Trump Is Fast Forwarding America's Decline

Trump as Wilhelm II.

Donald Trump's mantra is to "make America great again" yet his regime is rapidly destroying standing in the world. While using many of Adolph Hitler's tactics of attacking the free press, demonizing targeted groups, and lying incessantly, as noted in a prior post, Trump's behavior mimics that of the narcissistic, impetuous Kaiser Wilhelm II who used nationalism to lead Germany into WWI  and ultimate disaster, including an overthrow of the monarchy.  The other irony, of course, is that if one looks at those who attended Trump's rallies - e.g., his recent kick off in Florida - they look like losers and what my late maternal grandmother would have described as "white trash" were she still living. Hardly folks that reflect American greatness. Under Trump, America has gone from the recognized leader of the democratic world to being an untrustworthy ally with a leader who prefers hobnobbing with dictators and autocrats, or in the case of Saudi Arabia, out right murderers.  A column in the New York Times looks at America's accelerating decline under Der Trumpenführer. Here are excerpts:

So Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has told The Financial Times, “The liberal idea has become obsolete.” It has, he says, “outlived its purpose.” President Trump finds him amusing. In Japan, at the G-20 summit meeting, he wags his finger at Putin and says, with a grin: “Don’t meddle in the election, President.”

It’s a measure of American decline over the past three decades that Putin’s claim, however objectionable, is no longer preposterous and Trump’s frivolity no longer surprising. Thirty years ago, the Berlin Wall fell. Two years later, the Soviet Union was gone. The liberal idea was triumphant, and American power virtually uncontested in “the unipolar moment.”

Liberalism posited the indivisibility of freedom and human dignity, as well as the idea that the rule of law and democracy offered the best chance for human advancement, peace and prosperity. Its spread appeared inevitable and irreversible. Its guiding spirit was the United States.

The road from that high-water mark of the American idea to Trump’s autocrat-coddling indecency offers a story of squandered American opportunity and eroded American self-belief that Edward Gibbon would have qualified as “decline and fall.” All Democratic candidates should be asked what they intend to do about it.

I can think of no better guide for reflection than William Burns’s book, “The Back Channel,” his wonderful memoir of a life in diplomacy. . . . back in 1993, in a memo to the incoming Clinton administration, he wrote: “Democratic societies that fail to produce the fruits of economic reform quickly, or fail to accommodate pressures for ethnic self-expression, may slide back into other ‘isms,’ including nationalism.”

Burns, now the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, attributes the loss of America’s “unrivaled position of strength” in part to inevitable geopolitical trends, including the rise of China and India in the “Pacific century.”

This was, however, compounded by what he calls “grievous missteps.” They included the post-9/11 “inversion of force and diplomacy” that saw a disoriented United States lurch onto a “road to war in Iraq” that “was distinctive for its intensity and indiscipline.”

The unhappy sidelining and devaluation of diplomacy is a theme of the book. It has, for Burns, culminated in Trump’s “savaging of American diplomacy” that has left “our friends confused, our adversaries emboldened, and the foundations of the international system we built and preserved for seven decades alarmingly fragile.” He writes of “unilateral diplomatic disarmament” under Trump, born of “equal parts ideological contempt and stubborn incompetence.” The president’s view of diplomacy is “narcissistic, not institutional,” Burns observes, full of “muscular posturing and fact-free assertions” that insult allies and indulge autocrats. Burns played a leading role in negotiating [the Iran nuclear deal] that Trump called “the worst deal ever” before withdrawing from it. This, Burns writes, “was exactly the kind of risky, cocky, ill-considered bet that had shredded our influence before, and could easily do so again.” For Burns, the erosion of American power and influence long predates Trump. He regrets the loss of the extraordinary American cohesion that, at the end of the Cold War, secured the place of a united Germany in NATO. He notes the failure to perceive early enough how Russian “humiliation and wounded pride” would, under Putin, spur a Russian resurgence.

NATO expansion was, he suggests, “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst” — a debatable point in my view, given the need to secure and stabilize the liberation of more than 100 million long subjugated people in Central Europe and the Baltic States.

