I had the pleasure of attending the first annual Foreign Policy Initiative conference yesterday, and in between mingling with the insiders while drinking bottles of Fiji water, a luncheon with Mitt Romney took place. The governor answered a few questions from a moderator, and while most of what he said was the typical red-meat fare that even I had to like, there was a rather noticeable gaffe.
My NewMajority.com colleague Tim Mak has already penned a write-up:
Today, at the Foreign Policy Initiative’s annual conference in Washington, D.C., former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney opined that the President’s decision to halt plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe may have been made on faulty intelligence. Describing the President’s move as a “kick in the sand at Poland and the Czech Republic” that was “visible, embarrassing and disruptive,” the former Presidential candidate questioned the quality of the information used to make the decision.
“Is our intelligence really that good?” he wondered aloud, “Is our eyesight into Iran that clear?”
Former Gov. Romney asserted that the decision to shelve plans to deploy a missile shield was made on the mistaken assumption that since Iran’s regime is not developing long-range missiles, defending against long-range missiles would be a waste of resources. Even if they weren’t developing this technology, Romney argued, “There are places in the world where they [Iran] might acquire long-range ballistic missiles.”
Really? Following this principle to its logical end, we could hardly do anything but act in a near-panic, not being sure exactly what was going on, constantly questioning whether our intelligence was “really that good.” Romney seems to misunderstand why exactly the right is so ardently opposed to Obama’s decision in Eastern Europe: it is a slap in the face to our friends — Jon Kyl, who’d spoken earlier yesterday morning, spoke sadly of headlines from the region crying “Betrayal!” — a symbolic gesture of appeasement towards Russia. The problem, in other words, isn’t faulty intelligence. It’s the symbolism.
Regretfully, I did not have the chance to offer my question to Romney (at Aron’s suggestion, I was going to ask whether he still opposed leaving a residual force in Iraq, given that even the president supports it now), but after hearing him speak for an hour yesterday, I was offered little evidence that he has changed at all from his 2008 entity. That should please many, but upset many others.
Let the 100-comment thread commence!
EDIT: For those of you who think he’s right: Do you really believe that Iran wants to fire a missile at the Czech Republic? Really? Do you honestly not realize that this is about Russia?
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Ugh, Romney comes off as really uneducated on the issue with his statements. It’s not about Iran and never really was.
It almost reminds me of something Palin would say.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Ugh, Romney comes off as really uneducated on the issue with his statements. It’s not about Iran and never really was.
It almost reminds me of something Palin would say.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
Great, now I have to defend Romney, well fine, I’m up to the task. One wonders if the source is the DNI whose 2007 NIE tried to deny that the Iranians were building the bomb. Remember that the current head, left out the results of CIA interrogations out of supposedly damning memos on said programs. Giving in to the likes of General Makarov
ultimately will not prevent the threat to Eastern Europe from the Shahab and Saajal missiles. Giving up on Afghanistan, or even a stalemate will not work out well, history teaches us that
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
What Romney lacks is moral backbone.
It may surprise many that people like me and Alex believe this about Romney. And it may be a surprising indicator to some that morality is a whole lot bigger thing than abortion and gay marriage.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:09 am
Exactly. These people are utterly incapable of conceiving of morality outside of social and religious mores.
They ought to pick up some classical works out of Greece and Rome to see what real virtue is about.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Are you sure you folks are GOP, or is this a false front like GOP 12, You really don’t it’s about Iran and North Korea, why Rumsfeld
convened a panel a decade ago, General Cartwright says missiles don’t matter, as the Saajals fly.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
Aye. Of course it’s GOP, narciso. We’re just an all-across-the-spectrum site. We’re not sycophantic. If you want an echo chamber, try RNC.com.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 am
So basically while Romney wants to spend millions on long range missile defense to protect us and our allies, you want to spend millions on long range missile defense to make a symbolic gesture, and Romney’s stance offends your delicate sensibilities.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
This is a non-story. And I disagree that placing military assets across the world is simply ‘Symbolic’. That’s a pretty fascile assessment of foreign policy in my opinion. You may recall a report by U.S. intelligence a couple of years ago that downgraded Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weopons. At the time I thought that it was premature to remove pressure and I still believe it is premature to do so based not on symbolic philosophical mind-games, but on real-world dangerous contingencies.
