Posturing himself for another presidential run and promoting his new book "No Apology, the Case for American Greatness", Mitt Romney got some push-back from Chris Wallace this weekend for asserting in his book that Obama is weak on foreign policy and an apologist to terrorists.
Said Chris Wallace to Romney's criticism, ""is that fair to say about a president who has escalated the US involvement in Afghanistan, and who has launched more drone attacks in one year than President Bush did in eight?"
"Chris,"answered Romney, "I believe the president made an enormous error in the beginning of his administration by going across the world, starting in Muslim lands and saying that America has been derisive, dismissive, arrogant, that we have not listened to the concerns of others, that America has dictated to other nations...simply saying words like that are, one: wrong, because America has freed other nations from dictators, not dictated to them, and it also adds fuel to the fire to those who are part of the "blame America' crowd. I saw even Ahmadinejad is now saying 9/11 is a fabrication. These sorts of voices should not receive any kind of support from the words of the president of the United States."
According to Romney, Obama's lip service to Muslim nations during that brief period at the start of his term when the world thought that the new president might actually make good on the "change" he promised, somehow emboldened the so called bad guys, chiefly Ahmadinejad, who's government the Obama administration is now seeking to put harsh sanction on, like the ones that crippled the people of Iraq for a decade before the last invasion.
A casual viewer may think Romney's argument is that the words of the president should match his actions, but then Romney went on to praise Obama for flip-flopping on other issues:
"But I can tell you I am glad that the president reversed course in Iraq" he didn't pull our troops out like he said during the campaign, he likewise said he supported our surge efforts in Afghanistan having voted against the surge in Iraq, and I'm glad also that he supported the Patriot Act."
The "Neocon" and "Cruise Missile Liberal" establishments both agree on the end goal of US empire and domination of the Middle East and Eurasia, while varying minutely on strategy. Neocon political figures are attempting to reassert the idea that the Democratic president is somehow a bleeding heart to America's "enemies" even as he bombs them from the sky and kills civilians in the process, creating new enemies and perpetuating the wars even further. Wallace's honesty, (though unintentional since he tried to frame the drone bombings and war escalation as positive hallmarks of the Obama administration) demonstrates that there really is no difference between the two ruling political factions of the United States. However, in order for those factions to maintain their dominance the show has to go on. The establishment's hope is that as Americans grow more weary of the wars, they blame it on the president instead of the systematic domination of US foreign policy by the military industrial complex and turn to a candidate like Romney, who will take the glove off the iron fist and promise to make America more secure through even tougher rhetoric and greater escalation, claiming Obama's "weakness" is why, after so many years, America is still fighting.
The sad song of war will then continue, the same notes repeated in melodies of gunfire and screams. "Change" will remain a sound-byte instead of reality, and even more people will continue to die.
1
