Obama, like he did in Iraq, will leave the country no matter the conditions on the ground.
=================
There comes a point where we have to look at our nations longest war in history..in which the "Noble Muslim Freedom Lovers" we saved from the dastardly Islamists backshoot and create a few more "Fallen Heroes" every week.
Comes a point where you have to say no to military commanders that want another 10-20 years in a great career boosting war.
Romney I like a hell of a lot more than Zero - but you have to watch that he does not get too in thrall to the discredited Neocons.
Pull out of that hellhole. If they return to hosting terrorists that attack our interests outside Afghanistan, return to hellhole and bomb the shit out of them, or nuke the place from orbit.
I don't give two shits about the Noble Freedom Loving Afghans or their commitment to growing stuff other than poppies, their commitments to more female rights or enhanced literacy.
Phx you are a silly, silly man.
Okay, I see. It was Obama's fault he didn't decline the Nobel Prize.
12 days into office you get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I want someone to explain to me how that was Obama's fault.
There is this thing, this weird thing, the vast left-wing weirdness, not a conspiracy, but a weirdness. People on that side apparently think Arafat and Obama are deserving Nobel Peace Prize winners. That's stupid beyond belief to those of us on the right.
It's not Obama's fault. He's just on that side. He's an idiot, like many on the left.
phx, if you were awarded the Nobel Prize, would you accept?
I would not. I have done nothing worthy of it.
Obama accepted it.
phx said...
Okay, I see. It was Obama's fault he didn't decline the Nobel Prize.
Yes. See Bob Elison's reply.
"Blogger DKWalser said...
Taco - There's a huge difference in position between Romney and Obama. Obama is committed to pulling out our troops at the end of 2014 without regard to conditions on the ground. Romney will keep them there, if necessary, beyond 2014. Both are committed to turning over primary responsibility to the Afghan security forces by the end of 2014, but Romney makes our complete withdrawal conditional on how successful Afghan security forces are in maintaining the peace. "
The first thing to do is change the rules of engagement. WE are not allowed to shoot at night because it will disturb the sleep of the Afghans.
A military wife called Rush Limbaugh last week to say her husband is not allowed to shoot at guy loading mortar rounds into tube aimed at US bases because they are wearing civilian clothes. Has anyone seen a Taliban uniform ?
That would be a start. Personally, I think we should leave now and leave Pakistan and take our money with us. Johnson got 50,000 guys killed because he didn't want to be "the first US president to lose a war."
Obama said Afghanistan is the "good war." Bush let the SF guys handle it to keep the lid on.
Time for us to get out of many of our foreign entaglements.
Let's Drill and frack our way out of our problems. Letting the Chinese take over the Middle East sounds like a great idea. We can get out from under the problems and let them squash the barbarians. That should keep the both of them occupied for many years to come.
Without the need for the oil who gives a shit about them?
Maybe Obama should wear his Nobel Peace Prize around his neck when he debates Romney on FP issues. Just to remind everyone how well he's done.
"Bob Ellison said...
phx, if you were awarded the Nobel Prize, would you accept?
I would not. I have done nothing worthy of it."
I would. I mean $1.1 million is a lot o' whip out.
I also think Romney messed up by making his speech All About the Muslim World and Israel.
People are sick of the unending overattention the US gives to all those "shitty little countries".
It would have been far better for Romney - from a political and voter demographic perspective - if he had spent half his speech detailing how he would not ignore Mexico and Latin America like Obama has. And how he would work to boost the economies and prosperity of Mexico and other nations South of the Border as part of returning the US economy to health. Say good jobs are needed not just in America, but places like Mexico and El Salvador and Cuba and the Dominican Republic. And our own Commonwealth partner, Puerto Rico, is not going to be overlooked in a Romney Administration.
And talked about the collapse of socialist welfare state's
affordability in Europe and how we will work with them to both get Europe back to health and avoid America becoming another socialist Greece.
And talked about
--In fact I find Obama's FP to be a huge improvement over the previous 8 years of the Republican administration's mismanagment.---
Ahhh, managing the decline?
The world drags us in whether we want to be there or not. Now it's going to be worse.
phx said...
Okay, I see. It was Obama's fault he didn't decline the Nobel Prize.
anyone not totally enamored of himself would have realized he (or she) had done nothing to deserve it and would have made a nice speech in Stockholm about how he (or she) hoped to be deserving of the award sometime in the future, but they couldn't, in good conscience and all humility, accept it having done nothing.
That explain it?
