Romney: Reagan Neglected National Security

Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by Political Junky, Oct 23, 2012.

  1. Political Junky
    Offline

    Political Junky Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,542
    Thanks Received:
    2,948
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,534
    Did President Reagan Neglect National Security? | The Weekly Standard

    The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Mitt Romney is recounting a Jim Baker anecdote in which President Reagan ordered Baker, as White House chief of staff, to hold no national security meetings over a hundred day period early in his first term so that President Reagan and his team could focus on the economy. If the Journal's reporting is accurate—and I don't believe the Romney camp has challenged it—Romney should stop telling this false and foolish tale.

    Here's the reporting:

    Mr. Romney made that clear [that he's most focused on the economy] at a July fundraiser in Montana as he rehashed the challenges Mr. Reagan faced when he took office. He recounted how [James] Baker, a former secretary of state, held a national security meeting about Latin America during the first 100 days of Mr. Reagan’s presidency. “And after the meeting, President Reagan called me in and said, ‘I want no more national-security meetings over the next 100 days—all of our time has to be focused on getting our economy going,’” Mr. Romney recalled Mr. Baker saying.

    For one thing, as Marc Thiessen points out, the fact that Romney's recounting this anecdote doesn't reflect well on Romney's understanding of the job he's campaigning for:

    "Given the challenges a Romney administration will face – from a spiraling Syria to key decisions on the way forward in Afghanistan to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program and the threats from al Qaeda in Yemen and East Africa – it is unlikely Romney will have the luxury of ignoring foreign policy for his first 100 days....But the fact that Romney thinks it would be desirable to ignore the world for his first 100 days is troubling. Yes, the American people are focused on the economy – and understandably so. But Romney isn’t running for treasury secretary – he is running for Commander in Chief. And those responsibilities begin on Day 1 of his presidency."
    <more>
     
  2. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    Is there a story here somewhere?
    Did Reagan not say that? Did Reagan neglect foreign affairs? Did Romney say he would neglect foreign affairs?
    Your faux outrage and desperation are noted.
     
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    I don't really see all tht much difference between Obama's foreign policy and the foreign policy that Mitt advanced.


    Can anyone really explain what the difference is between them?

    I mean really explain it, don't give us a load of vaguely jingoistic soundbytes.

    That's my challenge to the GOP loyalists here on USMB...explain to us what Romney's foreign policy will be when he is POTUS.

    For extra credit show us specifically how it is different than the policy we have right now.
     
  4. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    Romney's policies are not different so much from what Obama says his policies are. The reality is a little different though.
    Obama is into throwing our allies under the bus and appeasing dictators. Obama is into seeing America as the problem, not the solution. Obama knee jerk defers to the UN in any matter. Obama wants to subliminate America to councils and alliances of one kind or another.
    Romney is the opposite.
     
  5. Dick Tuck
    Offline

    Dick Tuck Board Troll

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,511
    Thanks Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +502
    Reagan was a foreign policy idiot. Remember how he did nothing when the Marine barracks was bombed, killing 299 American and French soldiers? Hell, even the French retaliated against targets in the Bekaa valley.
     
  6. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Right after you tell us the difference between Boiking's foreign policy and the Shrub's.

    Oh yeah....There ain't none.
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    What do you mean he did nothing?

    Reagan recognized that Muslims and the politics of the middle east are entirely irrational and got our boys the hell out....Which is far better a strategy than all of his successors -both remocrat and depublican- have put into play.
     
  8. Dick Tuck
    Offline

    Dick Tuck Board Troll

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,511
    Thanks Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +502
    Sure. Bush kissed Kaddafi's ass, Obama kicked. Bush didn't think much about Bin Laden, Obama killed him. Bush stood for weak sanctions against Iran, Obama toughened them. Bush took us into an optional war that cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion in our fortune. Obama is bring the troops home. Bush believed we should go it alone, Obama believes in building international coalitions. Bush gave lip service to Chinese cheating on trade, Obama set a record in prosecuting them.
     
  9. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Right...Obiedoodle is just as much of a military interventionist as his predecessors.

    Thanks for that moment of inadvertent honesty.
     
  10. Dick Tuck
    Offline

    Dick Tuck Board Troll

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,511
    Thanks Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +502
    Yet he gave high tech weaponry, such as Stingers, to what became al Qaeda and the Taliban.
     

Share This Page