I am a skeptic about the effectiveness of missile defense systems, and I don’t want to have a big debate about them. Whether we build a system in Eastern Europe or not is not something I stay up at night thinking about. But if getting a system in place there is important to you, you should notice that Mitt Romney is making it more difficult to accomplish just because he’s an idiot. Vladimir Putin is saying that the mere possibility of Mitt Romney being elected, now or in four years, is forcing him to treat any proposed missile shield as a way to diminish Russia’s nuclear deterrence. Even the prospect of someone who thinks like Mitt Romney getting elected (i.e., a neo-conservative Republican stuck in a Cold War mind-warp) is forcing Russia to take a hard line against a Eastern European missile shield.
By arguing in public that Russia is still America’s number one geopolitical foe, Romney has harmed our relations with Russia.
“I’m grateful to him (Romney) for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems,” Putin told reporters, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
“The most important thing for us is that even if he doesn’t win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective,” he said, speaking after a meeting with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic, according to Interfax news agency.
After meeting with Obama recently, Putin said he was “a very honest man”, “quite sincere.” and that he could strike a deal on a missile shield with him. Here’s what he said about Romney:
During the same interview with Russia Today last week, Putin said he could work with Romney, but also expressed concerns about the GOP nominee, or someone with similar views, taking over the reins of the missile defense shield.
“In that case, the system will definitely be directed at Russia,” he said, according to a transcript posted on Putin’s official website.
Let’s go over this slowly for the dumb people. If you think it is important to get a missile defense system installed in Eastern Europe, Obama has convinced Putin that he can trust him and have effective negotiations with him that will allow your wish to come true. However, Putin has to consider the possibility that some mental defect like Mitt Romney might be elected one day in the not too distant future, and that is causing him to step back from making an agreement with the Obama administration.
Even when the Republicans lose elections, they hurt our national security simply because they exist, they’re crazy, they aren’t trustworthy, and they’ll eventually win power over our Pentagon again.
It’s not restricted to Russia, either. Romney has threatened to start a trade war with China if he is elected. Just saying stupid shit like that makes it harder to deal with China.
Saying that he’ll let Israel control our Middle Eastern policy vis-a-vis Iran and the Palestinians, makes it harder for us to mobilize an international anti-proliferation campaign against Iran.
He’s done us no favors with our traditional Western European allies, either. Only 3% of Britons say that their opinion of America would improve if we elect Mitt Romney.
I doubt there were more than a single handful of souls at the State Department today who failed to curse Mitt Romney’s rudeness under their breath, if not right out loud.
His whole foreign policy is built around the idea that we should never apologize for anything we’ve ever done, and yet he gives mortal offense to everyone he meets.
It’s not enough for this man to be defeated and to go away. He’s fucking up our country just by running for president.
Keep writing like this and we’re going to have to re-name this place the BOOMman Tribune! 😉
Romney has lost several points on the respect-o-meter recently. He’s way off balance, and the behinder he gets the more desparate he will become. The Libya episode really exposed him as a big fake. Everything he says and does from now on will be viewed that prism. I’m looking forward to the debate where he can accuse Obama of sympathizing with terrorists and apologizing for America. Really looking forward to that.
“Even when the Republicans lose elections, they hurt our national security simply because they exist, they’re crazy, they aren’t trustworthy, and they’ll eventually win power over our Pentagon again.”
This kind of reminds me of S&P’s reasoning in 2011 for lowering the credit rating of the US government for the first time in history: “The outlook reflects our view of the increased risk that the political negotiations over when and how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal challenges will persist until at least after national elections in 2012.”
Translation: Reflects our view that the Republicans in this Congress don’t give shit about upholding the full faith and credit of the US Government.
The best scenario might be this. Romney in the second debate (foreign policy) is asked about middle east and give a generic pro-israel anti-terrorist answer. Obama answers with specifics and then finishes by saying: Hey, Mitt, you didn’t claim that i’m on the side of the terrorists like you have on your stump speeches. Are you afraid to bring that up because I’ll hit back with specific facts? Then mentions specifics. And the moderators says, how do respond Mr Romney?
The FP debate is the third and last presidential debate. The second one is town hall format.
Is there a point at which the State Department may put pressure on Romney to cease remarks that are damaging foreign relations at a very delicate time? He is not on the inside of government and knows nothing about the complexities and nuances of diplomacy. He is risking not just his campaign (already circling the drain), but the loss of alliances across the globe. Could his potential endangerment of State Department work bring down a hammer on his arrogant, ignorant, desperate reach for power? Will the Obama admin let him go rogue in such a horribly public way without any consequences? Losing his campaign is the least of it at the moment.
