Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The Romney-Cheney Doctrine

Posted by on Sep. 13, 2012 at 12:08 AM
  • 9 Replies

A large majority of Americans agree that President Barack Obama has a strong record protecting our nation's security and that he has the right vision for American leadership in the world. Governor Mitt Romney's proposals, in contrast, promise to return us to the discredited doctrines and reckless policies of the George W. Bush administration. We've seen that movie before, and it doesn't end well.


That is why it's particularly worrisome that on Thursday, July 12, Governor Mitt Romney is attending a GOP fundraiser hosted by former Vice President Dick Cheney at his home in Wyoming. It's fitting, really, since Romney has called Cheney a "person of wisdom and judgment."

As Romney considers possible running mates, it's worth remembering that he pointed to Dick Cheney as the "kind of person I'd like to have" working with him. Likewise, the policies that Romney has advocated -- like indefinitely leaving our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example -- are continuations of the Bush-Cheney doctrine, version 2.0.

It's no secret that Cheney was the driving force behind the Bush administration's failed foreign policies: starting the war in Iraq with no plan to finish it, bullying our allies around the world, and watching while Iran and North Korea moved forward with their nuclear programs because the Bush White House couldn't bring the international community together to confront these threats.

Out of Romney's 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it's likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity -- a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous.

For example, one of Romney's top surrogates on the campaign trail is John Bolton, who served as President George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton embodies the reckless neoconservative thinking that was largely responsible for getting us into Iraq under false pretenses. Today, he openly roots for diplomacy with Iran to fail and is all-too-eager to send our men and women in uniform into war. Last year, for instance, Bolton said that, "It would be in our interest to overthrow this regime in Syria."

The idea of Bolton and other Bush-Cheney officials serving in a Romney administration should be a scary prospect for all Americans.

Critics might object that employing former Bush staffers does not necessarily mean implementing all of their advice. But voters can only judge candidates by what they say they will do if in office, and the recklessness of Dick Cheney is clearly reflected in the foreign policies that Romney has advocated so far on the campaign trail.

Romney supported the invasion of Iraq and opposed ending the war last year. In December, as Obama welcomed home our troops from Iraq after almost nine years of conflict, Romney said, "It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq is unfortunate. It's more than unfortunate, I think it's tragic." Cheney echoed that sentiment, saying a few months before we ended the war in Iraq that "it would be a real tragedy if we leave too soon before they are ready to fend for themselves."

On Afghanistan, though Obama and all of our international coalition partners have agreed on a timetable to transfer all security responsibility to Afghan control by the end of 2014, Romney contends that we should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, with no strategy behind his rhetoric and no plan to bring troops home. Again, Cheney has said that we don't "need to run for the exits" in Afghanistan.

And Romney, like Cheney, remains stuck in a Cold War mentality. Romney has called Russia our "number one geopolitical foe" -- an outlandish statement that stunned foreign policy experts across the political spectrum. When former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served under President Bush, was asked about Romney's comments, he replied, "C'mon, Mitt, think. That isn't the case." Romney's rhetoric toward Moscow has the ring of comments Cheney made in 2008, asserting that Russia posed a "threat of tyranny, economic blackmail, and military invasion" to its neighbor, Ukraine.

Obama has demonstrated that he is a strong and coherent leader on foreign policy issues. He kept his promise to end the war in Iraq responsibly. He refocused our efforts on crushing al Qaeda and ordered the bold raid to take out Osama bin Laden. He has repaired our alliances abroad and led the international community in putting the most crippling sanctions on Iran in history. During his tenure, he has also provided more security funding to Israel than any of his predecessors and always stood up for our friend in the international community.

A Romney presidency promises to take us back to something all too familiar: a Bush-Cheney doctrine -- equal parts naïve and cavalier -- which eagerly embraces military force without fully considering the consequences. That "attack now and figure it out later" mindset had disastrous consequences for our country. We can't afford to go back to the failed policies of the past, not when we've come so far and had so much success. America's security depends on moving forward to confront the threats of the future. That's what's at stake in this election.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/12/the_romney_cheney_doctrine?page=full
by on Sep. 13, 2012 at 12:08 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-9):
AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Sep. 13, 2012 at 1:30 AM
2 moms liked this
I'll bump this too. Cheney destroyed the goodwill the United states had been accruing during the Clinton years as well as the fountains of sympathy that was pouring for our country after 9/11. It took him less than three years to turn us back to being villians and perpetrators of terrorist acts instead of victims of it. We don't need his help on the world stage again even though some conservative women here have convinced themselves that an entire globe furious at American policies is preferable and somehow safer than a world that sees us an ally or fellow nation instead of as an instigator or bully.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Jesi_79
by Bronze Member on Sep. 13, 2012 at 7:23 AM

"A large majority of Americans agree that President Barack Obama has a strong record protecting our nation's security"

Exactly wrong.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/

 

motherslove82
by Silver Member on Sep. 13, 2012 at 7:29 AM
1 mom liked this
First of all, I don't think many agree that Obama is strong on foreign policy.