I’m just sorry to see Alex, that you’ve failed to realize the danger of Iran obtaining Nuclear bombs and see our actions in the area as mere ‘symbolism’.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
#8…LOL…..
Alex, as usual your general posts often are brilliant, but when it comes to Romney, well, let’s just say your emotions override your thought centers…
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
This article has seriously damaged my opinions of your defense and foreign policy credentials Alex. I had quite a bit of respect for your strong neo-conservative stances, but your animosity towards Romney has clouded your judgement and proved you to be quite unreliable when it comes to separating good judgement from emotions and prejudice. That’s a pretty dangerous weakness if you ever do manage to be placed in any position of responsibility.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
From what I understand, Obama is now taking a rather new position that intelligence is now telling him that Iran is years away from having nuclear capability. Isn’t that the crux of what he is saying he based his missile defense decision on? I understand that Mitt would be giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is not outright lieing, so he questions whether or not our intelligence is so good that we can take the chance that they are actually that far away from having that capability.
What exactly is the problem with that? Do you accept that his new intelligence is correct, or what?
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:57 am
Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. Romney is not conservative. He is done! Palin, Pawlenty, and Huckabee will be a good choice to run for President in 2012.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 am
“…but after hearing him speak for an hour yesterday, I was offered little evidence that he has changed at all from his 2008 entity.”
I have been lurking around this site for quite awhile, and overall I am impressed with the great insights offered by the many bloggers involved. I am an independent conservative, meaning that I stand on the side of the conservative party on many issues, but I don’t mind voting for a non-republican if I feel he/she would do better than the republican alternative.
I only speak up now because I am pretty amazed that Alex would make such a fatal error statement as the one above. For months, Alex has told all of us that he dosen’t trust Romney because of the many “flip-flops” that surround Romney’s record. He claims that he wishes that Romney would take a stand and stick to it. (And, honestly I don’t mind him having that opinion.)
However, Alex then writes above that he does not see any “change” from Romney 2008 to Romney 2009.
Alex, I thought that is what you wanted? A person who remains on the same course. All I can gather from you is that you dislike Romney because he changes (flip-flops) and you also dislike Romney because he dosen’t change (as quoted above).
You seem to be a pretty intelligent guy, Alex, which I why I am surprised that you would offer up such a blatent error. Can you please explain why you decided reveal your weakness today (which is a blind dislike of Romney)?
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 am
Since the question of our intelligence capabilities has been brought up I wonder how well our intelligence programs are working since…
Obama’s made it clear that incoming administrations can re-investigate intelligence agents
Obama has been more than happy to release documents, which may lead sources to believe their aid won’t remain secret
I hope his policies haven’t damaged our intelligence capabilities, but I wonder if they have.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 am
Poor Alex,
Your articulate articles are sometimes awash in your own lack of perspective, bias shrouding a sharp mind in a cloud of obfuscation.
So, Romney questions our intelligence estimates.
Last year our intelligence told us that Iran had abandoned its ongoing nuclear weapons program. This year we have intelligence that they are struggling with a long range ballistic system, concentrating instead on medium range 1200 km delivery systems. But, not to worry, because last year we discovered that the nuclear weapons program had been abandoned in 2003 anyway. According to ” intelligence.” So, no long range delivery system and no weapon. Ah, the relaxation of accurate intelligence. We don’t need to spend billions on a missile defense system in Poland and Czechoslovakia. We know because our intelligence system tells us so.
Umm……but the Iranians put a satellite into orbit. Did they use a short range missile to do this? The Iranians announced a new centrifuge program this morning with 10 X capacity. So, they say, they will expand the use of centrifuges 10 X. Umm…and El Baradei finally releases last years’ ” secret” codicil advising that Iran already has the ability to make a few bombs and is working on weaponizing a delivery system, a hidden report from last year that was……..already known by our sharp as a tack intelligence folks? or not ?
