Poor Mitt Romney. The guy can't catch a break. He's been running for president for years and years and finally, with unemployment very high, morale in the country very low and apparently no other Republican to challenge him for the right to take on the radical, socialist, apologist black guy that has destroyed America, poor Mitt looked poised to achieve his ultimate dream. Unfortunately for Mitt, however, things continue to go against him. We've witnessed (and enjoyed) the gaffes (they're not really gaffes so much as an elitist world view that goes against what most Americans value - corporations are people! I don't care about the poor!), and have watched with delight as someone as lowly as Gingrich gives Mittens a run for his money.
Now, as employment numbers seem to pick up (again, poor, poor Mitt) and Rick Santorum wins the last three contests (poor poor America), none other than the very conservative George Will throws doo doo on Mitt's candidacy.
To my great joy, today's Washington Post had a very interesting column by George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/...).
In his column, entitled "Republicans need more than rhetoric on defense",
Will goes along way to destroying Republican arguments that President Obama has been weak in his foreign policy. Take for instance this passage:
Many Republicans say Barack Obama’s withdrawal — accompanied by his administration’s foolish praise of Iraq’s “stability” — has jeopardized what has been achieved there. But if it cannot survive a sunrise without fraying, how much of an achievement was it?
Sure, Will calls the administration's praise foolish (and maybe it is), but let us not be distracted. Nothing has been achieved in Iraq if it requires the indefinite presence of thousands and thousands of America's young. And as Will notes in the column, Mitt "there's not a war in the world I would myself fight in" Romney proposes exactly that:
But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.
Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they “are killing our soldiers.” Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there will be nothing about which to negotiate. “We don’t,” he says, “negotiate from a position of weakness as we are pulling our troops out.” That would mean stopping the drawdown of U.S. forces — except Romney would not negotiate even from a position of strength: “We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeat the Taliban.” How could that be achieved in a second decade of war? What metrics would establish “defeat”? Details to come, perhaps.
That's exactly the point. There are no metrics that can establish "defeat" or victory. Yet, that doesn't stop these morons on the right from attacking any policy that doesn't see America's young soldiers dying year in year out as weak, or a threat to American security. In truth, for Romney Iraq and Afghanistan are not about American national interests. They are about bravado. It is easy to talk about sacrifice and an endless campaign when its not your kids doing the dying.
Rubbish. America's security is not dependant on the number of stupid wars we fight. Its dependant on a smart foreign and defense policy. As Will puts it:
Osama bin Laden and many other “high-value targets” are dead, the drone war is being waged more vigorously than ever , and Guantanamo is still open, so Republicans can hardly say that Obama has implemented dramatic and dangerous discontinuities regarding counterterrorism... Republicans who think America is being endangered by “appeasement” and military parsimony have worked that pedal on their organ quite enough.
Obviously, the drone war and Guantanamo are sensitive issues, and the President deserves to be scrutinized over them. However, the point sticks: a smarter foreign and defense policy does not mean a weaker one.
Most surprising is Will's thoughts on the handling of Iran.
Romney says: “It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” that if he is elected, Iran will not get such a weapon, and if Obama is reelected, it will. He also says that Obama “has made it very clear that he’s not willing to do those things necessary to get Iran to be dissuaded from” its nuclear ambitions.” Romney may, however, be premature in assuming the futility of new sanctions the Obama administration is orchestrating, and Panetta says Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is “unacceptable”... and if “we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.” What, then, is the difference between Romney and Obama regarding Iran?
I'll tell you what the difference is. Mitt Romney is a fool who thinks the answer to all of America's problems is to talk tough, act stupidly and send other kids off to die. Another difference is Romney seems to think we live in a world where we can send troops anywhere we want in the world and things will magically improve. Anyway, we all knew Romney was a fool. I just find it amazing that a widely read and respected conservative columnist has called Romney out in this manner.
Between all of his stupid comments indicating how out of touch with regular Americans he is, his role at Bain, growing confidence in the economy and this column, the question for me is, is Mitt Romney done? Has Mitt Romney been knocked out? I don't know. What I do know though is this column by George Will needs to be read widely, so please share the link as much as possible.