It's exactly what crossed my mind as I watched him on today's "Meet the Press." He talked about Iraq and the Eric Cantor loss, but I'll quote on what he said about Hillary Clinton, who, we might presume, would be his opponent, and in fact, the question was: "If you were running for president again, and if she were the Democratic nominee, what's the playbook to beat her?"
Well, the playbook I believe is to look at her record. I think you have to consider what's happened around the world during the years that she was secretary of State. And you have to say it's been a monumental bust. And then her most recent comments as she was rolling out the book, she was asked whether the Bowe Bergdahl trade was one that presented a threat to the United States.
And she came back with a clueless answer. She was clueless. She said, "Look, these commandos don't represent a threat to the United States." Well, of course they do. And then she went on to say, "They only represent a threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan." Are you kidding? I mean, we're in Afghanistan.
And we're in Afghanistan in part to protect America's security. I think her clueless comments about the Bergdahl exchange as well as her record as the secretary of State are really going to be the foundation of how a Republican candidate is able to take back the White House.
Posts
106 comments:
Nah, he promised his wife that he's done. He turns 69 in 2016, too old to run for President.
Also remember he won the nomination in 2012 against a VERY weak field. 2016 is going to be much stronger.
She's also fat and old and her husband walks all over her. The personal attacks will be fun to watch.
I voted for Mitt, but now I am SORRY to say there is only one POTUS.
HRC 2016.
There is no way, anyone in the GOP can win.
Why?
- NYT, NPR, and PBS have effectively endorsed HRC - see their glowing book reviews.
- GOP hates women; immigrants, scientists. (GOP loves only NRA.)
- GOP has no vision. Cantor lost to a clueless academic. That is a story of GOP.
GOP is finished. GOP is toast. GOP needs to be disbanded into multiple GOP parties - GOP WINS (Women, Immigrants, No NRA, and Scientists).
"I think her clueless comments about the Bergdahl exchange as well as her record as the secretary of State are really going to be the foundation of how a Republican candidate is able to take back the White House."
Says the man who never could seem to pull it off.
Why oh why do conservatives listen to fools such as this?
And have I mentioned he's from a racist cult?
Mitt Romney's from a racist cult,...
Yeah - check her record - just like everyone did with Obama!
I don't think it's bizarre. Romney has the same chance of beating a dem as any other repub: zero percent.
I 'm in favor of Romney. Ann Romney as the First Lady and Adam Carola as President. Mormons can do that, I think.
"And she came back with a clueless answer. She was clueless. She said, "Look, these commandos don't represent a threat to the United States." Well, of course they do. And then she went on to say, "They only represent a threat to Afghanistan and Pakistan." Are you kidding? I mean, we're in Afghanistan."
Why does this have to be pointed out to Hillary? She really is that dim a bulb.
Hillary: "It's not going to hurt us. It's only going to hurt Afghanistan"
Reporter: "But aren't we in Afghanistan?"
Hillary: "Oh yeah."
YOu'd think a reporter wouldn't have asked the follow up.
Third times the charm.
Romney also made it clear he would not run for President again:
"I’m not running for president. I’ve said that so many times…I’m convinced that the field of Republican candidates that I’m seeing is in a lot better position to [communicate the GOP's message] than I am. . . . Talk of draft is kind of silly.”
He had his chance. Time for someone new.
"I think her clueless comments about the Bergdahl exchange as well as her record as the secretary of State"
The thing is, only Republicans will care about that stuff. Dems and LIVs generally don't give a **** about foreign policy.
There's no way for Mitt to dodge the plutocrat label. He's done.
Why some chuckleheads here think that a Dem is going to win in 2016 is rather odd. After 8 years of a Dem disasterous presidency, I think the it is a Dem who has the uphill climb in '16. Two term president's have only twice in history been suceeded by a person of their own party.
campy wrote:
don't think it's bizarre. Romney has the same chance of beating a dem as any other repub: zero percent.
I don't know that the dems are going to have the abilty to crank out another win with their handling of the country the past 6 years. Obama's popularity is close to that of Bush's. And Hillary is no Obama.
And have I mentioned he's from a racist cult?
