What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Romney: Reagan Neglected National Security

Political Junky

Gold Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
25,793
Reaction score
3,984
Points
280
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>
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,733
Reaction score
7,920
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
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.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,663
Points
48
Location
Maine
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.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,733
Reaction score
7,920
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
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.
 

Dick Tuck

Board Troll
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
8,511
Reaction score
504
Points
48
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.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,654
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
Right after you tell us the difference between Boiking's foreign policy and the Shrub's.

Oh yeah....There ain't none.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,654
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.
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.
 

Dick Tuck

Board Troll
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
8,511
Reaction score
504
Points
48
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.
Right after you tell us the difference between Boiking's foreign policy and the Shrub's.

Oh yeah....There ain't none.

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.
 

Dick Tuck

Board Troll
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
8,511
Reaction score
504
Points
48
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.
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.

Yet he gave high tech weaponry, such as Stingers, to what became al Qaeda and the Taliban.
 

Truthseeker420

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
10,374
Reaction score
1,010
Points
140
Location
Home of the 2013 BCS National Champion

ShaklesOfBigGov

Restore the Republic
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
5,077
Reaction score
749
Points
200
Location
Near Washington D.C.
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.

...and how did Clinton respond to the first initial World Trade Center Attack, or the two embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, or the USS Cole terrorist hit? We can play this who did what when, but more importantly is how are we to respond to the threats we have today?

How exactly has Obama prevented Iran from developing a nuclear enrichment program to develop weapons? Has Ahmadinejad flinched, or reversed course at all from developing a nuclear weapon?

Was spiking the football about Osama Bin Ladin the right choice for Obama to make (stating that Al Queda is scattered and unable to regroup to be a hostile threat)? The killing of a US ambasador and two other Americans answered that question. It proved to be Obama's "Mission Accomplished" touting disaster, as he dropped his guard on his watch. Al Queda hasn't stopped it's aggression on the United States, but Obama wants his cuts in military spending. Has Obama proved he can defend us from further Al Queda attacks? (it wasn't his first failure either, remember the incident at Fort Hood?)

How far is Obama proving that he is willing to go with these hostile threats? Has he shown himself as a Presidential leader, willing to take these threats seriously? His actions shows he has turned away the possibility of meeting with world leaders following his United Nations speech, by making himself available on The View. He chose a fund raiser in Las Vegas over an intelligence breefing at the White House when a US Ambassador was killed by terrorists. He then jumped the gun by blaming the attack on a video, instead of stating the Obama administration would rather wait til all the facts are in ..... than blames Romney for "jumping the gun" on a decision, when he criticised that it was instead a terrorist attack.

It wouldn't appear that Obama has the proper leadership experience in handling a foreign crisis, unless that particular crisis debues on The View or David Letterman.
 
Last edited:

Dick Tuck

Board Troll
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
8,511
Reaction score
504
Points
48
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.

...and how did Clinton respond to the first initial World Trade Center Attack, or the two embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, or the USS Cole terrorist hit? We can play this who did what when, but more importantly is how are we to respond to the threats we have today?

OK, let's play. Clinton found those responsible for the first WTC attack, and brought them to justice. He retaliated for the embassy bombings, by attacking terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, just missing Bin Laden. He gathered the intelligence about the Cole attack, and passed it off to Bush (recall that happened just before the 2000 election, and handed it to Bush who did nothing). Clinton also demanded daily meetings between various agencies, including NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, etc. to share intelligence regarding terrorist activity. That resulted in thwarting several terrorist attacks. Bush didn't follow the practice.

The threats of today are still unstable countries in the Middle East and Africa, where the opportunity to allow terror groups to resurge is great. Obama has been more than willing to attack these groups, wherever they're hiding. Romney was critical of Obama's drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. There's the threat of an Iranian nuke. Obama's sanctions against that regime are significantly higher because of his building consensus, and Iran's economy is pretty much in the shitter as a result. Pakistan, who will soon have as many nukes as the UK, has been put on notice to get their act together. Egypt and Libya are now on the path to democracy. Not a bad record.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,654
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
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.