Hey, Barry, earned it, peace is breaking out all over the Middle East!
Oh, wait...............
cut off -
And talked about how we would continue to be an important ally to many Pacific Nations and at the same time - work constructively with China and not engage them from a standpoint of hostility but mutual respect and recognition our economies and finances are intertwined, perhaps too much.
There is a lot more to foreign relations than what "Bibi" wants, or Achmenididjad thinks, or what Ahmed Karzai wants.
It's the US' job to boost the economies & prosperity of Mexico?
RACIST!
Iran might have the bomb in 2-4 months & signed a missile agreement w/Venezuela in 2010.
I'd pay attn to Iran, but that's just me.
Cuba? Really?
You know, Cedarford, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this.
Hope is not a method was a pretty big book on the leadership circuit maybe a year or two ago. Something tells me Romney read it.
"He made a fool out of himself in almost every country he visited."
-- Did he give region-locked DVDs to a blind guy?
"I mean, there was a bit in the debate where he said "military" like ten times in one minute."
-- In part, that is because the media missed his reference to them in his convention speech (and his visiting of veterans that same week) and assumed he wanted them all to die or something. Since the media are idiots, he has to make simple things clear for them.
"In fact I find Obama's FP to be a huge improvement over the previous 8 years of the Republican administration's mismanagment."
-- You mean to do roughly the same thing, except letting Russia flex some extra muscle in Eastern Europe, only do it while being a Democrat so that drone strikes killing civilians and caskets at Dover Air Force Base don't make the evening news and front page?
What would Lara Logan say?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/15581902-452/reporter-lara-logan-brings-ominous-news-from-middle-east.html
"There is a lot more to foreign relations than what "Bibi" wants, or Achmenididjad thinks, or what Ahmed Karzai wants. "
Right now, we don't have the money to be everywhere. There have to be priorities. Obama chose to abandon Iraq where we could have had influence at very little cost. Afghanistan with present ROE is a loss. We should get out . Pakistan is not a friend; India is. There's a clue there if you can find it.
Israel is a little like England was in 1940. It's an unsinkable aircraft carrier in an area where we have almost no friends. Turkey used to be but I don't trust them now.
Iran is our chief enemy right now and it is run by crazy people. China is not a threat because it is going to implode in the next decade or two. Their demography is going to occupy them and keep them busy.
Our best friend in East Asia besides South Korea is probably Mongolia.
Oil will be less of a concern for us if we can only shut up the greenies and get our own energy industry going again. Our electricity should come from nuclear and we need to rebuild the whole distribution infrastructure the next 20 years. That's a lot of jobs.
We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Our reserves are about equal to the rest of the world.
There are millions of educated and smart people all over the world who would love to immigrate here. Instead, we allow 11 million illiterate peasants to come in and subsist on welfare. It's crazy.
If Romney will just cancel all regulations written since 2008 and repeal Dodd-Frank, we will have a 20 year boom starting next January 20.
Energy is the key.
Put all the enviornmentalists in Gitmo and drill baby drill.
Load up Israel with weapons and give them the green light to take care of busniess any way they see fit.
Then sit back and enjoy!
Paul IV, your link was well worth reading, so I am making it even easier for folks to read Logan's warning.
Our enemies are writing the story, she suggests, and there’s no happy ending for us.
Armchair warriors are so fierce.
Well Allie, I somehow doubt you'd say to people's faces some of the things you've said to them to here. Armchair indeed.
Penny, the article by Lara Logan is chilling. She is correct that they still hate us and want us dead. But how many wars can we involve ourselves in, how many more lives, more money. Will our volunteer forces be enough? What about PTSD because of repeat deployments? So many considerations.
But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.
Finally! Someone from the GOP is willing to step forward and hold Bush responsible for 9/11 and the dreadful foreign policy decisions that followed. It's about time.
I most certainly would and have, deepelemblues.
Mr. Romney should admit, if only to himself, and as a base for his future policy ACTIONS that the USA has only one friend-and-ally in the Middle East---ISRAEL.
Because of the teachings of Islam, all Muslims are at war with all others (Until they join Islam OR humbly accept the slave-like status of "Dhimmitude"), which war is against 99% of Americans.
" Blogger Jake Diamond said...
But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.
Finally! Someone from the GOP is willing to step forward and hold Bush responsible for 9/11 and the dreadful foreign policy decisions that followed. It's about time. "
Trolls do provide some amusement. Are you stocking up with anti-depressants for November 7 ?