When did Romney become Muslim?
"Mormons can do that, I think."
An interesting statistic. Mormons in business .
Why ? Maybe this is why .
It's an extremely rigorous two-year program: 10-hour days, no TV, no dating, constant rejection. At the same time many American teenagers are relishing their first taste of freedom as college freshmen, these Mormons are entering into the most disciplined period of their lives.
The military is a similar experience and also of great benefit. Discipline is what most young people lack. Especially now.
I think he might run but only if the current bench, which is pretty strong, fails to produce a candidate. Walker is more strong than I would have expected since TNR finds it important to smear him. It is good practice for him.
I watched Mitt deflect all of Gregory's nasty questions.
I like Romney ... the man is all class, genuinely a nice guy with tons of talent.
But he needs to stay home and he needs to stop allowing Leftists to drag him into the public sphere as a distraction.
Mitt couldn't stand up to Candy Crowley, and you think he can take on Hillary?
"Why some chuckleheads here think that a Dem is going to win in 2016 is rather odd."
The dem nominee is going to win it or steal it, BAMN.
~ chucklehead campy
Shit! Where was that Romney in 2012???
Romney 2016? Only if McCain is VP, GHW Bush is Sec'y of State and Bob Dole is Defense Secretary.
Please no.
Hillary! Busy resetting foreign relationships since 2008!
Also see: Hillaryous!"
At this point, what does it matter, anyway? -CP
When I see the poor quality of most comments here I begin to wish you would turn the comments off.
Nice of SBG to explain his/her/its opinion.
Romney was what we needed to clean the Augean stables. He isn't there and they will not be cleaned.
And have I mentioned he's from a racist cult?
From time to time you have. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Not that being wrong on the facts has ever made much of a difference to you, as you daily do your best to prove that Herrnstein and Murray were right after all.
"When I see the poor quality of most comments here I begin to wish you would turn the comments off."
Why don't you just ignore them if you don't like them?
Mitt is a bright guy, but his political talents are near zero, he can't connect. He is also a full fledged citizen of the cocoon. I had the sense that he thought he knew better and would, in his vague way, lie in order to pacify the ignorant while intending to do the "right" thing. His choice to ignore the Tea Party side of the party, while not necessarily the act of a snob, was certainly the act of a man out of touch with the times. Given those things, together with his losing an election in which he should have done better, leaving us at the mercy of an incompetent and criminal executive, I have no desire to see Mitt run again. We can't afford the loss.
Nah, he won't run, but if he did I would vote for him in a heartbeat. We've been without a competent leader for too long now.
"When I see the poor quality of most comments here I begin to wish you would turn the comments off."
And you read them all.
No. No to Hillary Clinton, too.
New candidates, please.
We are in for a bizarre couple of years, so who knows?
She travelled around the world more than any Sec'y of state in history. A good question is: what in bloody hell did she do during all those travels? Also, there is some indication that she was the author of the fiction about the video-induced six hour sustained Al Queda assault on our Benghazi embassy, 9/11/12. If true, then she would be as disastrous a president as the current one. There will be more American failures and deaths around the world, and in this country.
If I was a honcho in al Qaeda, or even Iran or Russia or whatever, I would try to instigate some sort of al Qaeda spectacular against the United States and attach the names of as many of the Gitmo Five as would be any kind of plausible to it.
And that I would do even if none of them wanted any part of the scheme.
Hagar said:
"We are in for a bizarre couple of years, so who knows?"
Amen to that. One day Democratic incompetence will start to matter to a majority and events such as the fall of Detroit and of Mosul are what will cause that change. Depending on why the change happens - that affects who will then lead the Republicans to victory. It might be that immigration amnesty happens and then the Hispanics, who are small businessmen and homeowners with children will leave the Democrats or reform them. It might be a Mid-East catastrophe. It might be another long, cold winter with the price of oil too high for people due to "global warming." Maybe the Chinese will foreclose on California. Or all of the above. It won't be business as usual and that is what the Democrats are preparing for.
Whoo!
I am so glad to see most of you have got THAT out of your systems!
Romney's dead to you - whoopee! The Republican Party is stronger already! I can FEEL IT!