...and how did Clinton respond to the first initial World Trade Center Attack, or the two embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, or the USS Cole terrorist hit? We can play this who did what when, but more importantly is how are we to respond to the threats we have today?

OK, let's play. Clinton found those responsible for the first WTC attack, and brought them to justice. He retaliated for the embassy bombings, by attacking terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, just missing Bin Laden. He gathered the intelligence about the Cole attack, and passed it off to Bush (recall that happened just before the 2000 election, and handed it to Bush who did nothing). Clinton also demanded daily meetings between various agencies, including NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, etc. to share intelligence regarding terrorist activity. That resulted in thwarting several terrorist attacks. Bush didn't follow the practice.

The threats of today are still unstable countries in the Middle East and Africa, where the opportunity to allow terror groups to resurge is great. Obama has been more than willing to attack these groups, wherever they're hiding. Romney was critical of Obama's drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. There's the threat of an Iranian nuke. Obama's sanctions against that regime are significantly higher because of his building consensus, and Iran's economy is pretty much in the shitter as a result. Pakistan, who will soon have as many nukes as the UK, has been put on notice to get their act together. Egypt and Libya are now on the path to democracy. Not a bad record.
Bubba also kept in place the unilaterally imposed sanctions and "no fly zones" of Poppy Bush, intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Somalia, Haiti, and numerous other places throughout the globe.

Nope....Not a dime's worth of difference.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
9,941
Points
2,040
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.

Uh, yeah, he gave us an enormous bill for Star Wars aka Ronnie Ray-Gun's Folly.

Obama has turned out to be a very aggressive hawk and it just chaps rw's lips to have to try to defend pubpot failures like Reagan and ignorant fools like Romney while Obama just very quietly Gets It Done.
 

ShaklesOfBigGov

Restore the Republic
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
5,077
Reaction score
749
Points
200
Location
Near Washington D.C.
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.

...and how did Clinton respond to the first initial World Trade Center Attack, or the two embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, or the USS Cole terrorist hit? We can play this who did what when, but more importantly is how are we to respond to the threats we have today?

OK, let's play. Clinton found those responsible for the first WTC attack, and brought them to justice. He retaliated for the embassy bombings, by attacking terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, just missing Bin Laden. He gathered the intelligence about the Cole attack, and passed it off to Bush (recall that happened just before the 2000 election, and handed it to Bush who did nothing). Clinton also demanded daily meetings between various agencies, including NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, etc. to share intelligence regarding terrorist activity. That resulted in thwarting several terrorist attacks. Bush didn't follow the practice.

The threats of today are still unstable countries in the Middle East and Africa, where the opportunity to allow terror groups to resurge is great. Obama has been more than willing to attack these groups, wherever they're hiding. Romney was critical of Obama's drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. There's the threat of an Iranian nuke. Obama's sanctions against that regime are significantly higher because of his building consensus, and Iran's economy is pretty much in the shitter as a result. Pakistan, who will soon have as many nukes as the UK, has been put on notice to get their act together. Egypt and Libya are now on the path to democracy. Not a bad record.

February 1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing. A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility

July 25, 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. Clinton did nothing. I served overseas with a special ops unit, and we had heightened ID military checks for two weeks, then business as usual. No retalitory strikes.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured. Clinton attacked an afghan base to thawt attention away from the Monica Lewinski scandal, the only retaliation strike against a terrorist attack he would make.

2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen


The Intelligence department working under President George W. Bush, located and caught the mastermind responsible for 9-11 as well as the USS Cole bombings. He fixed the outdated communication problem between the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies and allowed them to actually share important intelligence for the first time. There has never been another successful terrorist attack on President George W. Bush's watch following 9-11. President Clinton record shows he did nothing to prevent further terrorist attacks from happening.


Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden

On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."

During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.

Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.

Then came the bombshell offer:

"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.

Still, with the extraordinarily fortuitous offer on the table, back in Washington President Clinton had other things on his mind.

On Feb. 4, 1996, for instance - two days before Ambassador Carney's key meeting with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, the president was focused not on Osama bin Laden, but instead on the 23-year-old White House intern.

Sudan's offer to the U.S. for bin Laden's extradition remained on the table for at least a month, and was reiterated by Sudanese officials who traveled to Washington as late as March 10, 1996.