Zemo - I have a few questions for you. How many of those purple suits do you own? How often do you clean them? Do they require dry cleaning or can you just throw them in the wash?
Also, do you do birthday parties for kids?
Michael, I won't be depressed, Romney is not a whole lot different than Obama. Now if it were Santorum, yup, I'd need some SSRI's and maybe a little anti anxiety, Ativan thrown in for good measure.
If Romney will just cancel all regulations written since 2008 and repeal Dodd-Frank, we will have a 20 year boom starting next January 20.
I take your point (I'm on your side) but Romney can't "do" any of that. He needs help from Congress.
Just today I heard DiFi out expressing concern that the CA gasoline spike was concocted.
Concocted by whom? By the evil oil companies out to influence an election of course.
The people of CA are set to return Feinstein to another 6 year term. She may break Strom Thurmond's record (kidding). But seriously, how many Californians are even aware of who can help make a legislative dent in Sacramento, let alone our share of the DC cohort?
Michael K said...Trolls do provide some amusement. Are you stocking up with anti-depressants for November 7 ?
I am looking past Nov 7 to see how the especially jerkish commenters (garage, shiloh, diamond - those who have nothing to contribute but bile and hate) take it. We should start a pool on how long they stay away. Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll be permanent.
Trolls do provide some amusement.
Sometimes, but so far you're not succeeding.
Are you stocking up with anti-depressants for November 7 ?
Well, assuming I ignore the polls and accept the Althouse lemming theory that Mittens is secretly leading and is guaranteed to win the election, then your question might make a bit of sense. But no, a victory by Mittens won't be bad (financially) for me. It will be bad for the country though, which is a shame, but if Americans are stupid enough to elect Mittens--and we know they are since W won twice--they get what they deserve.
Jake Diamond said...
Well, assuming I ignore the polls and accept the Althouse lemming theory that Mittens is secretly leading and is guaranteed to win the election, then your question might make a bit of sense...
Is it me or is "Jake Diamond" now channeling Shilho? Rhetorical.
blessings, take care
the especially jerkish commenters (garage, shiloh, diamond - those who have nothing to contribute but bile and hate)
Thank you for including me on the list, and thanks especially for taking the time to share a bit of sunshine! Have a swell day!
Just today I heard DiFi out expressing concern that the CA gasoline spike was concocted.
Concocted by who? Obama?
I thought high energy prices were a feature, not a bug, for good libs like DiFi. Or is she just up for reelection?
Inga writes: What about PTSD because of repeat deployments?
As a former nurse and mother of a deployed, you might be interested in this video about the new hospital under construction out here. link
I thought high energy prices were a feature, not a bug, for good libs like DiFi. Or is she just up for reelection?
$6/gal was the Chusen goal, so they're almost there. 5/6 of the way there.
The missing paragraphs:
"And let's not forget about 'Fast and Furious,' the Obama Justice Department's operation that provided high powered and automatic weapons to Mexican Drug Lords and the predictible loss of Mexican lives and the life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. These weapons were provided without the knowledge of the Mexican government.
There must be further investigation of this irresponsible operation to determine if criminal statutes were violated by Justice Department personnel.
We owe that investigation to the Terry family and the families of Mexican citizens who were murdered. I intend to make it my business to see that it happens."
"romney has no foreign policy experience. neither does ryan. "
Neither did Obama 4 years ago. And given our president's current net negative in that realm, I'll take "no experience" any day.
I have many suits my dear man but just one mask.
You might say I am stuck on it.
As you are on stupid.
Blessings.
I haven't read all the comments, only a sampling.
Do any of the Obots posting here endorse Obama's foreign policy, particularly with regard to Libya and Israel, or is this just another dump on Romney and Bush exercise?
Chickelit, thanks for that amazing link, we have the best military in the entire world. The Marines and the Navy are utilizing green energy every chance they get. As in many things the military are forerunners for the civilian population.
My daughter will be stationed on Pendleton for another year and a half or so, when she get back from deployment. It would be great if she could still be there when this hospital is completed, but she's not a fan of CA. But who knows, she goes where the Navy sends her.
Kirk Parker said...
"romney has no foreign policy experience. neither does ryan. "
Neither did Obama 4 years ago. And given our president's current net negative in that realm, I'll take "no experience" any day.
===============
Add to that that Joe Biden, while he has plenty of foreign policy experience, has been on the side of just about every foreign policy vote that Congress has made in the last 40 years..
Beginning with his 1973 vote to cut off aid and weapons to the S Vietnamese.
