About This Blog
Following up on what I said yesterday about CNN's GOP presidential candidates' "debate".....
I guess it's official. Mitt Romney "emerges (as) an emboldened frontrunner from debate"....says PBS. CNN Politics announced, "Romney emerges as New Hampshire front-runner." "GOP debate solidifies Romney's frontrunner status" claims US News.
I'm sure that Mitt Romney is a nice man and all....but he is a terrible candidate. "I am a phony" is written in block letters across his forehead for all to see. He has amassed more flip flops than any average shoe store and his smarminess gets more sickening the more one is exposed to it. During the 2008 campaign I labeled Romney the "plastic man"....because of his unique ability to form his opinions according to who's listening.
Let's say for the sake of discussion that Mitt Romney is the GOP presidential candidate next fall. Let's also assume that the current GOP plan to wreck the economy to defeat Obama's re-election is successful...and Romney, perhaps with a Tea Party darling as his vice-president.....wins the election. Come January 20, 2013, under this scenario, Romney becomes the nation's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Here's how a President Mitt Romney would fulfill his responsibility of being CIC.....
JOHN BROWN, VOTER: Osama bin Laden is dead. We've been in Afghanistan for ten years. Isn't it time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan?
KING: Governor Romney, take the lead on that one. ROMNEY: It's time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over to the Taliban military in a way that they're able to defend themselves. Excuse me, the Afghan military to defend themselves from the Taliban. That's an important distinction......
KING: Congressman Paul?
ROMNEY: Let me -- let me continue. That is I think we've learned some important lessons in our experience in Afghanistan. I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals.
But I also think we've learned that our troops shouldn't go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan's independence from the Taliban. Thank you.
KING: Congressman Paul, do you agree with that decision?
PAUL: Not quite. I served five years in the military. I've had a little experience. I've spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief.
I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan.
There has been an odd avoidance by American presidents of late to actually carry out the Commander in Chief duties. During the glory days of the occupational war in Iraq, we often heard George W. Bush defer to the "generals" when it came to answering questions about when our war of occupation might end. The same is true of President Obama. Obama's decision to twice escalate the Afghanistan occupational war was based on the "generals." John McCain, strong supporter of all American occupational wars, often claimed during his push to defend W's Iraq occupational war "surge".....that the "surge" was what the "generals" recommended....it was the "generals" idea.
Mitt Romney agrees. If elected president, Romney will defer to the "generals"...as if America is a military dictatorship. Sure, Romney gave a political answer Monday night....not wanting to clearly answer any question about when HE would end the Afghanistan occupation.....but Ron Paul didn't let that bother him, did he?
"I wouldn't wait for the generals. I'm the Commander in Chief", Paul backhanded Romney, and rightfully so. The United States does not need another president who outsources his military decisions to generals. We need a president who responds to the will of the people, a president who will make those decisions for the generals, not the other way around. The President of the United States is the designated CIC for a reason.....and that reason is to prevent our nation from becoming a military dictatorship. Today, with the bloatedness of the military-industrial complex as it is....it's more important than ever for the U.S. to have an independent and decisive CIC in the Oval Office.
My fear with Mitt Romney is that the "generals" of a very neo-conservative, permanent war-minded, military will continue to dictate war....with Iran next in line. Romney, obviously a plasticized appeaser, would simply mold his presidential positions to fit the "generals" wishes...much as W. formed his military positions by accommodating General Petraeus.
Quite frankly, the U.S. can't afford such dereliction of CIC duties by another president. The Empire must be reeled in, like Ron Paul suggests, and Romney is obviously not the man to do it.
- 2013 (113)
- 2012 (265)
- 2011 (254)
- 2010 (274)
- 2009 (302)
- 2008 (331)
- 2007 (305)