In his 2002 speech President Clinton has acknowledged being fully briefed on the Sudanese efforts to turn over the 9/11 mastermind, admitting that he made the final decision to turn the offer down.
 
Last edited:

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
15,432
Reaction score
2,686
Points
280
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.

I don't understand your confusion, Governor Romney was clear about several differences during the debate. He said he would replace Obama's policy of swell one liners about the US losing jobs to China by naming China as a currency manipulator so that the US could impose sanctions that would make US manufacturers more competitive and keep more jobs here.

Romney said he would replace Obama's fumbling, bumbling policy of trying to keep up with events in the ME with a return to America's policy firm support for democracy and human rights before Obama took office. Before the Arab Spring, Obama had radically cut US funding for democratization in the ME, especially in Egypt, because of the objections of Arab dictators, tried to cozy up to vicious Arab dictators like Assad and when the Iranian people demanded real democracy in their nation, Obama refused to even speak out in support of them. Romney has promised a return to America's pre Obama policy of firm support for those groups in the ME that seek to bring democracy and human rights protections to their countries. Clearly, Obama's vision of America is not the one most of us had previously been proud of.

Romney promised to stand up to Russia and not skulk away from tough issues as Obama did when Putin objected to missile defense systems in eastern Europe that we had already decided were essential to our defense and the defense of our allies.

While it was comforting to hear that Obama knows about aircraft carriers and submarines, Romney has promised to replace Obama's intentions to downsize America's military with his own plan to restore America's ability to fight and win major wars on two fronts.

While Obama has shown clear anti Israel sympathies throughout his administration, trying to bring down the democratically elected Netanyahu government and bringing the peace process to a halt, perhaps forever, by advising Abbas to demand and end to all Israeli building in the West Bank and even in Israel's capital, Jerusalem, Romney has promised a firm stand in support of our most important strategic ally so that the Palestinian Arabs will know exactly what the limits are and begin to take the peace talks seriously again as they did before Obama's inept interference.

With respect to Iran, there are very clear differences. Obama repeatedly states that he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, but Romney states he will not allow Iran to become nuclear capable. The difference is that Obama will allow Iran to acquire all the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons in a few more weeks and will not interfere as long as Iran does not begin to build one, but Romney has stated clearly that he will not allow Iran to reach that point.

A further point on Iran, while both candidates support strong economic sanctions against Iran's nuclear weapons program - although Romney supported them years ago and Obama had to be forced into applying them by Congress - it is clear that sanctions alone will not force Iran into ending its nuclear weapons program, and without a credible US military option - no one, least of all the Iranian government, takes Obama's statement that all options are on the table as a credible military option - the decision on when and how to end Iran's nuclear weapons program and on whether the US will become involved in a conflict in the Gulf will be made in Jerusalem, not in Washington. Romney has pledged to restore the credibility America lost during the Obama years so that America will again be trusted by its friends and feared by its enemies.
 
Last edited:

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,733
Reaction score
7,920
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
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.

Uh, yeah, he gave us an enormous bill for Star Wars aka Ronnie Ray-Gun's Folly.

Obama has turned out to be a very aggressive hawk and it just chaps rw's lips to have to try to defend pubpot failures like Reagan and ignorant fools like Romney while Obama just very quietly Gets It Done.

Wow. I didnt think anyone could shoe horn as many inaccuracies and outright lies into one post as you did.

"Star wars" is being used right now for missile defense. So Reagan was right to promote it.
Obama is not an aggressive hawk. He is a failure. His status of forces agreement in Iraq is a failure. His surge in Afghanistan is a failure. His restart with Russia is a failure. His engagement with N.Korea is a failure. His initiatives in the Arab-israeli conflict are failures. His dealings with our allies are failures. His negotiation at Copenhagen was a failure. His negotiation for the Olympics was a failure. His South American policies are failures.
You cannot point to one program or policy he has initiated that has succeeded. The vaunted killing of bin Laden took place with a SEAL unit his administration vilified as "Dick Cheney's hit squad", and simply continuied US policy of long standing.

Do you have to get up early to be this misinformed?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top