So, if you and I Alex, would wonder about the accuracy of our intelligence estimates, why couldn’t Romney ? WHY SHOULDN’T ROMNEY ????
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:07 am
I’m not sure I see a “gaffe” here. I think everyone knows and should acknowledge that our intelligence is not 100%. It is a fair critique that we cannot always act based on what might happen or our worst fears, but pointing out that our intelligence is sometimes lacking (as many on BOTH sides of the aisle have pointed out) is hardly a gaffe.
Am I missing something?
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 am
I have to say ‘oh brother’, Alex. Your blind spot is showing.
It is clear that Romney was questioning the ability of ANY intelligence agency to really know where Iran is at. He was not taking a swipe at our intelligence capabilities.
I just love the way everyone tries to read so much into every utterance of Romney. After all, he’s the sneaky, pandering flip-flopper!
Another thing, Alex. You bias is also showing. Why don’t you make even one remark about the other things Romney said that you agreed with? He’s right on the money as far as FP/defense. But you couldn’t say that.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
MWS – wow, I’ll have to take back something I said this morning. Obviously, you could have sided with Alex on this, but instead you showed some honesty, and analyzed it correctly. Good job guy!
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
It’s pretty obvious to me that Alex has created something from nothing when it comes to Romney. The Romney he believes in simply does not exist. It’s really weird how he’s turned Romney into some boogeyman.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Any disagreement with one’s own opinion tends to amount to “bias” for most people. The true bias that people can’t stand is the one against their own opinion.
Last year our intelligence told us that Iran had abandoned its ongoing nuclear weapons program.
This is not so. The article was written by a couple of anti-Bush hacks who took Iran at its word that it was creating a “peaceful nuclear energy program.”
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Illinois,
I call ‘em how I see ‘em.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
#11 I was thinking the exact same thing (but perhaps not as eloquently).
This is a non-story and I disappointed I’m even reading it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
Pretty much everyone who comments on this site understands Alex’s bias for what it is. Really, though, Kavon out to restrict him from posting any FPP’s regarding Romney. Your slip is showing, Alex! (And I hope I don’t have to explain that comment as a long standing comment on perspective, not anything sexual or similar)
His bias here is evident from the Headline on. There is simply nothing “weird” about Romney’s questioning our intelligence. That same thought should have come to every one of our minds, with the headlines of the last week.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Alex, then why would we conclude that the nuclear weapons program had been further delayed , as we were advised last summer and fall by the DOD and Secretary Gates? Surely, the Government is not using ” anti-Bush hacks” for its ” intelligence” conclusions?
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 am
I think the DaveG endorsement of Romney is really messing with Alex’s head and causing some A. Graham like behavior.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
What the hell are you talking about? What gaffe?
Obama halts the missle shield in part because some intelligence report or assessment opines “don’t worry. no problem. they are NOT developing long range missles–no reason to worry about a nuclear weapon. All is OK. ”
Romney merely then questions whether our intelligence in Iran is really that great that we can make that decision and points out that even if the assessment is correct and they are not developing it themselves–there are other places they might get it.
What the hell is wrong with that? Our history of poor intel in the middle east is well documented! Its not like we can disguise our spies like germans or russians like the good old days. Its not easy getting good intel in these places as anyone who pays attention knows? Or perhaps they did find those WMDs in Iraq that our intel said were all over the place in mass quantities. LOL.
Quit looking for ways to find fault and you wont look like such a fool.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Quite frankly, to NOT question the omniscience of our Iran intelligence is insane. Obama is using it as a pretext to eliminate our missile defense shield, thus throwing the lives of all Americans into needless jeopardy. In Alex’s long-running jihad against Romney, Mitt wins another round.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Alex, Yes, it is about Russia, and Iran, and non-proliferation. It has to do with symbolism, yes, but primarilly it has to do with physical ability to react in the case of Iran or Russia firing a missle towards Europe. Missles from the Czech Republic and Poland can intercept missles from Iran and Russia (although Iran seems more likely to launch a strike than Russia). Building a missle defense shield is much more technically difficult than building a nuclear weapon, this also forces Poland and other East-block countries to build their own nuclear weapons.