He thinks President Obama made a mistake by not upholding his “red line” against the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. The Obama administration “had blinked” and, Burns notes, “it would leave an enduring mark.” Into that vacuum Putin strode.

Now the Russian president claims liberalism is obsolete. He is wrong. It is more necessary than ever even as Trump scoffs at it. But America’s ability to promote liberal democracy cannot be served by what Burns calls “a State Department in which officers are bludgeoned into timidity, or censor themselves, or are simply ignored.”

Be very afraid.

George H.W. Bush Dead at 94 - Reflections of a Former Republican

George H.W. Bush died yesterday at the age  of at 94.  Like all all previous presidents, Mr. Bush looks better and better in retrospect as the regime of Der Trumpenführer continues to be increasingly defined by corruption, possible treason, and crudeness and boorishness.  Yes, Bush made many mistakes, foolishly embraced Lee Atwater's racist smear of Michael Dukakis,  and failed to be able to convince voters that he deserved re-election in 1992,  Yet, he had class and integrity again, especially in contrast to the current occupant of the White House.  He valued science, knowledge and embodied what the Republican Party once was before the open ascendancy of the Christofascists and white supremacists within the party.  Like Bush the party he led is dead and gone.  The New York Times looks at Bush.  Here are excerpts:

Historians will measure the presidency of George H.W. Bush in familiar ways — by how well or poorly he managed the major domestic and international challenges of his time, his leadership qualities, the moral and social legacies he left for future generations.

Yet, at the moment of his passing, it is difficult not to take note of the profound differences between the 41st president of the United States and the current occupant of the White House, Donald Trump. Beyond a desire to be president — Mr. Bush was more competitive and ambitious than his self-effacing personality sometimes suggested — there is almost nothing in common: the one gracious and modest, the other rude and vain; the one prudent, the other brash; the one steady, the other unmoored.

Mr. Bush’s death on Friday is also a moment to recall a less quarrelsome political order, when relations with traditional allies were more cordial than combative, when government attracted people of talent and integrity for whom public service offered a purpose higher than self-enrichment, when the Republican Party, though slowly slipping into the tentacles of zealots like Newt Gingrich, still offered room for people with pragmatic policies and sensible dispositions.

Fingers pointed in every direction after his defeat [by Bill Clinton] — a deteriorating economy, a divisive convention in Houston, a disjointed campaign. But one big reason for Mr. Bush’s precipitous fall was Mr. Bush himself, chiefly his inability to convince Americans that he understood the depth of their fears or could summon up a coherent plan for addressing them.

A Times editorial after his defeat called Mr. Bush “an incomplete president” — good at some things but clumsy at others. Fate had dealt him one of the strongest hands in foreign affairs ever awarded a new president, and for the most part he played that hand cleverly and energetically. But when it came time to rescue a depressed nation, he had little to offer, either spiritually or in terms of coherent policy. With the economy in decline in the winter of 1992, he told a New Hampshire audience, as if reading from a cue card, “Message: I care.” That very formulation, a bit precious and patronizing under the circumstances, fell well short of the kind of the emotional jolt the moment called for. His opponent, Mr. Clinton, found a much more resonant message: “I feel your pain.”

Mr. Bush’s political persona was no less baffling. . . . . often in the heat of combat, Mr. Bush’s good manners and amiable disposition gave way to bombast and shrill exploitation of fears of race and crime. His 1988 campaign infamously strove to tie his opponent, Michael Dukakis, to an African-American named Willie Horton who committed rape after being released on a weekend furlough program — an effort for which Mr. Bush’s attack-dog campaign manager, Lee Atwater, later apologized.