He opposed - I think - every new military system for the last 40 years.
He's a bigger fucking idiot than either Obama or Jimmy Carter.
You might say I am stuck on it.
Sounds to me like you're StuckFixated.
phx said:
In fact I find Obama's FP to be a huge improvement over the previous 8 years of the Republican administration's mismanagment.
This is a really interesting statement.
Bush II left gave Obama a great FP situation. And Obama screwed it all up.
Iraq: peaceful
Afghanistan: on the way to being peaceful
Libya: gave up WMD
Pakistan: cooperating
Now?
Obama invaded Libya w/o even talking to Congress first, much less getting permission.
W at least got Congressional approval first.
Obama threw an Egyptian ally under the bus, and we got the extremist Muslim Brotherhood in charge there now.
Pakistan is no longer cooperating with us.
Under Obama, we have had our sovereign soil overrun in multiple situations, and our President won't even talk about it to the US, much less take steps to retaliate.
Under Obama, clear warnings of an attack on 9/11 were ignored, requests by the Ambassador to maintain security were ignored, and President Obama skipped his daily intelligence brief every day in the week leading up to 9/11.
Again, nothing has been done to rectify that situation, and the President is shirking responsibility.
Russia has started to flex its muscles, sensing weakness from the US President. The US President flat out told him he would have more flexibility to go against US interests after this election.
Our foreign policy situation was strong, stable, and improving when W left office.
Now it is in shambles.
What, exactly, do you prefer about FP under Obama?
Do you like Obama insulting our allies and conceding major points to our opponents and/or enemies without anything in return?
Because that is what happened under Obama.
Please name what you think are Foreign Policy successes under Obama.
Inga,
Chickelit, thanks for that amazing link, we have the best military in the entire world. The Marines and the Navy are utilizing green energy every chance they get
Why is "green energy" related to the military at all?
Didn't you think the military is wasteful and needs its budget cut?
Why are you praising them for wasting even more money with bogus "green energy" boondoggles?
Simple question:
How has Obama displayed his leadership in relation to Libya?
when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut.
I'm tired of hearing Republicans whine about the trivial cuts to defense spending that lay ahead. I'm especially tired of hearing cuts that do nothing but return spending to its 2006 level referred to as "deep".
There is no military threat we face, or will face, that requires us to spend half a trillion dollars a year. Least of all in the Middle East.
Nathan, you are very mistaken, I did not say it's the military that is wasteful, it's being engaged in unnecessary wars that wastes money and lives.
As for the military employing green energy, why not use alternative forms of energy? If we don't need the ME for our energy needs, wouldn't we be in a better, more secure position? I'm not against drilling, clean coal, safe nuclear, anything that frees us from relying on the ME.
As for the military employing green energy, why not use alternative forms of energy?
Because they cost more per watt than non-alternative forms of energy.
I.e., they are wasteful.
No, we wouldn't be in a more safe, secure position, Inga.
You think they're upset now, wait until the gravy train really slows.
chickelit said...
If Romney will just cancel all regulations written since 2008 and repeal Dodd-Frank, we will have a 20 year boom starting next January 20.
I take your point (I'm on your side) but Romney can't "do" any of that. He needs help from Congress
Actually that is an interesting legal thought experiment. Does the president in his capacity as head of government have the authority to cancel an executive branch agency's regulations? Can he order the agencies to cease promulgating new regulations for a specified period of time (like 4 years)? If so, then honestly in the first ten minutes of his administration Romney could sign a blanket revocation of every regulation passed since 2008 if he wished to and if he so chose to (if he were wise enough to have a team of economist review the existing regulations from day one) pick every regulation on the books since the current US government was incepted that is either no longer needed, valid or is an impediment to the economy without a corresponding benefit. And presumably the same with respects to presidential orders.
If he were able to do that and get congress to make the necessary tax reforms either on a permanent basis or for at least ten years he could do an Obama and play golf and go vacation for the rest of term (absent any foreign policy headaches). The economy would turn around and boom and nobody would care if he spent his term vacationing.
As for the military employing green energy, why not use alternative forms of energy?
Because, it's really, really expensive, that's why.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. Navy oiler slipped away from a fuel depot on the Puget Sound in Washington state one recent day, headed toward the central Pacific and into the storm over the Pentagon’s controversial green fuels initiative.
In its tanks, the USNS Henry J. Kaiser carried nearly 900,000 gallons of biofuel blended with petroleum to power the cruisers, destroyers and fighter jets of what the Navy has taken to calling the "Great Green Fleet," the first carrier strike group to be powered largely by alternative fuels.