Therefore, Symbolism in global affairs is pretty shallow and superficial. It wasn’t Reagan’s symbolic gesture telling Gorbechev to ‘Tear down this wall’, that caused the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, but the absolute certainty in the minds of Soviet leaders that Reagan would use force and bring American industrial power to enforce American ideals in Europe that caused Russia to back off.
Therefore, your analysis is sophmoric and faulty, and even petty on many levels. Symbolism doesn’t work; but the use of force and incentives does. Romney’s questioning of the premise behind Obama’s removal of missle defense is also valid considering Bush-era intelligence estimates that downplayed Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons (which, at the time was trumpeted by liberal peaceniks and cautioned against by the Bush administration and neocons like Heritage and the Weekly Standard).
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Romney can see Martha’s Vineyard from his house.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
28: Not sure you could even call this attempt by Alex a fair fight. Alex had nothing to fight with. Boy, talk about trying to make something out of nothing!
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Alex, do you really believe that if North Korea were to attack the US that they would choose Alaska?
Of course they wouldn’t attack there but that is where we base a lot of missile defense because the purpose of missile defense is to intercept the incoming missile before it gets to its target.
Hence a purpose of missiles in Eastern Europe is to intercept long-range ballistic missiles before they reach their targets in Western Europe of in the US.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 am
Here’s a headline for you: “Alex is weirdly obsessed with finding fault with Romney”
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
So, Alex:
What other foreign policy is ‘symbolic’?
Is the War on Terror a ‘symbolic’ gesture towards terrorist? Are North Korean sanctions ‘symbolic’. How about the war in Iraq? Symbolic? If a missle shield was simply a symbolic communication to the world, then why are the Polish and Czeck so angry and exhibit such existential anxiety over their safety?
Is the safety of the Polish and Czech merely ‘symbolic’ signs from these poor misunderstanding countries of some ‘symbolic’ invasion and ‘symbolic’ subjugation of their people under a ‘symbolic’ Russian tyranny.
Or perhaps they are worried about ‘symbolic’ missle strikes from Iran. Now why would anybody worry about a ‘symbolic’ Nuclear missle being fired into their neighborhood???
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
Sigh… Romney always seemed squishy on foreign policy. McCain beat him over the head during the primaries about foreign policy, particularly Iraq. Say what you want about McCain, but on foreing policy, he knew what he was talking about. In this day and age, we need a President who has a consistent world view, and I’m still not sure if Romney has such a consistent world view.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
I think you are all missing what I think is Knepper’s overarching problem with Romney’s statement: it’s not ultimately what he said, but rather what he didn’t say if I’m reading Alex correctly.
He’s arguing that Romney did not answer that the primary reason why Obama’s decision is a poor one is the moral element: that “it is a slap in the face to our friends” and that the issue with intelligence is a secondary one.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Jonathan,
You’re apparently not familiar with Romney’s foreign policy agenda. There are lots of places where you access it, but start with his Heritage Foundation speech. His views are well-informed, cogent, and compelling—and they’re consistent.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
The foreign policy wonks are strongly for Romney. They will not be in either Palin or Huckabee camps. And yes, obviously McCain had that edge over everyone and was successfully able to take some small advantage over Romney by distorting a comment of Romney’s in 08. Big deal. If you think Huckabee or Palin is going to have that same kind of advantage that McCain enjoyed you are sorely mistaken.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Alex your bias is that you reach the same conclusions about Romney regardless of the facts.
Romney took a position that you should support and that you do support so you couldn’t attack that. Instead you insincerely attacked his reasoning for the position.
You constantly play dumb with regard to Romney acting as if you don’t understand his motives when in reality you are only looking for a basis on which you can attack him.
Your intellectual dishonesty should be embarassing but instead it has made clear your #1 goal is still to make headlines just like it was last year when you went after Palin. Your goal should be about the movements, causes and candidates you support, not about you. It’s only a matter of time before you cross the line again and Kavon is forced to kick you off the site.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
Romney is going after the reason that Obama and his supporters have used to justify not needing missle defense. Why is attacking your opponents argument a bad thing.