So hapless was Mr. Bush’s last year in office that it was easy to overlook his early successes. He began smartly, moving quickly to end the ideological combat of the Reagan years, broke cleanly on environmental issues with his indifferent predecessor — the upgrade of the nation’s clean air laws was a major achievement — faced up to the savings and loan scandal and offered creative approaches to the debt of developing nations, especially in Latin America.
 Foreign policy was Mr. Bush’s great strength, and of his diplomatic contributions, two stand out. One was to keep America and the Soviet Union moving forward along a path to peace charted by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, a path that in time led to the reunification of Germany, the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and, more broadly, the end of nearly a half-century of Cold War. His second big achievement was the skillful orchestration over many months of a collective global response to Iraq’s aggression in the Persian Gulf. A war that began on January 17, 1991, was over in weeks, with Saddam Hussein’s air force neutralized and his ground troops on the run. Some critics have said that Mr. Hussein would not have been so bold as to invade Kuwait had Washington not shamelessly cultivated him over the years; others faulted Mr. Bush for not pushing Mr. Hussein all the way back to Baghdad and removing him from power. Such a course, Mr. Bush said later, would have “incurred incalculable human and political costs … We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.” Which is exactly what his son, George W. Bush, a less cautious man, set out to do 12 years later — with disastrous results. Perhaps, in a second term, Mr. Bush might have found a clearer sense of direction on domestic issues. We will never know. But if he is measured by his leadership and choices on the global stage, historians will almost certainly treat him more kindly than the voters did in 1992.

I think most decent people would happily exchange Bush for the current foul and toxic occupant of the White House.  RIP.

The High Economic Price of Rejecting the Iran Deal

In its quest to pander to the ignorance embracing party base, Republicans continually reject objective reality and ignore the fact that the United States cannot unilaterally force other nations to dance to its tune.   Should such an attempt be made if the U.S. Senate rejects the agreement negotiated with Iran to control that nation's nuclear program, the economic consequences for America could be severe, not to mention the cost involved of alienating needed allies.  A piece in the New York Times looks at this reality that ought to outweigh GOP desires to pander to it base that revels in killing Muslims as it clings to a delusional myth of American exceptionalism.  Here are column highlights:

Those calling on Congress to scrap the [Iran] deal argue that the United States could have gotten a better deal, and still could, if we unilaterally ramped up existing sanctions, enough to force Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program or even alter the character of its regime wholesale. This assumption is a dangerous fantasy, flying in the face of economic and diplomatic reality.

To be sure, the United States does have tremendous economic influence. But it was not this influence alone that persuaded countries across Europe and Asia to join the current sanction policy, one that required them to make costly sacrifices, curtail their purchases of Iran’s oil, and put Iran’s foreign reserves in escrow. They joined us because we made the case that Iran’s nuclear program was an uncontained threat to global stability and, most important, because we offered a concrete path to address it diplomatically — which we did.

If Congress now rejects this deal, the elements that were fundamental in establishing that international consensus will be gone.

The simple fact is that, after two years of testing Iran in negotiations, the international community does not believe that ramping up sanctions will persuade Iran to eradicate all traces of its hard-won civil nuclear program or sever its ties to its armed proxies in the region. Foreign governments will not continue to make costly sacrifices at our demand.

Indeed, they would more likely blame us for walking away from a credible solution to one of the world’s greatest security threats, and would continue to re-engage with Iran. Instead of toughening the sanctions, a decision by Congress to unilaterally reject the deal would end a decade of isolation of Iran and put the United States at odds with the rest of the world.

Some critics nevertheless argue that we can force the hands of these countries by imposing powerful secondary sanctions against those that refuse to follow our lead.

But that would be a disaster. The countries whose cooperation we need — including those in the European Union, China, Japan, India and South Korea, as well as the companies and banks that handle their oil purchases and hold foreign reserves — are among the largest economies in the world. If we were to cut them off from the American dollar and our financial system, we would set off extensive financial hemorrhaging, not just in our partner countries but in the United States as well.

The major importers of Iranian oil — China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey — together account for nearly a fifth of our goods exports and own 47 percent of foreign-held American treasuries. They will not agree to indefinite economic sacrifices in the name of an illusory better deal. We should think very seriously before threatening to cripple the largest banks and companies in these countries. . . . . not to mention the economic aftershocks and the inevitable retaliation.

The deal we reached last month is strong, unprecedented and good for America, with all the key elements the international community demanded to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Congress should approve this deal and ignore critics who offer no alternative.

