For those of you who have not paid attention, Team Obama has been beating Romney about the head and neck for his foreign policy gaffes:
The Obama campaign on Monday stepped up its attacks on Mitt Romney’s foreign policy record, with a prominent surrogate blasting the GOP candidate as a novice whose policies amounted to little more than “tough talk and chest-thumping.”
In a conference call with reporters, retired Gen. Wesley Clark focused on Romney’s failure to mention the troops in Afghanistan during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, saying it was “more than an omission” and highlighted the nominee’s inexperience.
“It reveals a severe lack of understanding of the job of president … and frankly it’s unbecoming of someone who wants to be the commander in chief,” Clark said.
“They’re not an item on a laundry list, they’re a priority,” he said of the troops.
Clark’s “laundry list” comment was in response to a Fox News interview Romney gave last week in which he was asked if he regretted not mentioning the troops in his speech.
Recall John Kerry gleefully bludgeoning Mitt just last week:
It isn’t fair to say Mitt Romney doesn’t have a position on Afghanistan. He has every position. He was against setting a date for withdrawal – then he said it was right – and then he left the impression that maybe it was wrong to leave this soon. He said it was ”tragic” to leave Iraq, and then he said it was fine. He said we should’ve intervened in Libya sooner. Then he ran down a hallway to duck reporters’ questions. Then he said the intervention was too aggressive. Then he said the world was a ”better place” because the intervention succeeded. Talk about being for it before you were against it!
Mr. Romney – here’s a little advice: Before you debate Barack Obama on foreign policy, you better finish the debate with yourself! ”President Mitt Romney” – three hypothetical words that mystified and alienated our allies this summer. For Mitt Romney, an overseas trip is what you call it when you trip all over yourself overseas. It wasn’t a goodwill mission – it was a blooper reel.
But a Romney – Ryan foreign policy would be anything but funny. Every president of both parties for 60 years has worked for nuclear arms control – but not Mitt Romney. Republican secretaries of state from Kissinger to Baker, Powell to Rice, President Bush, and 71 United States senators all supported President Obama’s New Start treaty. But not Mitt Romney. He’s even blurted out the preposterous notion that Russia is our ”number one geopolitical foe.” Folks: Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska; Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.
So here’s the choice in 2012. Mitt Romney: out of touch at home, out of his depth abroad and out of the mainstream. Or Barack Obama: a president who is giving new life and truth to America’s indispensable role in the world; a commander – in – chief who gives our troops the tools and training they need in war, the honor and help they’ve earned when they come home; a man who will never ask other men and women to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.
Have no fear, Republicans, the Likud party is about to attempt to come to your rescue:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel inserted himself into the most contentious foreign policy issue of the American presidential campaign on Tuesday, criticizing the Obama administration for refusing to set clear “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear progress that would prompt the United States to undertake a military strike. As a result, he said, the administration has no “moral right” to restrain Israel from taking military action of its own.
Mr. Netanyahu’s unusually harsh public comments about Israel’s most important ally, which closely track what he has reportedly said in vivid terms to American officials visiting Jerusalem, laid bare the tension between him and President Obama over how to handle Iran. They also suggested that he is willing to use the pressure of the presidential election to try to force Mr. Obama to commit to attack Iran under certain conditions.
I’m sure it is all just a coincidence. Romney is getting demolished on national security and foreign policy issues, so it is just unfortunate timing that has the Republican’s favorite Israeli inserting himself again into an American election. Make no mistake, Netanyahu wants a Romney administration, because then AIPAC’s deepest fantasies will be actual American policy.
None of this should be surprising. If you remember the aftermath of the 2008 election, the “moderate” Kadima party led by Tsipi Livni killed 1,000 Palestinians in a sustained massacre in Gaza in response to erratic and largely unsuccessful rocket fire, so learning that Netanyahu is throwing the Likud party weight around advocating war with Iran is kind of to be expected. The only people who are probably surprised by this are the Palestinians, because they are usually the ones who expect to get killed when Israeli’s act while Americans are distracted by elections.
At any rate, the bonus for the
domestic Likud party Republicans is that we’ll get to kill Medicare and Social Security one way or another. Either the Romney/Ryan team kills it, or the AIPAC party bankrupts us with another several trillion dollar war with Iran. But hey, with the latter, we get to slap yellow ribbons on our car, go shopping, and watch really awesome episodes of ABC’s Extreme Makeover in which we build new homes for crippled veterans. Maybe in the newer episodes we can build a house with oxygen tanks after some solid chemical warfare. I almost want to go put my American flag up right now. Can’t you feel the excitement?