If somewhere Romney stated that this was his only motivation for being against Obama’s plan then that would be a problem.
I’m sure Alex and his fellow Romney hater at new majority have conveniently left out all the other reasons Romney is against Obama’s foreign policy moves that he shared in other parts of the speech.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Tommy Boy, anybody who’se been at a luncheon Q&A session knows that at these very informal settings you aren’t going to get a full exposition of the entire sociopolitical spectrum of contingencies and premises behind policy decision.
Romney appears to be criticizing Obama’s rational for removing missle defense; i.e., that it is has no value-added benefit to security while serving no political purpose other than making liberals and our enemies mad. Missle defense has long been said to be a fraud by liberal know-nothings and furthermore, it has been seen by many on the left as nothing more than a tool to annoy people. Romney was questioning one left-wing criticism of missle defense: i.e., that it is not necessary since our nice neighbors in Russian and Iran either a) have no nuclear capability, or b) aren’t willing to use it. Romney is questioning the assumption set in b), but it is larger than this and one snippet from Alex really doesn’t give us the full picture of Romney’s policies towards Iran, Russia, and missle defense. It’s a cheap shot that missed on logic and substance terribly.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
#37:
I read the Heritage Foundation speech and it was a good speech, but then he turns around an says stuff like this. Romney hedged his bets on Iraq during the last primaries. It just seems that he is focused on economic and other domestic items, and doesn’t give as much thought to foreign policy.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Jonathan,
What is your problem with what Romney said?
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
42: “but then he turns around an says stuff like this.”
Please explain what Romney said that you have an issue with.
And I would put good money that in a race of the big 3 that McCain supports Romney.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Jonathan
Do you really believe that Iran has stopped pursuing nuclear weapons and will likely not aquire them within the next 10 years as one intelligence report has said?
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Romney will be the nominee in 2012. Romney is conservative. He is wonderful! Palin, Pawlenty, and Huckabee will not be a good choice to run for President in 2012.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
The missle defense shield was never about Iran, it was about containing the Russian Bear. I’m wondering why Romney would say that Obama scrapped the missle defense because of faulty intelligence. Obama did it because he naively believes that letting Russia do whatever they want will make them more likely to help us with Iran. Why didn’t Romney just say that? Why drap the intelligence community into this?
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Jonathan,
Haven’t you heard the liberal defense of dropping the missile shield? It has everything to do with Iran. The argument is that Iran is not a threat to the US or Western Europe so we don’t need a shield.
Romney isn’t dumping on the intelligence community. He is pointing out that Iran may have long-range missile capability now or very soon even though our current intelligence doesn’t support that. Thus it is an invalid reason to dropping the shield.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:40 am
With regard to containing Russia, I agree and I’m sure Romney agrees and said as much in other parts of his speech. We need to contain them but that isn’t the argument liberals are using so that wasn’t the highlight of Romney’s counter-argument.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Haven’t you heard the liberal defense of dropping the missile shield? It has everything to do with Iran. The argument is that Iran is not a threat to the US or Western Europe so we don’t need a shield.
That’s because they don’t get that this is about Russia.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
Oh, Really??????? What are you obtuse or just uninformed;
See HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE
Honestly, How do I even talk with people who have no clue what is going on in the world. We’re talking about the loss of potentially millions of lives in war. It’s that kind of misinformed stupidity that causes people to attack people LIKE ROMNEY WHO REALLY KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON, and vote for people who, like themselves, have absolutly no clue in the world as to the dangers.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Putin wants a new Russian empire
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/3561923/Putin-wants-a-new-Russian-empire.html
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Alex and Johnathon,
EVEN OBAMA SAYS IT’S ABOUT IRAN I know that Russia had to be a calculation in this decision, but the missle defense was intended to intercept possible Iranian missles primarilly.
That’s what Bush said.
That’s what Gates said.
That’s what Obama says is his reason for removing them.
Come on people! get with the game here.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
The shield was always about Russia.
Israel is developing their own SMD. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801787.html
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
Joseph,
I understand what Bush and Cheney said in public, but it was only partially true.
Try this,
1 – Grab a map of the earth
2 – Place pins at the SMD locations (Alaska, Hawaii, Poland, etc..)