The GOP's War Mongering

Having apparently learned absolutely nothing from the fiascoes in Afghanistan and Iraq launched by a similar detachment from reality and insane belief that America can impose its will on other nations, the Republicans are lamenting the agreement negotiated with Iran and condemning it as appeasement and all sorts of other negative descriptions.  Their alternative?  There is none other that ultimately war.  A war that anyone sane ought to know America cannot win based on the examples of the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Is the Iran deal perfect?  Of course not, but again, what is the alternative?   A column in the New York Times looks at the GOP's insane war mongering.  Here are excerpts:

So what do the critics, from Republican presidential hopefuls to the Israeli government, seek in place of the deal with Iran that verifiably blocks Tehran’s path to a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years? Presumably, they want what would have happened if negotiations had collapsed. That would be renewed war talk as an unconstrained Iran installs sophisticated centrifuges, its stockpile of enriched uranium grows, Russia and China abandon the sanctions regime, moderates in Iran like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are sidelined, and a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic draws closer.

To favor such peril, when a constructive alternative exists that engages one of the most highly educated societies in the Middle East, amounts to foolishness dressed up as machismo.

The Iran nuclear deal is not perfect, nor was it ever intended to address the long list of American-Iranian grievances, which will persist. It must be judged on what it set out to do — stop Iran going nuclear — not on whether Iran has a likeable regime (it does not) or does bad things (it does). President Obama did not set out to change Iran but he has created a framework that, over a decade, might.

If implemented, the agreement constitutes the most remarkable American diplomatic achievement since the Dayton Accords put an end to the Bosnian war two decades ago. It increases the distance between Iran and a bomb as it reduces the distance between Iran and the world. It makes the Middle East less dangerous by forestalling proliferation. In a cacophonous age of short-termism, it offers a lesson of stubborn leadership in pursuit of a long-term goal.

Iran had been increasing its operating centrifuges and the size and enrichment level of its uranium stockpile. Now, the number of centrifuges is to be slashed by two-thirds to 5,060; the stockpile is to be all but eliminated; enrichment levels are capped at 3.7 percent, a long way from bomb grade; the potential route to weapons-grade plutonium at Arak is disabled; international inspection is redoubled and, in Obama’s words, will extend “where necessary,” “when necessary.” In return, Iran gets the phased elimination of most sanctions, the end to its pariah status, and a windfall that will alleviate its economic crisis.

And this is “one of the darkest days in world history”? No, it is a moment for guarded hope.

Iran is finely poised between a tough old guard forged in revolution and its aspirational, Westward-looking youth. A decade is a long time in societies in transition. It is far better to have deep American-Iranian differences — over Hezbollah, over Syria, over regional Shiite irredentism, over Iran’s vile anti-Israel outbursts — addressed through dialogue rather than have Iran do its worst as pariah.

This accord has the merit of condemning the United States and Tehran to a relationship — however hostile — over the next 15 years. The Middle East, several of its states irremediably fractured, needs a new security framework. This will take years. But to imagine it could ever be fashioned without Iran’s involvement is fantasy. Meanwhile, the West and Iran have a common enemy: the medieval slaughterers of Islamic State.

Strict verification is imperative. But Congress should think twice before the feel-good, reckless adoption of a resolution condemning a deal that advances American interests. Obama would veto it, and almost certainly has the votes to resist an override, but this would be a regrettable way for the nation to assume such a ground-shifting agreement. 

Israel, too, should ask the hard questions rather than dismiss a deal that puts Iran much further from a bomb, empowers Iranian reformists, locks in American-Iranian dialogue and will be leveraged by Netanyahu to secure more advanced American weapons systems. The darkest days in history for the Jewish people were of an altogether different order. They should never be trivialized.

The Republicans ranting against the Iran agreement need to study some history and demographic facts.  Unlike Iraq which was a made up nation thanks to the French and British in the aftermath of World War I, Iran is an ancient nation/culture that had a glorious past many centuries before America was even discovered.  It has more than twice the population of Afghanistan and Iraq combined.  Moreover, much of the population is well educated.  These aren't the ignorant "rag heads" that the Christofascists like to see slaughtered. Short of decades of war and a full blown occupation - and we've seen how well that worked in Iraq - with trillions of dollars spent and god knows how many American lives lost, America cannot impose its will on Iran.  We need to realize that there are very real limits to what our military power can do.  This agreement deserves a chance to succeed.  The GOP's embrace of ignorance and military fantasies need to be rejected.