Second, I love how the article (almost in the same sentence) condemns Bush/Cheney for going to war in Iraq and for "allowing" North Korea and Iran continue a nuclear program. Should we get involved or not? You can't have it both ways.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Donna6503
by Platinum Member on Sep. 13, 2012 at 8:06 AM
You know Jes, during the McCain Obama debate; Obama was making the claim that we should focus on the terrorists themselves. Obama has done just that, in Pakistan, Yemen, Horn of Africa nations, etc.

McCain's (and other concervatives) argument was, "we don't believe you" Well, you're wrong ... He did what he said we should do, that is why he is still popular in the world.

BTW, I do have some minor issues with some of Obama's foreign policies; but, he is still far better than any of the varieties that are offered by the GOP


Quoting Jesi_79:

"A large majority of Americans agree that President Barack Obama has a strong record protecting our nation's security"


Exactly wrong.


http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/


 


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Jesi_79
by Bronze Member on Sep. 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Except he is not popular in the world.  And even if he were, here is something that people sometimes have a hard time understanding, it is better to be respected, or even feared, than liked.  And unfortunately for the US, the Obama doctrine of appeasement has cost us a third embassy attack in two days.

Quoting Donna6503:

You know Jes, during the McCain Obama debate; Obama was making the claim that we should focus on the terrorists themselves. Obama has done just that, in Pakistan, Yemen, Horn of Africa nations, etc.

McCain's (and other concervatives) argument was, "we don't believe you" Well, you're wrong ... He did what he said we should do, that is why he is still popular in the world.

BTW, I do have some minor issues with some of Obama's foreign policies; but, he is still far better than any of the varieties that are offered by the GOP


Quoting Jesi_79:

"A large majority of Americans agree that President Barack Obama has a strong record protecting our nation's security"


Exactly wrong.


http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/


 


 

Donna6503
by Platinum Member on Sep. 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Obama may not be as popular as '08, '09; but he is still popular.

Appeasement; Well, if you're talking about Egypt embassy's statement released last Tuesday (and I'm sure it was approved by the State Dep't), I'll agree it was ineffective statement. But, yesterday's press conference by Obama had nothing to do with appeasement. No one on the right; couldn't find anything wrong with his statement, in and of itself. The right found "fault" in the politics.

Still, I disagree, it is better to be feared in foreign policy. For example, the 1980 boycott of the Summer Olympics lead by Carter; which, wasn't lead by an element of fear, had 65 nations involved. Yet, the 1984 Summer Olympics; lead by USSR had 18 nations involved and a few of em had nothing to do with the Soviet like Iran and Libya, the Soviet lead that boycott by fear (in many different ways)

I'm not saying that strength and fear; doesn't have a usage in dealing of foreign affairs, but, it only has a part, it isn't the total package. This isn't anything new either, I'm mean, this revelation, doesn't come to us by the Weekly Standard, National Review, US News and World Report, Mad Magazine, etc, we get it from The Prince and/or Art of War. Look Turkey, survived WWII by appeasement ... Heck Franco survived by his political art of appeasement.

But, if you want to compare it to US and today's world. The people of this country had no desire nor will to be involved in another war; that's the reason why we (Obama) isn't setting a firm "line" against Iran (and others) on their nuke program. Are there nations taking advantage of this, yes but this doesn't has to do with "appeasement" it has to do with the fact that the "people" of this country just doesn't want to get involved or even really care.


Quoting Jesi_79:

Except he is not popular in the world.  And even if he were, here is something that people sometimes have a hard time understanding, it is better to be respected, or even feared, than liked.  And unfortunately for the US, the Obama doctrine of appeasement has cost us a third embassy attack in two days.


Quoting Donna6503:

You know Jes, during the McCain Obama debate; Obama was making the claim that we should focus on the terrorists themselves. Obama has done just that, in Pakistan, Yemen, Horn of Africa nations, etc.

McCain's (and other concervatives) argument was, "we don't believe you" Well, you're wrong ... He did what he said we should do, that is why he is still popular in the world.

BTW, I do have some minor issues with some of Obama's foreign policies; but, he is still far better than any of the varieties that are offered by the GOP



Quoting Jesi_79:


"A large majority of Americans agree that President Barack Obama has a strong record protecting our nation's security"



Exactly wrong.



http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/



 



 


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Jesi_79
by Bronze Member on Sep. 13, 2012 at 11:00 AM

My guess is you didn't click on the link.  No sense engaging someone who is not willing to open their eyes and face reality.

Quoting Donna6503:

Obama may not be as popular as '08, '09; but he is still popular.

Appeasement; Well, if you're talking about Egypt embassy's statement released last Tuesday (and I'm sure it was approved by the State Dep't), I'll agree it was ineffective statement. But, yesterday's press conference by Obama had nothing to do with appeasement. No one on the right; couldn't find anything wrong with his statement, in and of itself. The right found "fault" in the politics.