3 – Connect the dots
4 – Step back and take a look to see what country is circled.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Ok, that’s fair Kristofer, but have you ruled out Russia supplying Iran and using as a surrogate to launch attacks on our allies in Europe? Iran and Russia are working together. It’s like Britain saying the 9/11 attacks were “Always about America” and had nothing to do with America’s western allies.
And of course Israel is developing their own SMDs. Nobody is arguing that the missle shield in Poland was set up to protect Israel.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Honestly, How do I even talk with people who have no clue what is going on in the world. We’re talking about the loss of potentially millions of lives in war. It’s that kind of misinformed stupidity that causes people to attack people LIKE ROMNEY WHO REALLY KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON, and vote for people who, like themselves, have absolutly no clue in the world as to the dangers.
It’s not REALLY about Iran.
They’re using it as a cover because everyone hates Iran.
READ BETWEEN THE LINES. Are you that obtuse?
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Kristofer #55,
Look, do you think Turkey is going to let us set up a defense shield? The Czech Republic was the only place that was suitable for a SMD to protect against Iranian missles. I also know that privatly there must be concerns about Russia and their opposition to a missle shield in their backyard, but this is a hatchet job on Romney that invalidates Romney’s concerns about using intelligence that Iran isn’t pursuing nuclear weapons.
So, answer these two questions:
1) Is there a valid Iranian threat that justifies a SMD?
2) Is our SMD systems merely ‘symbolic’ gestures to the Russians in or do they have any functional purpose in actually protecting our allies.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Iran is a convienant excuse for deploying the missle shield, but it IS about RUSSIA. Sorry, but in the last few years, which nation has invaded its neighbor and a U.S. ally, Russia or Iran? We have other ways of dealing with Iran. The missile shield was there to protect our Eastern European friends from the threat of Russia.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
So Alex and Kris,
What are we doing putting SMDs in the Pacific? We must be really stupid to put missle defenses in a place that is nowhere near Russia, because it’s always about freakin Russia right? Not North Korea, Not Iran. Why not cave into Russian demands that we remove our missle defenses that aren’t within proximity to Russia then if they are the ONLY FREAKING ones that we need to defend against…
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Jonathan
News flash, Iran has been invading Iraq for the last 5 years killing actual Americans. When was the last time Russia dared directly kill American Soldiers? A decade ago? perhaps?
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
***THIS PARTICULAR MISSILE SHIELD*** was about Russia. Do you not follow geopolitics at all? There’s a lot of worry about Russia intervening in Ukraine or Poland or the Czech Republic. Trying to be a Power Player again and all that.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
News flash, Iran has been invading Iraq for the last 5 years killing actual Americans. When was the last time Russia dared directly kill American Soldiers? A decade ago? perhaps?
This is about American geopolitical interests, not American lives. We don’t want a resurgent Russia!
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Kris and Alex,
While you guy’s are still stuck in the 1980s Romney is here trying to deal with America’s most proximate threats. These are threats that result in actual American deaths every year. You guy’s can sit at your desks and wonkishly argue symbols and maps, but the reality is that there are other places besides Russia where we and our Allies have to look to defend ourselves. Otherwise, we may be suprised by another Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
#61:
The Surge crushed Iranian proxies in Iraq. Iran has been in turmoil since the vote stealing in the summer. The regime’s stability and credibility are at an all time low, even amongst its own people. The odds of the theocracy being in power for say the next decade is low. Change is possible in Iran. Change has proved to be nearly impossible in Russia. The Russians are going to be, if not an out-and-out enemy, at least adversarily with the United States for a long time to come.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Russia has made it about Russia, that’s true, but the reasons why Obama is removing the shield are (ostensibly at least) based on Iranian considerations. The reason why Bush beefed them up was because of Iran. We can’t ignore the extremist threat from Iran any more than we can from Russia, and Romney was expressing concerns about Obama’s ostensible reasons for disposing of the shield.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
You actually just proved our point.
If it was about Iran, SMD would have been located in Turkey, but becuase it was about Russia, we placed the radars and missiles in a pathway between American (and the UK) and Russia.