Obama: Only Alternative to a Nuclear Deal with Iran is War

With virtually every important issue facing the nation, today's Republican Party attacks whatever Obama and the Democrats propose, but have no serious alternatives that (i) have a chance in hell of being enacted, and/or (ii) of actually fixing the problem.   The latest issue to join this list of issues is the newly announce nuclear deal with Iran.  Republicans are falling all over themselves to condemn the agreement and seeking to scuttle the deal.  There alternative? None other than ultimately war with Iran. The majority of the American public wants nothing to do with a new Middle East war, especially since the fool's errands launched by Bush/Cheney have been such losing disasters.  But for the GOP, war is enticing: (a) the Christofascists relish the thought of killing more Muslims, and (b) GOP defense contractor donors will make another financial killing even as thousands of young Americans will likely forfeit their lives.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at Obama's calling out of the GOP on this reality.  Here are highlights:

President Obama’s defense of the complex and painstakingly negotiated nuclear deal that his administration reached with Iran boiled down to a simple, if controversial, contention: The only real alternative to the deal was war.

Obama returned to that conclusion repeatedly Wednesday at a news conference that stretched for more than one hour.

“Without a deal,” he said in his opening statement, “we risk even more war in the Middle East.”

A few minutes later, in response to a reporter’s question, Obama dismissed concerns that the House and Senate might vote down the deal, forcing him to use his presidential veto. Wouldn’t a rejection of the deal by lawmakers make him question its wisdom?

“Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war,” Obama countered. “Those are — those are the options.”

“If the alternative is that we should bring Iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. And that will be an honest debate.”

The president’s news conference in the White House’s East Room came a day after his negotiators concluded contentious marathon talks with Iran. The deal they reached to limit Iran’s nuclear enrichment program — more than six years in the making — was swiftly condemned by virtually every major Republican presidential candidate.

Obama’s defense of the deal wasn’t designed to win over dug-in critics, whom he dismissed as illogical and unrealistic. His audience was an American public worried about the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran but also exhausted by more than 14 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama has speculated in recent weeks that the nuclear deal could empower moderates in Iran who are eager for better relations with the rest of the world. “What I’d say to them is this offers a historic opportunity,” he told the New York Times in an interview Tuesday.

Obama hit on almost all the major criticisms of the deal during the news conference.

Republicans have criticized the deal for allowing Iran as many as 24 days before it grants inspectors access to military sites that could house covert programs. The delay could give Iran enough time to conceal illegal activity, critics said. Obama dismissed the charges as unrealistic and not grounded in science.

“This is not something you hide in a closet,” Obama said of the centrifuges and other sensitive equipment needed to make weapons-grade uranium. “This is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere.”

Even if the Iranians had moved nuclear material from the site, Obama said, inspectors would find it. “Your high school physics will remind us that leaves a trace,” he said. “And so we’ll know, in fact, there was a violation of the agreement.”

He countered that the inspections would still be in place 20 years from now. So, too, would Iran’s Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments. Iran would be about one year away from developing enough fuel for a nuclear bomb — a longer time frame than its current two to three months.

Yet another worry is that the lifting of tough economic sanctions on Iran would provide it with as much as $150 billion in revenue. Some of that money would be spent on infrastructure and the Iranian people. Some of it, critics say, would go to the likes of Hezbollah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iraqi militias that not long ago were killing Americans.

Here Obama suggested that the deal was better than any alternative. If negotiations broke down, Obama said, the United States would maintain tough sanctions but many of its partners, eager to do business with Iran, would drop them.

There is more, so read the entire piece.   I nearly lost a son-in-law in Afghanistan.  He was badly wounded but survived.  Thousands did not.  I am against throwing away more lives and billions of dollars.   Let the GOP war mongers all enlist in the military or have their children do so.  I suspect their war fever would quickly abate.