O.K., now, on to the Rands and Cruz,...
I doubt he'll run, but "I’m not running for president" is present tense. If he were truly ruling it out he'd say "I will not run for president."
Isn't it kind of sexist to describe Hillary as a monumental bust. It's gallant, but only Sophia Loren can be described in such terms.
We will be very lucky if the breakup of Iraq stays limited to just Iraq.
I didn't vote for him in 2012 because he's an untrustworthy RINO. Nothing he has done or said has changed my mind. Romney is still a RINO.
The Republicans play tougher ball in the minority anyway. Give them power and they "freeze" into inaction.
Of course, Romney's assertion that we're in Afghanistan to protect America's security is ludicrous and untrue.
I don't care if Romney runs or not. At this point it's Anybody But Hillary. She isn't clueless. She's a flat out liar.
Romney was right on so man levels when he ran for President it's astonishing.
And yet, he still lost. That's because we Americans firmly believe in reparations, or as it's legally called, Affirmative Action.
Let's hope after this abject failure of a President leaves office American's have gotten the affirmative action sickness out of their systems and we can elect someone qualified to office.
Instead of someone who makes us feel good.
Do you think it's "bizarre speculation"?
I think it's "narcissism". ;-)
Hillary's tenure as SOS was not a "bust". It was just less dramatic than you wanted it to be. Which is entirely what we've needed in our foreign policy. Less drama. Less empire. Less interest in trying to control every event around the world. Less knee-jerk popping-off and heavy handed responses to every minor atrocity and instance of political upheaval undergone everywhere else but in America.
Listen up. The rest of America was wisely come around to agreeing with this.
Are you kidding? I mean, we're in Afghanistan.
Hey, I didn't realize that Madison was such an uncomfortable place to reside in.
I humbly invite every right-winger and imperialist upset with America's insufficient command over any given event elsewhere in the world to lead their own squadron of like-minded vigilante adventurists to "restore" whatever law and order they believe the region was long crying out for on their own. This is America - the land of can-do opportuni -- I mean, optimists. There's no reason why foreign (American) private individuals can't choose to undertake regime-change in South Asia on their own. Come on! If you wait for the government to do it, it will never happen.
Mitch is just there to tap into our buyers remorse. He is perfect to criticize HRC since he isn't running.
Vote for me. I will give Crack a bazillion dollars.
He already ran that campaign against a President with a horrible record, and lost.
Not a chance--parties don't renominate the guy that lost last time unless there are much better conditions for that candidate (e.g. Nixon '68). Romney wouldn't be in a better position than he was in 2012.
Maybe Paul Ryan.
"Rand Paul: Moderates aren’t GOP’s future
Politico reports:
Rand Paul said Saturday that Republicans need to nominate a different kind of candidate to win the presidency.
“You guys have a strong force here but frankly the president won Iowa twice so we can’t do the same old same old,” the Kentucky senator told the Iowa Republican state convention here. “The definition of insanity is thinking the same thing will get you different results.”
Hard to argue with that.
Posted by Steve Bartin
at 12:02 PM"
Our politicos think they don't need to argue, just declare.
6 years ago is a long, long, long time in politics and I understand the lack of recognition that history rhymes at times.
"Why some chuckleheads here think that a Dem is going to win in 2016 is rather odd. After 8 years of a Dem disasterous presidency, I think the it is a Dem who has the uphill climb in '16. Two term president's have only twice in history been suceeded by a person of their own party."
In a word, handouts. Until the money for entitlements dries up, presidential elections will not be determined by competence . The Democrats margin of victory in every successful election since 1932 has come from voters who want Uncle Sucka to dole out some government cheese. The number of voters who feel this way now provides a significant majority for the Democrats. The good news is that the more people that have their hand out, the sooner the government runs out of money to buy their votes. So yeah, the Democrats keep the White House for the next 2-3 election cycles. After that, riots, disaffection, fracturing, and indifference from their "permanent" majority. And then Crack won't be the only black person in not cashing a government check.