Still, I disagree, it is better to be feared in foreign policy. For example, the 1980 boycott of the Summer Olympics lead by Carter; which, wasn't lead by an element of fear, had 65 nations involved. Yet, the 1984 Summer Olympics; lead by USSR had 18 nations involved and a few of em had nothing to do with the Soviet like Iran and Libya, the Soviet lead that boycott by fear (in many different ways)

I'm not saying that strength and fear; doesn't have a usage in dealing of foreign affairs, but, it only has a part, it isn't the total package. This isn't anything new either, I'm mean, this revelation, doesn't come to us by the Weekly Standard, National Review, US News and World Report, Mad Magazine, etc, we get it from The Prince and/or Art of War. Look Turkey, survived WWII by appeasement ... Heck Franco survived by his political art of appeasement.

But, if you want to compare it to US and today's world. The people of this country had no desire nor will to be involved in another war; that's the reason why we (Obama) isn't setting a firm "line" against Iran (and others) on their nuke program. Are there nations taking advantage of this, yes but this doesn't has to do with "appeasement" it has to do with the fact that the "people" of this country just doesn't want to get involved or even really care.


Quoting Jesi_79:

Except he is not popular in the world.  And even if he were, here is something that people sometimes have a hard time understanding, it is better to be respected, or even feared, than liked.  And unfortunately for the US, the Obama doctrine of appeasement has cost us a third embassy attack in two days.


Quoting Donna6503:

You know Jes, during the McCain Obama debate; Obama was making the claim that we should focus on the terrorists themselves. Obama has done just that, in Pakistan, Yemen, Horn of Africa nations, etc.

McCain's (and other concervatives) argument was, "we don't believe you" Well, you're wrong ... He did what he said we should do, that is why he is still popular in the world.

BTW, I do have some minor issues with some of Obama's foreign policies; but, he is still far better than any of the varieties that are offered by the GOP



Quoting Jesi_79:


"A large majority of Americans agree that President Barack Obama has a strong record protecting our nation's security"



Exactly wrong.



http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/



 



 


 

Donna6503
by Platinum Member on Sep. 13, 2012 at 11:55 AM
I've read the Pew Report, I am talking in general.

If you want to go by country; you'll get a different reason for a reason why Obama numbers are down. Still, I'll disagree with you.

Mexico and Central America; I've felt what happened in Honduras a couple of years ago, was Obama's largest mistake in the region.

I'm South America, FARC is being handle properly by Obama.

China, I'm not sure how the PEW was able to properly able to poll people in that country. Still, the Chinese gov't was one of the few countries that felt McCain would be better to deal with in the '08 election.

Europe, Japan his ratings are still high.

I guess, I not knowing what you're getting at with your statement Jes?


Quoting Jesi_79:

My guess is you didn't click on the link.  No sense engaging someone who is not willing to open their eyes and face reality.


Quoting Donna6503:

Obama may not be as popular as '08, '09; but he is still popular.

Appeasement; Well, if you're talking about Egypt embassy's statement released last Tuesday (and I'm sure it was approved by the State Dep't), I'll agree it was ineffective statement. But, yesterday's press conference by Obama had nothing to do with appeasement. No one on the right; couldn't find anything wrong with his statement, in and of itself. The right found "fault" in the politics.

Still, I disagree, it is better to be feared in foreign policy. For example, the 1980 boycott of the Summer Olympics lead by Carter; which, wasn't lead by an element of fear, had 65 nations involved. Yet, the 1984 Summer Olympics; lead by USSR had 18 nations involved and a few of em had nothing to do with the Soviet like Iran and Libya, the Soviet lead that boycott by fear (in many different ways)

I'm not saying that strength and fear; doesn't have a usage in dealing of foreign affairs, but, it only has a part, it isn't the total package. This isn't anything new either, I'm mean, this revelation, doesn't come to us by the Weekly Standard, National Review, US News and World Report, Mad Magazine, etc, we get it from The Prince and/or Art of War. Look Turkey, survived WWII by appeasement ... Heck Franco survived by his political art of appeasement.

But, if you want to compare it to US and today's world. The people of this country had no desire nor will to be involved in another war; that's the reason why we (Obama) isn't setting a firm "line" against Iran (and others) on their nuke program. Are there nations taking advantage of this, yes but this doesn't has to do with "appeasement" it has to do with the fact that the "people" of this country just doesn't want to get involved or even really care.



Quoting Jesi_79:


Except he is not popular in the world.  And even if he were, here is something that people sometimes have a hard time understanding, it is better to be respected, or even feared, than liked.  And unfortunately for the US, the Obama doctrine of appeasement has cost us a third embassy attack in two days.



Quoting Donna6503:

You know Jes, during the McCain Obama debate; Obama was making the claim that we should focus on the terrorists themselves. Obama has done just that, in Pakistan, Yemen, Horn of Africa nations, etc.

McCain's (and other concervatives) argument was, "we don't believe you" Well, you're wrong ... He did what he said we should do, that is why he is still popular in the world.

BTW, I do have some minor issues with some of Obama's foreign policies; but, he is still far better than any of the varieties that are offered by the GOP




Quoting Jesi_79:



"A large majority of Americans agree that President Barack Obama has a strong record protecting our nation's security"




Exactly wrong.




http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/




 




 



 


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
NWP
by guerrilla girl on Sep. 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I am not surprised. They have an awful lot in common, more than it might seem on the surface...

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)