Romnesia: Tonight's Foreign Policy Edition

With Romney having flip flopped more than a hooked fish in the bottom of a boat - or lied constantly for those who like to call a spade a spade - on virtually every issue.  Now, with tonight's debate focused on foreign policy, Romney will likely once again conveniently forget all of his previous statements - suffer from Romnesia, if you will - and once again pander to debate viewers and say whatever he thinks is most politically expedient at the moment.  If you don't believe how many times Romney has flip flopped on his positions, Blue Virginia has put together a great compilation of Mitt's serious "Romnesia" problems.  The compilation should be required reading because it underscores the reality that if Romney is elected, there is no basis to know what the Hell the man would do in office.  Here are some highlights:

In the 24 hours before the final presidential debate, Mitt Romney’s Romnesia has apparently spread to his national security positions. He’s tried to backpedal on his bluster, his pledge to arbitrarily increase defense spending by $2 trillion without saying how he’d pay for it, and his criticism of the President’s commitment to getting our troops home. But this is nothing more than a cynical attempt to hide his true – and extreme – positions from the American people.

Here are the facts:

TODAY: Romney Adviser Dan Senor On Afghanistan: Romney Has Said “And He'll Say It Again Tonight, We Need Diplomatic Solution To The Iranian Nuclear Crisis.” ROBINSON: “Doesn't he have to be careful here? I mean, this could be a delicate and perhaps productive moment - perhaps not - in the relations -- relationship between the US and Iran, and in our efforts on the Iranian nuclear program. Doesn't Romney have to walk very carefully in terms of what he says about…” SENOR: “That's always the case. That’s always the case. I mean, the Iranian government and the administration both said this ‘New York Times’ story is not accurate. So I'm not sure he has to respond to a story that both governments involved have said is not true. That said, if you listen to what he said, and he'll say it again tonight, we need diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. It's gotten really bad.” [Morning Joe, MSNBC, 10/22/12] 

ROMNEY HAS ISSUED VOLATILE RHETORIC ON IRAN THREATENING “IF YOU WANT PEACE, PREPARE FOR WAR”

Romney To Iran: “If You Want Peace, Prepare For War.” “The United States needs a very different policy. Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war.” [Mitt Romney Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal, 11/10/11]

Romney Said He Would Be “Just As Ready To Engage Our Military Might” On Behalf Of Israel As He Is Ready To Engage In Diplomacy.Romney: “As President, I will be ready to engage in diplomacy. But I will be just as ready to engage our military might. Israel will know that America stands at its side, in all conditions and in all consequence.” [Romney Speech, AIPAC, 3/6/12]

  

Romney When Asked If He Supported A “First Strike” Against Iran Either By Israel Or U.S.: “Yes.” Host: “Do you support a first strike against them, either by Israel or by us or a combination of the two to halt that process?” Romney: “Yes, and I think you actually have to act before they had a weapon, a deliverable weapon. They have to understand that we will take military, kinetic action if they continue to pursue a nuclear option. That is unacceptable to us. That is unacceptable to Israel. It's unacceptable to the world.” [Rick and Bubba Show, XM Radio, 3/9/12]

  

Romney On Taking A First Strike Against Iran: “Yes, And I Think You Actually Have To Act Before They Had A Weapon, A Deliverable Weapon.” [Rick and Bubba Show, XM Radio, 3/9/12]

Romney Declined To Say What Kind Of Military Strike He Would Order To Stop Iran From Acquiring A Nuclear Weapon But Did Say “Of Course” He Was Prepared To Act Unilaterally. “BAIER: Would you be prepared to do it unilaterally if need be? ROMNEY: Of course.” [Special Report With Bret Baier, Fox News, 11/29/11]

Romney Said He Was “Being Pretty Serious” About The Idea Of Military Action Against Iran. “Mr. Obama accused the GOP field of taking the idea of war with Iran too casually. ‘I think all of us are being pretty serious,’ Mr. Romney said in his news conference.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12; Romney Press Availability, 3/6/12]

Romney: “We Should Always Make Sure That They Recognize That To The United States Of America, Iran Becoming Nuclear Is Unacceptable, And We Have Options On The Table, But They’re Not Just On The Table But In Our Hands.” [Romney-Ryan Town Hall, Manchester, NH, 8/20/12]

ROMNEY OFTEN WARNS THAT IRAN IS CLOSE VERY CLOSE TO NUCLEAR CAPABILITY

Romney: “Iran Today Has Never Been Closer To A Nuclear Weapons Capability.”  [Romney Foreign Policy Address  to the Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA, 10/8/12]