"His choice to ignore the Tea Party side of the party, while not necessarily the act of a snob, was certainly the act of a man out of touch with the times. "
The Tea Party mostly supported him, including me. The Tea Party, contrary to some "social conservative" idiots, is about economics. Mitt was about economics.
He stumbled a bit about Candy Crowley and I suspect he was flabbergasted that a major media figure would be a party to such a corrupt bargain, as was once understood in simpler times.
There is nothing wrong with a president who does not expect such lying weasels in positions of power.
Some of these comments are just so bizarre that I can't even tell if they are satirical or just insane. Crack MC, America's Politico, or campy just look surreal. Not so much wrong as entirely detached from reality.
Romney ?
http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af140/pinkpony100/my%20pic/ImpliedFacepalm_zps20a921d4.jpg
I think McCain should run again. War hero, favors Amnesty, experience at running for president, favors Gay marriage.
He's everything the New York Times loves in the Republican nominee.
Just give him Christie as a VP and he'll romp to victory. Really.
The elite Gop will force a nomination, by hook or crook, of Bush, Rommey, or someone unpalatable to the base,then blame the loss on the base.
The R-establishment has had 6 years to distinguish themselves from Dems. I still can't see the difference from where i'm sittin'. And replacing Cantor with Cantor lite, does not bode well.
AP--even NPR panned Shrillary's book-lol
Anymore when I vote, I choose whomever will least likely fuck the country up some more.
Crack? You got a tough choice. Vote for the party that treats you like "Where else you gonna' go?", and the party that sez "Where else you gonna' go." But it's always easier to coast downhill than struggle uphill. If anyone should be a Tea Partyer, it is you my friend.
Mitt Romney murders his sick employees, and drags the family pet behind his car tied to a leash...
At least that's the way I remember it from the last election. I can't imagine things would go any better for him this time around. Or any other Republican for that matter.
I'm making plans to live in the new socialist America. It's not my first choice.
"Isn't it kind of sexist to describe Hillary as a monumental bust. It's gallant, but only Sophia Loren can be described in such terms."
Well, yes, but Janet Leigh more so.
"Mitt Romney's from a racist cult,..."
An Arian-Levantine-African-Angelolatry racist cult.
"Less drama"
Oh, there was plenty of drama.
If I'm wrong and a repub wins, you can call me surreal then. I'll be here.
For now, please tell me what's going to stop the dems from stealing it? Their innate sense of fair play? Ha. The repubs? With what? Eric Holder's DOJ? Double ha.
"I didn't vote for him in 2012 because he's an untrustworthy RINO."
Yeah, how's President Obama working out for ya?
I'd definitely vote for Romney in 2016. Be nice to have someone who has actually distinguished himself, accomplished something, and is also a very decent human being.
Oh, c'mon, Crack.
You write:
"Mitt Romney's from a racist cult,..."
But African-Americans, taken as a group, are probably the most racially bigoted and homophobic group in America today, and we electedo ne of them President, didn't we?
Actually, you sound a little bigoted yourself.
Stevenson 1956. Bizarre?
OTOH, Cleveland 1892, Bizarre?
R&B wrote...Hillary's tenure as SOS was not a "bust". It was just less dramatic than you wanted it to be. Which is entirely what we've needed in our foreign policy. Less drama. Less empire. Less interest in trying to control every event around the world. Less knee-jerk popping-off and heavy handed responses to every minor atrocity and instance of political upheaval undergone everywhere else but in America.
Are you saying that we need more bland? What's a good synonym for bland?
The difference between Mitt Romney and Thomas Dewey is that Dewey defeated Truman.
Oh, wait...
Republicans play along with corporatism/crony capitalism. Democrats play too, plus they like to bribe racial constituencies with public money and easy access to power.
Americans generally are sick of the rich political class that both parties cater to. But if these are the only two options, the advantage tips slightly to the Democrats because they always promise more free stuff.
A Mitt Romney can't win, period. He's more of the same crap. His nomination would be a gift to any Democrat candidate with a pulse.
But if there were a candidate who could set fire to the anti establishment tinderbox that is the current American electorate, the Presidency is theirs. And their candidacy could catalyze a seismic shift in Congressional power for a couple of generations.