Conventionally powered ships and aircraft in the strike group will burn the blend in an operational setting for the first time this month during the 22-nation Rim of the Pacific exercise, the largest annual international maritime warfare maneuvers. The six-week exercise began on Friday.
The Pentagon hopes it can prove the Navy looks as impressive burning fuel squeezed from seeds, algae and chicken fat as it does using petroleum.
But the demonstration, years in the making, may be a Pyrrhic victory.
Some Republican lawmakers have seized on the fuel’s $26-a-gallon price, compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel. They paint the program as a waste of precious funds at a time when the U.S. government’s budget remains severely strained, the Pentagon is facing cuts and energy companies are finding big quantities of oil and gas in the United States.
$26 a gallon vs. $3.60 a gallon.
Madness. Especially with our existing resources.
Inga said...
Nathan, you are very mistaken, I did not say it's the military that is wasteful, it's being engaged in unnecessary wars that wastes money and lives.
As for the military employing green energy, why not use alternative forms of energy? If we don't need the ME for our energy needs, wouldn't we be in a better, more secure position? I'm not against drilling, clean coal, safe nuclear, anything that frees us from relying on the ME.
10/8/12 5:40 PM
Allie green energy is hideously expensive, look it up yourself. That is why it's a bad idea.
Bush II left gave Obama a great FP situation. And Obama screwed it all up.
Iraq: peaceful
Afghanistan: on the way to being peaceful
Libya: gave up WMD
Pakistan: cooperating
There's an alternate universe of wishful thinking.
Another point about alternative energy and the military: We've been there and done that.
Renewable resource built and materieled warships powered by wind would be a prime example of that. That'll give those Somali pirates a fighting chance, which is only fair.
Horse cavalry. All those horses need is forage and a huge amount of time and maintenance. Not that an F/A-18 doesn't need love and affection, but, damn, horses are just so pretty!
Yeah, I'm grabbing ass, but the point is valid. Here's another valid point about biofuels. You have to wait for that shit to grow and then you've got to use fuel to process it to the point that you can use it in a ship's fuel bunker or for JP. Not very optimal in wartime.
Really, Allie/Inga? Are you ready to put your kid's life at the mercy of the whims of a midwestern farmer growing corn and all that entails for biofuel to provide the JP for the air support she might need for her next deployment?
Uh, no. Where the military is concerned, drill here and drill NOW.
As for the military employing green energy, why not use alternative forms of energy?
Domestic energy comes in a lots forms but the military needs hydrocarbons--a guaranteed supply of liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Carbon-based fuels can be refined petroleum or they can be derived from coal and water or even CO2 if equivalents of hydrogen are on hand. We have the technology. Hydrogen can be made electrolytically from water using nuclear power.
In the good ol' days of capitalism, many industries were vertically integrated; I don't see what's intrinsically wrong with the Navy exploring alternative sources of energy to get reliable sources of liquid hydrocarbons--I tend to think that the priority at this time should be domestically sourced.
Of course, anyone with access to instrinsically dirt cheap Venzuelan and Middle East oil and gas without having to pay for the access would come out the winner--but we are bleeding from the costs at this point.
Playing Green Energy political bullshit games to appease the watermelons is a dangerous game with real lives at stake when those responsible for carrying out the orders are haze gray and underway.
Biofuels are expensive and they're unreliable as a point of military logistics. When it comes to warfighting, logistics rules. When you start screwing with that concept in order to appeal to a base that could care less about the military (present company excepted, I'm sure...), then you've really stepped over a very glaring line.
Chef Mojo, no I don't agree with using food sources like corn for fuel.
Inga,
Perhaps you didn't say the military was wasteful.
My apologies if I parsed your words wrongly.
However, I'm pretty sure you have said before that we need to cut defense spending.
Bringing us home from overseas won't really cut Defense spending, because we have to be prepared to deploy if something else comes up.
Remember Clinton? He deployed the military at a far higher rate than Reagan or George H W Bush, so ended up spending the so-called "peace dividend" while slashing military budgets.
Under Clinton, the military had to choose between giving up on training or making soldiers live in condemned barracks. I had to live in one, thanks to him.
Most of what the left calls the excess spending on military under W was just catching up on all the necessary spending that the military had to delay under Clinton's overzealous cuts.
So it doesn't make sense for the military to lead the way on green technology. It is almost always less effective...when it is equally effective, it costs orders of magnitude more.