The corollary is that, just as he’s done with the economy, Romney and his cultlike followers are fully capable of then attacking Obama for having failed to cut a deal with Russia – when Romney was the impediment. (Also, ask Jimmy Carter how this dynamic works.) And Romney’s just as capable of making the same argument in every one of the other issues you mention; in fact, he also already has around Moody’s credit downgrade, even though Moody’s specifically blamed the Republicans for that one.
So to Romney’s near-infinite list of faults, we can add complete inability to take responsibility for his own actions. (Also on full display today.) As with all his other faults, it’s not a bug; it’s a feature. The Romneybot may be the first robot in history programmed entirely with malware.
The original NY Times Story critical of Romney, that was taken down and rewritten, is posted here:
Behind Romney’s Decision to Attack Obama on Libya
September 12, 2012
by David E. Sanger & Ashley Parker
http://kiboxx.tumblr.com/post/31426023358/behind-romneys-decision-to-attack-obama-on-libya
screen save or copy!
Actually, even if setting up a nuclear defense system isn’t that important to you, it demonstrates a certain incompetence on Romney’s part. After all, Romney, like most conservatives, presumably wants the nuclear shield in place but has decreased the chances of it ever happening. If the guy’s lack of diplomacy is getting in the way of his own professed goals, who wants him to be the face of America to the world?
Romney has not harmed foreign relations unless he wins or enough of the GOP with his point of view win to control Congress’s foreign relations policy.
Putin was just doing what Netanyahu is doing but in the other direction–interfering in a US political election. A good counter-balance to Bibi, but that is the end of its significance.
And the game between them is whether the US is pushed into attacking Iran. Bibi says go; Putin says other issues are on the line if you do.
I’m glad Obama is President right now and not the challenger. And that Romney has no real foreign policy role.
Can someone explain why, if the goal is to defend against Iran and not Russia, we insist on placing the ABM system in Poland instead of Turkey?
The goal is to have Poland feel safe. And to extend and solidify NATO. And to actually have some hardware to show for Reagan’s trillion-dollar boondoggle. Iran is a big, big rationalization.
But…missiles from Poland could, in principle, intercept missiles launched from Iran–but with what window of time before those missiles struck their target.
It’s blowing smoke to cover defense contracts that produce jobs the only way the GOP is willing to create them.
I know. It was a rhetorical question.
This braindead “Apologizin’ fer Murica!” slogan is so cretinous that one doesn’t know where to begin. It seemed to appear in rightwing mouths about the time of Obama’s first speech on the ME. One had to have a very special understanding of the english language to detect any “apologies” in the speech, but of course rationality is not required to be an adherent to the “conservative” religion.
Willard’s entire performance yesterday was predicated on the Cairo embassy’s pre-protest statement that America did not support the abuse of free speech to intentionally insult people’s religious beliefs—referring to this mysterious muslim-baiting “film” whose creators are now being tracked down, one hopes by the FBI. That statement (somehow) was Obama (again!) “Apoligizin’ fer Murica” and was the basis of the Rmoney attack.
Now does Willard really think that American diplomacy in the middle east should strongly “stand for” defending right-wing, muslim-hating Christianists when they intentionally insult (in the most inflammatory manner possible) all muslims under the banner of “free speech”? Um, no. Mitt later says that he (supposedly) doesn’t defend the film or its makers. Which is exactly what the hapless Cairo embassy said.
So where does this leave Willard in the “apology” game? Supporting the “apology”?
This story is changing daily, but it now appears to have been a calculated gambit by right-wing Christianist muslim-haters to abuse the first amendment and intentionally foment violence in the ME on the last leg of the prez election, which then brings down more anger against muslims by mainstream America. All under the cynical banner of “free speech”. Sadly, the gamble worked about as well as these turds could possibly have hoped. Apparently they think this will somehow help elect Rmoney.
And the disgusting Rmoney was so eager to play his little part in the vile hate-filled “free speech” drama that he couldn’t even wipe the self-satisfied smile off his face as he conducted his “presser”. He will be a monstrous prez, and no war will be enough for him. A man utterly wthout scruple or decency, willing to spray the most reeking sewage he can find to achieve his (imagined) “destiny”.
When this campaign is over and Mitt Romney looks at the smoking hole that was his reputation, perhaps he’ll realize that John McCain’s refusal to “take the gloves off” with Obama was the right idea.
Wow. So you think your readers want to deploy those missiles on the Russian border?
And they have not said you are wrong?
Too vague.
Are you asking me what I think my readers want?
Or are you telling me what I think my readers want?