That candidate hasn't yet emerged. I don't think it will be Rand Paul. But I'm pretty sure one will be sucked into the power vacuum soon.
Every revolution in history has been a popular response to overbearing government corruption. The Framer's framework is going to be stress tested very soon.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Of course, Romney's assertion that we're in Afghanistan to protect America's security is ludicrous and untrue."
Yes, the 9/11 attacks were directed from Shangri La.
Not even you are that stupid.
OK, I think we've got a consensus here: No Romney in '16!
Back in the real world, the Dems have Hillary! and Slow Joe . . . . (I think that's the right kind of punctuation for Biden, don't you?)
The Repubs have a smorgasbord, from Christie to Cruz, from Rand Paul to Paul Ryan, from Walker to Rubio, from Perry to Ayotte, and many more. And that doesn't include the dark horses. I don't like every one as a candidate, but there's not one of them that wouldn't make a better president than Hillary! Slow Joe . . . , or the Big O
Whoever the Dem candidate is will face the "third term" problem, exacerbated by the fact that (according to the opinion polls) it is slowly dawning on American voters that Obama's first two terms were pretty bad. You want more of THAT? Romney's 47% comment notwithstanding, we haven't yet reached the point where the dependents of the Government can elect whatever Government promises them the most free stuff.
2016 is the Republicans' election to lose. They are certainly capable of doing so, but the benefits to the country if a sound, conservative Republican is elected president with a Republican House and Senate (or even with a Republican House and a Senate that will work with him -- the Reagan situation reversed) are enormous.
So please, all you commenters who say the election is over and Hillary! is inevitable: If you are a Democrat, please just sit back and enjoy the ride. If you are a Republican, get off your ass on November 5, 2014 and go to work.
Praying that Romney will not run again. He is a RINO.
www.raptureforums.com
I think that in the privacy of the voting both that many hard core democrats will not be able to vote for Hillary. I don't think that they will vote for a republican, but not voting for Hillary will help the GOP candidate. She is not a sure thing..
" that a Dem is going to win in 2016 is rather odd. "
There were enough idiots/LIVs/incredibly naive voters to elect Obama, and even more astoundingly, to re-elect him, that anything is possible.
You can bet Romney would not have spent almost 7 weeks on the golf course. SEVEN WEEKS LAST YEAR! Read it again.
Last year he spent 46 days on the golf course, up from 30 in his previous highest year.
It is as if he is already winding down. “Just last night I was talking about life and art, big interesting things, and now we’re back to the minuscule things on politics,” Mr Obama complained after a dinner last month with Italian intellectuals in Rome. His cabin fever is tangible. On the plus side, there are only two-and-a-half years to go. He was talking about intellectual stuff about life and art, you know..
Why the hell did this fucker want this job and what idiots elected him?
"Romney's 47% comment notwithstanding, we haven't yet reached the point where the dependents of the Government can elect whatever Government promises them the most free stuff."
Surely you jest. How could Obama possibly have been re-elected? If everyone on food stamps in 2012 voted for Obama (and it's a safe bet most did) that would account for 75% of his popular vote. The Dems will do everything they can to create as many government dependents as possible.
Hard to believe that in our system Hillary would be a lead contender for president.
The way to beat her: "Hillary has been in politics for over 40 years and, aside from making herself fabulously rich and famous, she has not achieved the accomplishments for our country that demonstrate she should be elected president."
Kansas City,
"Hard to believe that in our system Hillary would be a lead contender for president."
Not when the right has distinguished themselves as racists.
They might as well have held the door open for her,...
I feel sadness for the folks with the childish "He's a RINO" mindset.
The GOP sucks. It has failed you. The substance of the party, like Shouting Thomas says, doesn't represent you.
They spend and deal and lie and cheat.
You simply must adjust your political calculations to this fact, then realize in many ways Ted Cruz or Rand Paul are RINOs in the sense they aren't establishment GOP.
Romney has many similarities with Lowell Weicker.
All are better than Leftists but of course that is a low, tender bar to Hell.