Why do you think Gordon Brown sold his soul to Lybia? He wants to replace Russian natural gas with Lybian natural gas. The Russian’s have an economic stranglehold on Europe as the natural gas in the north atlantic dries up.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Russia has made it about Russia, that’s true, but the reasons why Obama is removing the shield are (ostensibly at least) based on Iranian considerations. The reason why Bush beefed them up was because of Iran. We can’t ignore the extremist threat from Iran any more than we can from Russia, and Romney was expressing concerns about Obama’s ostensible reasons for disposing of the shield.
Those are CONVENIENT COVERS so as not to provoke Russia.
I personally just want them to call it as it is, but Obama obviously did this to appease Russia. BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE SAY HE WAS APPEASING RUSSIA IF IT WASN’T ABOUT RUSSIA? …Because…it IS about Russia.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I mean, do you REALLY think that Iran is going to fire a missile at the freaking Czech Republic?
REALLY?
You also seem to think that Iran might be used as a tool for Russia, but who is playing who? Iran would never waste their one shot to fire a missile by doing it on behalf of Russia. If they fire it, it will be AT ISRAEL.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Turkey wouldn’t even let our bombers fly over their country in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, and you expect them to allow us to place American military assets on the ground? Turkey is a shakey ally at best.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Ok, Alex and Kris,
I’m not arguing against the Russian appeasement argument. I’m just saying that Iran played ABOSOLUTLY no role in the missle defenses is lunacy considering the fact that American officials have openly stated that as part of it’s purpose from the beginning in the Bush Administration. For you guys to say that it has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with Iran seeking nuclear weapons is either naive or a perseveration in your animosity towards Romney who criticized Obama for using that as his excuse to pull the defenses.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Do you REALLY think that Russia is planning on attacking the barren northern Tundra of Canada or Alaska?
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Alex and Kristofer,
If you want to criticize somebody for ignoring the Russia component to the SMDs in Europe then attack Obama for failing to understand the consequences of removing the defenses. I agree that Russia spat in our face afterwards and totally disrespected Obama. He should have realized that would be their reaction: more Russian beligerence and aggression, but stop wasting your time attacking Romney who gave valid and justified criticisms of Obama’s rational for removing the defenses. That’s what most clear-thinking conservatives would do.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
This is ridiculous. On the same day Obama’s team released the plan to do away with the missle shield, Romney published his opinion, and highlighted the four major reasons why it was a major mistake. Check out reasons numbers 2 and 3 here:
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/press/item/release_governor_romneys_statement_on_missile_defense
Let’s not try to pick a fight where there is no fight to be picked. Romney fully understands all of the complications and possible outcomes. Don’t assume you’ve caught him in a “gaffe” based on his answer to a question in an informal gathering. I mean, this type of pseudo-journalism would be laughable, if it wasn’t so dangerous.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I think that A.) The missile shield was obviously about Russia, B.) The Bush administration and elected officials had to pretend it was mostly about Iran for geopolitical reasons, and C.) Romney’s statement is no big deal, since everyone is disingenuously pretending it’s primarily about Iran, it’s not especially noteworthy that he’s trying to strengthen the case that they might have been a threat to use these weapons in Eastern Europe.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
If you want to criticize somebody for ignoring the Russia component to the SMDs in Europe then attack Obama for failing to understand the consequences of removing the defenses.
Um, I do. Obviously, Obama’s a tool, though.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
#73:
Of course Obama is the one who should be criticized for his own terrible policies, and no one is saying that Romney would have done the same thing. It isn’t Romney’s position on the issue that is being criticized, but rather, his analysis of what is going on that is being questioned.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Sorry for the interuption, but I’m worried: Joseph, or any other doctors to be… I just found out an hour ago I have bone cancer….just from an xray so far, but will have bone scan and MRI tomorrow.
I had a kidney and adrenal gland taken out last year. The bone cancer we know about now is below my right knee. MY question is what is the possibllity that the two are related? I know the kidney type is very hard to cure…so I’m hoping this is different. Any help?
