…Wasn’t 8 years of life in the “dark side” of the force sufficient … or do we need a reminder…?
Posted: 14 May 2012 11:08 AM PDT …Posted by AzBlueMeanie .. An Inexperienced Romney and his Neocon Bush Foreign Policy Advisors
One of the things that ought to give anyone pause about Willard "Mittens" Romney is that he has surrounded himself with the Neoconservative war mongers from George W. Bush’s presidency who gave us the bogus intelligence for an unnecessary war in Iraq that cost us so much in American lives and treasure. Not to mention set this country on a dark course to illegal torture and rendition as if we are the old Soviet Union.
These guys ought to be on trial for war crimes before a Nuremberg Tribunal-style court, not walking around free to peddle their "American Century" Pax Americana Empire wet dreams to Tea-Publican candidates for president.
Twenty three of Romney’s senior advisers served under Bush in some capacity, several serving in key roles in the administration. Here is the full list of Mitt Romney’s national security team.
There has been some very good reporting on Romney’s Neocon foreign policy advisors recently:
Steve Benen warns today, ‘Engaging’ on foreign policy — after the election:
Mitt Romney has assembled quite a few advisors on foreign policy, many of whom worked for the Bush/Cheney team, and given the former governor’s inexperience and limited understanding of international affairs — Swiss bank accounts don’t count as proficiency in this area — those who have his ear are getting a closer look.
With that in mind, the New York Times reports today that many members of Team Romney disagree with one another — and at times, even the candidate — about foreign policy, and occasionally, Romney’s own advisors have no idea what he’s trying to say.
On Afghanistan, for example, Romney’s advisors support negotiations with the Taliban, as so most U.S. military leaders. The candidate, however, instead boasted at a GOP debate, "We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban." A Romney advisor conceded, "none of us could quite figure out what he was advocating."
Similar problems have come up when Romney has talked about Iran, China, Russia, and nuclear proliferation — he contradicts himself and his advisors, who in turn contradict one another.
So, how would Romney operate in his capacity as leader of the free world? Apparently, he’ll figure that out a year from now.
"There are two very different worldviews in this campaign," said one adviser who aligns more often with [John] Bolton. "But as in any campaign, there are outer circles, inner circles and inner-inner circles, and I’m not sure that anyone knows if the candidate has a strong view of his own on this." Another adviser, saying he would be "cashiered" if the campaign caught him talking to a reporter without approval, said the real answer was that "Romney doesn’t want to really engage these issues until he is in office."
How reassuring. Neither Romney nor his team has a coherent vision on foreign policy, despite a multitude challenges around the globe, but once the former governor is the president, then he’ll "engage these issues."
In this case, Romney isn’t being secretive so much as he’s being lazy — he hasn’t bothered to give international affairs a lot of thought so far, and he doesn’t feel the need to do so now.
As I’ve said before, a vote for Romney is a vote for war with Iran. It’s the lives of your sons and daughters at stake.
Filed under: Blogroll