My God! The editors of TNR have decreed that Scott Walker is too white to be president and you Republicans are talking about running Mitt Romney? Pass-the-margarine-and-Wonder-bread, thinks-you-can-use-ketchup-for-marinara MITT ROMNEY!!
We are living in CRAZEE LAND!
Romney wears dad pants and drives a station wagon, fer crissakes.
We should be so lucky.
Are you saying that we need more bland?
In foreign policy? Absolutely.
Hey, whatever happened to that made for TV movie that the Clinton's were able to bury? Really, how silly. And what creeps!
Let's see it again and again. Snowden, Assange can you assist?
.
It is possible that the Republican Party would be stupid enough to re-nominate Mitt Romneycare. However, in such a case, it would clearly make it impossible to actually convict anyone of murder for killing Republicans, since as a legal matter the brain dead cannot be murdered.
Mitt Romneycare would make a decent Democratic candidate, though, as a passably competent alternative to Hillary "Reset" Clinton. Not that Democrats have the wit to recognize that.
Started reading the comments but quit after the first dozen or so by the usual idiots. It’s amazing to me that we can compare what Romney and Obama said during their debates and, having watched history unfold, see how right Romney was and how wrong Obama was. Yet Obama was elected, not just by welfare queens but by the faculty of UW Madison and pretty much every other academic cesspool. Amazing.
"I'm making plans to live in the new socialist America. It's not my first choice."
Sadly, my sentiments exactly.
Unfortunately, there are too many wrong-thinkers like Crack, who choose not to think, and believe anything the Democrats say about the opposition, and the requirement to oppress (ironically) any that don't fit in with their thinking.
If I were him and anyone asked me to, thanks, but no thanks.
I agree with MoneyRunner.
IF, Mitt Romney runs for president again, I for one, will work enthusiastically for him.
The lawless democrats presently in power are making a mockery of our Constitution, our sovereignty and our image around the world.
tlcdr,
"Unfortunately, there are too many wrong-thinkers like Crack, who choose not to think, and believe anything the Democrats say about the opposition, and the requirement to oppress (ironically) any that don't fit in with their thinking."
Thank you for eliminating my mind, my life experience, my political affiliation, and my freedom, in order to buttress your self-serving political stereotype.
I dare say, if anyone needed protection from wrong-headed influences, you probably should've taken precautions decades ago because you have no mind of your own.
Just a collection of lame conservative postures, able to sway no one, nor give comfort as you enter oblivion,...
The last defeated nominee to come back and win a subsequent election was Richard Nixon.
Just saying.
We missed an amazing opportunity.
Michael K said,"Not even you are that stupid."
Referring to Bob Cook
Not so fast there Mike.
I look forward to Hillary's campaign touting her only major accomplishments that qualify her to be president: having a vagina and shut up.
30 year law prof wrote:
I didn't vote for him in 2012 because he's an untrustworthy RINO. Nothing he has done or said has changed my mind. Romney is still a RINO.
The Republicans play tougher ball in the minority anyway. Give them power and they "freeze" into inaction.
with all respect this is dumb. Better a RINO than a liberal/socialist. You can get the RINO to
Toe the line since he needs conservatives to get anyhing passed.
And how does it help conservatives if they are in the minority? They cant lead only act as opposition.
"When I see the poor quality of most comments here I begin to wish you would turn the comments off."
Translation: I wish Ann would police speech that I disapprove of.
Of course, Romney's assertion that we're in Afghanistan to protect America's security is ludicrous and untrue.
"We are not at war with EastAsia."
Thank you for eliminating my mind, my life experience, my political affiliation, and my freedom, in order to buttress your self-serving political stereotype.
Considering that you do the exact same thing to others here makes it quite fitting that you be subject to the same.
You earned it. So wear it.
"You can get the RINO to
Toe the line since he needs conservatives to get anyhing passed."
And what is the evidence he would have wanted to pass anything the Democrats wouldn't support?
Crack Emcee wrote:
"Thank you for eliminating my mind, my life experience, my political affiliation, and my freedom..."
Don't thank him -- you built that.
Michael K: "Not even you are that stupid." (referring to Robert Cook)
Well, Michael, I've got news for you.
Robert Cook is that stupid. If not more so.
