“How I learned to stop worrying about Iran and love the bomb”
Some of you might recognize the preceding quote as being derived from the movie Dr. Strangelove. Mitt Romney loves the bomb – he has not said one word about reducing our nuke arsenal or our military. Mitt Romney isn’t now and never was worried about Iran. But if saying so will help him get elected, he will say so.
Consider:
· ONE: "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon," stated Mitt Romney in the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina on Nov. 12. "If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon."
· TWO: Romney said that if "crippling sanctions" and other strategies fail, military action would be on the table because it is "unacceptable" for Iran to become a nuclear power.*
You have to consider ONE very carefully. The key claim is: Whatever happens (or doesn’t) depends on which one man is in charge. It’s times like this I wish a moderator would interject, “And what would you do to limit the power of the Imperial Presidency?” What I’m hearing Willard say goes something like this: “If I get elected, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon because I will authorize a military strike without bothering to get congressional authorization or [how passé] a formal declaration of war.”
How else could Romney have made that statement, which I’ll repeat: “If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon?” He could only say this by intending to act unilaterally – as an Imperial President who doesn’t need Congress.
By threatening military action, Romney only drives the Iranians closer to China and Russia. And that can only serve to undermine whatever diplomatic pressure other nations – notably in the EU – are trying to exert. Not to mention undermining his own president. Besides, Romney should take due note that China and Russia are in the same neighborhood as Iran, which should make them worry about another Islamic bomb (Pakistan having the first). Russia has a sizable Muslim population of its own – many of whom live near Iran. Plus China has its own (though much smaller) Muslim population. However, you don’t hear either country beating war drums to frighten Iran. Why not?
“Romney urges Obama to stop looming military cuts”
That was the headline to this Associated Press article that appeared today, from which I’ll quote [adding my own highlights in yellow]:
QUOTE:
Associated Press= NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney is calling on President Obama to block looming military cuts.
The former Massachusetts governor tells supporters in New Hampshire that the deficit-cutting supercommittee in Congress probably won't come up with a deal before its Wednesday deadline. That would trigger billions of dollars in automatic cuts to the military and domestic programs.
Romney says the president hasn't done enough to push congress to compromise, and Romney wants Obama to introduce legislation to stop the threatened military cuts….
:UNQUOTE.
The first sentence implies that Obama would have the power – by himself – to block these cuts. Which he does not. However, the last sentence makes clear that Obama could only introduce legislation to stop the cuts. But Romney doesn’t say anything about blocking any of the domestic programs’ scheduled cuts. And yet he has the nerve to talk about “compromise.” What, exactly, could Obama have done to “push the congress to compromise?” Romney is conveniently silent on that point.
Of course, if looming military cuts were really a concern, Congress could try to block those cuts by passing the appropriate legislation over Obama’s veto. However, We-the-People would have to wonder: “Why were these cuts threatened in the first place, other than to try to get the supercommittee to act?” In any event, if our national security were really threatened by these cuts, Congress wouldn’t have any problem going over Obama’s head to void them.
I suppose one problem might rear its ugly head: Should all of the military cuts be voided? Then the Democrats could counter, “all of the domestic program cuts should be voided as well.” That would simply put us back to where we started before all this supercommittee nonsense was foisted upon us.
Side comment: I’m in favor of cutting our entire military budget in half, which is still more than enough to defend this country. Maybe it won’t be enough to project American power and dominate the world, but I’m not real keen on that anyway. Mitt Romney is, since his own website (under the “foreign policy” section) speaks of An American Century. Wasn’t that a neo-con imperative?
And what business does Romney have advertising his feeling that “Congress probably won't come up with a deal before its Wednesday deadline?” That could only serve to undermine the work of that committee which was, after all, charged with quite the Herculean task. Apparently Willard has no trouble speaking his mind if that will help get him elected – even though his words are far from diplomatically sensitive.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“I’m absolutely amazed the pundits aren’t jumping all over Romney for such blatant and self-serving shortsightedness.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
“a nuclear power.*” = http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323686-503544/romney-gingrich-at-gop-debate-wed-go-to-war-to-keep-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons/
No comments:
Post a Comment