Romney: “If Barack Obama Gets Reelected Iran Will Have A Nuclear Weapon.” [Romney Event, Snellville, GA, 3/4/12]

Romney: “If We Re-Elect Barack Obama, Iran Will Have A Nuclear Weapon. And If You Elect Mitt Romney, Iran Will Not Have A Nuclear Weapon.” [CBS/National Journal Debate, 11/12/11]

TODAY: ROMNEY HAS TRIED TO BACK AWAY FROM HIS $2 TRILLION IN PROPOSED DEFENSE SPENDING…

Headline: “Romney Camp Blurs $2 Trillion Defense Spending Goal.” [Talking Points Memo, 10/22/12]

Talking Points Memo: The Romney Campaign Is Obscuring A Clearly Defined Policy Proposal, Which Serves As The Basis For Democratic Claims That Romney Wants To Spend $2 Trillion Additional Dollars On Defense Spending Over The Next 10 Years.”  [Talking Points Memo,10/22/12]

·         Romney Adviser: “The Goal Of” Increasing Defense Spending To “4 Percent Of GDP… Is Not Going To Be Achieved Overnight Or Perhaps Even By The End Of The First Term.” “Mitt Romney’s pledge to spend at least 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product on the military isn’t an immediate goal or even one he is sure to meet in a first term as president, according to a defense adviser. ‘The goal of 4 percent of GDP remains and is unchanged,’ Dov Zakheim, a former Pentagon comptroller who advises Romney, said in an e-mail. “But that goal is not going to be achieved overnight or perhaps even by the end of the first term.’” [Bloomberg, 10/22/12]

…BUT INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS SHOWS HIS PLAN TO RAISE DEFENSE SPENDING TO 4% OF GDP, WHICH ROMNEY SAID IS “ESSENTIAL TO KEEPING AMERICAN SAFE,” WOULD REQUIRE A $2 TRILLION INCREASE

Romney Defense Plan: “Reverse Obama-Era Defense Spending Cuts With The Goal Of Setting A Core Defense Spending Floor Of 4% Of GDP.” [Defense Fact Sheet, Romney For President, 7/24/12]

·         Romney: Raising Defense Spending To 4% Of GDP Is “Essential To Keep America Safe.” Romney: “I’m, I think I’m the only guy suggesting that we should raise our Defense budget to 4% of our total GDP, which is about one-fifth of federal spending. For me, that’s essential to keep America safe.” [Hugh Hewitt Show, 11/18/11]

There's much more, but you get the drift.  Romney says one thing at one moment in time and then totally forgets his prior positions and statements if the audience changes or he thinks the public mood has shifted.  As for what he'd actually do, we have ZERO assurance.

Obama Plans to Reach Out to Muslim World

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Barack Obama discussed his intentions to use his full name when he is sworn into office and also that he plans to reach out to improve the USA's relations with the Muslim world. I applaud these plans, but no doubt this will only serve to outrage the mindless, hate filled Christo-fascist elements that comprise the base of the Republican Party who cannot quite figure out that we are not back in the days of the Crusades. Like it or not, we live in a multicultural world with diverse religions and only the Kool-Aid drinkers seem unwilling to accept this reality. Sadly, thanks to the huge mess the Chimperator's idiotic policies have created, Obama will definitely have his work cut out for him. Here are some highlights from the Tribune story:
*

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital. And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.

*

"I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,'' Obama said Tuesday, promising an "unrelenting" desire to "create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together."The world, he said, "is ready for that message."

*

Obama said the country must take advantage of a unique chance to recalibrate relations around the globe, through a new diplomacy that emphasizes inclusiveness and tolerance as well as an unflinching stand against terrorism."The message I want to send is that we will be unyielding in stamping out the terrorist extremism we saw in Mumbai," Obama said, adding that he plans to give a major address in an Islamic capital as part of his global outreach.

*

During the campaign, Obama's detractors would often invoke his middle name, Hussein, in an attempt to falsely paint him as a Muslim. Obama, a Christian, doesn't care."I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition," he said. "I'm not trying to make a statement one way or another. I'll do what everybody else does.''