All it will take is one made up "novel" from Gary Sick or someone like that and Robert Cook will be explaining how the 9-11 attacks were conceived/planned from the Romney compound.
He's really that easy to lead around by the nose.
"Yes, the 9/11 attacks were directed from Shangri La."
They weren't directed by the government of Afghanistan, either. One might equally senselessly have justified starting a war against California because the Manson murders were planned there...or more pertinent, attacking Florida because the 9/11 pilots received their flight training there. The planning and preparations for the 9/11 attacks was multinational. If we want to (weakly) justify our invasion of Afghanistan as a necessary effort to kill or capture bin Laden, that justification was erased immediately upon their flight from the country.
Nothing we have done in Afghanistan has served any legitimate purpose at all, (or even any clearly identifiable illegitimate purpose for that matter; it seems to be merely a prolonged spasm of pointless violence).
"'Of course, Romney's assertion that we're in Afghanistan to protect America's security is ludicrous and untrue.'
"'We are not at war with EastAsia.'"
Sgt. Ted, your post is a wrong-headed non-sequitur, given that our government's "justifications" for our wars in the middle east--from Afghanistan to Iraq to the myriad other undeclared battlefields we have created--are simply real world analogs to the deceptive propaganda of Big Brother and the government of Oceania in 1984 justifying their shifting wars between EastAsia and Eurasia.
" One might equally senselessly have justified starting a war against California because the Manson murders were planned there...or more pertinent, attacking Florida because the 9/11 pilots received their flight training there. "
If there were a book of worst analogies in the world ever, this would be on the front page, chapter one.
There are so many problems with the analogy that it can't even be addressed. It's like he compared the Taliban to a serial killer.
Or wait, he did.
Robert Cook said...
"Yes, the 9/11 attacks were directed from Shangri La."
They weren't directed by the government of Afghanistan, either. One might equally senselessly have justified starting a war against California because the Manson murders were planned there...or more pertinent, attacking Florida because the 9/11 pilots received their flight training there. The planning and preparations for the 9/11 attacks was multinational. If we want to (weakly) justify our invasion of Afghanistan as a necessary effort to kill or capture bin Laden, that justification was erased immediately upon their flight from the country.
Nothing we have done in Afghanistan has served any legitimate purpose at all, (or even any clearly identifiable illegitimate purpose for that matter; it seems to be merely a prolonged spasm of pointless violence).
6/16/14, 12:13 PM
Robert Cook said...
"'Of course, Romney's assertion that we're in Afghanistan to protect America's security is ludicrous and untrue.'
"'We are not at war with EastAsia.'"
Sgt. Ted, your post is a wrong-headed non-sequitur, given that our government's "justifications" for our wars in the middle east--from Afghanistan to Iraq to the myriad other undeclared battlefields we have created--are simply real world analogs to the deceptive propaganda of Big Brother and the government of Oceania in 1984 justifying their shifting wars between EastAsia and Eurasia.
Your Honor. I rest my case.
Moneyrunner
Yet Obama was elected, not just by welfare queens...
I'm guessing you are in your 50s? Who the heck uses the term welfare queen anymore? I can guarantee you there are not enough out there to sway an election. Unless you are using the term loosely to refer to anyone who gets government support - in which case plenty of Republicans fall under that category.
"It's like he compared the Taliban to a serial killer."
No, I didn't. (For one thing, the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.) My analogy had to do with the proportionality--or rather, the disproportionality--of our targeting and response to a violent crime.
It's 1984 again in America, baby! Put on Tears for Fears! (Or, this is what our endless war has really brought us: Mission Accomplished.)
I am not impressed with your lefty boilerplate arguments, Cook. I've heard them all before for the last 40 years.
You're a parrot. Entirely predictable.
SGT Ted: your failure to be impressed by reality is a common failing of human beings, and continues, as throughout history, to lead us headlong into cataclysmic disasters of our own making, disasters brought about as much by our propensity to deny reality as for unreasoning savagery. This dual propensity--for willful ignorance and for violence--has brought down empires of far longer standing than ours, and it is bringing down ours, and possibly human civilization as it is presently configured.
Post a Comment