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“Turkey wouldn’t even let our bombers fly over their country in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, and you expect them to allow us to place American military assets on the ground? Turkey is a shakey ally at best.” And guess who we have to thank for that?
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Don’t be obtuse. There are multiple reasons for a missile shield and romney clearly understands all of them. Check his press release linked above.
It is posts like this where you intentionally withhold romney’s true position in order to deceive readers that makes you lose credibility.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The larger issue is the distruct neocons have with Romney. They (we) are afraid that he will bring take an ‘Olypics’ approach to foreign policy.
Russia is not our friend and Obama qill quickly learn that he should have obtain provisions on Iranian Nuclear development support from Russia, before he did this.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
81. I don’t believe you, Kris. I doubt very much that you harbor that fear.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
IG,
Sorry to hear about the bone cancer. I can’t (and probably shouldn’t) give you any advice at this point, but they’ll have to see if it’s originated from Bone or if it is a metastatic tumor from somewhere else.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
It’s an irrational fear – not based on everything you know about Romney. Nothing he has said and done would give you a reason the feel that way.
The biggest fear I have is getting another POTUS who doesn’t know what the hell he/she is doing with FP/Defense or anything else.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
78. I’m sorry to hear that, Illinoisguy! I hope everything turns out okay. I’ll keep you in my thoughts and prayers.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
82 – I always harbor that fear.
I knew Obama was lying when he said during the campaign he would shift focus on Afghanistan. He stalls while our young men and woman are dying.
Gulf War 1 was the only major military campaign not ‘politicized’ by the White House and Congress.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
86. Obama – So did I, so did everyone, I hope.
But really, I don’t believe you on wondering whether Romney would approach FP like the Olympics.
(Actually, since Romney is a problems-solver extrordinaire, that wouldn’t be so bad.)
But Romney has done nothing to illicit fear in you with FP or defense. Just the opposite, as he seems to be the most well-versed and solid candidate on the issue that we have.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
87, certainly on terrorism, Governor Romney has been hitting all the right talking points.
At the end of the day, he was not the candidate that used the term, ‘bunker mental’, so I am more at ease with him.
Ultimately, pragmatism and neoconservatism are conflicting approaches, which is why many neocons are waiting until the primary to determine a candidate preference.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Illinois,
I hope it all works out for you man.
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
[...] ever the Romney critic, has already posted regarding a “rather noticeable gaffe”. I beg to differ Alex. Romney is not questioning [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Hope things turn out well IG!
Martha,
Romney always seemed iffy on that in ’08. Part of it was the contrast of running against Rudy and McCain. No one has any doubt those guys are all in on defense issues. But Romney seemed to strike a softer tone. Some of it was more a more humble one, ala Sanford, and that’s okay. But when it came down to it, technical answers like “we’ll let the lawyers sort it out” and “do we really know this much about Iran?” just, um, aren’t too confidence inspiring as public statements.
If McCain had been giving the same speech, he would have said something to the effect of “if Iran messes with our allies, we’ll kick that regime’s butt”. McCain doesn’t back down. Romney… we honestly don’t know, and his rhetoric would suggest a more hesitant approach.
I don’t believe too much in neoconservatism as an international agenda, at least not how Cheney et al were practicing it. But I do believe that American force, when applied, should be decisive and a 100% commitment. Hopefully Romney’s not a hesitant and weak-willed type there, as his rhetoric would make us question.
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Is our intelligence that good?
WMD.
That’s your answer.
Is the missile shield really about Iran? No, but Romney is using Obama’s own framing of the argument to undermine it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
MPC, I just don’t agree with you. I didn’t hear a softer tone from Romney at all – not then or now. He’s right that we really don’t know exactly what Iran is doing, and therefore we need missile defense. I think you have pulled these 2 comments out of context, but Romney’s position as a whole was/is no different than McCain’s or Rudy’s.
I can’t remember what the lawyers answer was in response to, and it was a bad answer at the time. It was one comment out of hundreds that didn’t come out right.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Romney is not the enemy!!!
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Illinois,
Reading your news caused my heart to sink. I’m truly sorry to hear it. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers, as well. Don’t give up hope! We’re all behind you!