For green technology to mature, it needs to do without govt coercion or subsidy. If it is worth it, it can be done w/o taxpayer money.
I'm a huge green conservative, myself. I love wilderness and want to preserve its pristine nature. But it has to be done the right way: earning its own keep.
phx wrote: There's an alternate universe of wishful thinking.
Oh, well done, phx. Do you have anything to offer besides this absurdity and "my dad can beat up your dad."
Care to take on the Obama Libya fiasco? How about the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood, from whence bin Laden came? How about "Fast and Furious?"
Well, never mind. Obama doesn't want to have to explain them either.
@phx,
I thought I was on your shit list.
There's an alternate universe of wishful thinking.
You'll have to be more specific in your sarcastic denial.
Because you are wrong. Completely wrong.
How many terrorist events were there as the US withdrew from Iraq?
Do you know that the murder rate in Baghdad at that point was lower than most major US cities?
What was going on in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc when Obama took office? How many US embassies had been stormed? How many times had the al Qaida flag been flown over US embassies by thugs? How many times had US territory been overrun?
How many times did W invade another nation without Congressional approval?
What was Pakistan's cooperation w/ the US like when Obama took over as President? Were they complaining about drone strikes and US military actions on their soil w/o their permission?
Was Egypt stable when Obama took office?
What was the last thing Libya had been in the news for on 20 Jan 2009?
Hint: lying or pretending ignorance won't work. I know the answers to all these questions and won't hesitate to provide links.
This is beyond the realm of opinion, now.
Obama's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster if you want the US to be safe and prosperous.
The left loves to pretend W was hated around the world, or that W made the US less safe or less respected.
But that was always just propaganda from the Journolist effort to advance Democratic Party interests.
The POTUS should never be trying to win a popularity contest. He should never put anything above the US best interests. He should respond to threats against the US firmly and effectively.
W did all those things. Under him, the US was respected and viewed with healthy caution. Other nations knew how far they could push us, and knew that W was certainly not feckless.
Know they know our POTUS is feckless and more concerned with re-election than preserving the US' best interests. The chaos you see across the globe is due to the weakening of the US as a predictable, stabilizing force for peace.
Obama is like a substitute teacher. Sure: if all you want to do is fart around without penalty, a substitute teacher is great!
The US foreign policy was clearly better off under W than under Obama or Clinton.
But then, part of that is the quality difference in SecStates under those 3. Allbright and Hillary Clinton are the worst SecStates in modern history.
For green technology to mature, it needs to do without govt coercion or subsidy. If it is worth it, it can be done w/o taxpayer money.
I agree. In fact, IMO government subsidies (especially at the extravagant and corrupt level seen in the Obama admin) only serve to inhibit and retard real technological advancement on this front (if such technological advancement is viable).
Carbon-based fuels can be refined petroleum or they can be derived from coal and water or even CO2 if equivalents of hydrogen are on hand. We have the technology. Hydrogen can be made electrolytically from water using nuclear power.
There is also the massive shale oil reserves the US has, far outstripping anything Venezuela or Saudi Arabia has. Of course, all that's been put off limits.
The last I saw, at $80.00 per bbl it was cost effective to get it out.
Without the need for the oil who gives a shit about them?
They're colonizing Europe and popping out babies faster than the West.
They're colonizing Europe and popping out babies faster than the West.
Europe is dying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnWXU56MbZk
Obama as 'substitute teacher'. All dressed up, nothing to say and the spitballs are flying. That nails it, I'm afraid.
In other words, Carthago delenda est.
Thanks for aspiring to make us the new late Roman republic, Multiple Mitts. But no thanks.
No reason to rub salt into wombs.
Afghanistan: on the way to being peaceful
DELUSIONAL!
passing this on from another blog:
If you live in AZ, AR, CO, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI, MT, NM, OH, PA, TX, or UT, tomorrow is the last day to register to vote!
Nice-blog om biopejs godt forklare om dig hver faktor biopejs. Jeg kan godt lide den måde du fortæller i indlæg om brugen af biopejs. Hvordan kan vi bruge sin på en måde, lille mængde biobrændsel køre for lang span tid.
Using of good biofuel can reduce 50% of pollution. While in winter if your fuel give long time heating with less fuel consumption. It is step that you take to keep atmosphere and nature safe. Thanks for the niche post.Using of good bio fuel can reduce 50% of pollution. While in winter if your fuel give long time heating with less fuel consumption. It is step that you take to keep atmosphere and nature safe. Thanks for the niche post.
Post a Comment