View of the candidates from a retired Air Force officer

I have never hid my affiliation with the Armed Services and looked forward to watching last night's debate. I watch international events closely because I was a former intelligence officer.

I saw one man who can handle the job as commander-in-chief (CINC). This is a tough job when you consider that two-thirds of the men in the Armed Forces are Evangelicals. This is not a crowd that necessarily appreciates Democrats.

Both Obama and his wife and the Biden family have made every effort to reach out to the Armed Forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have good listeners in the White House. The friction that existed between the general officers and the Bush White House was clear. Donald Rumsfeld came across as one of the dumbest Secretaries of Defense that I can recall.

The misadventures of Dubya led to two unfunded wars in the middle east and a crippling deficit when coupled with the Bush tax cuts , Mittens knows this and tried to portray himself as a foreign policy moderate last night rather than as a chicken hawk he has has been projecting with the conservative base.

Was Mitten's performance last night believable?

Rightardia doesn't think so. If Mittens were elected, our allies would drop like flies and harsh international rhetoric would restart.

Negotiations with Iran would end and the middle east would become a more dangerous place.

Keep in mind that foreign policy is part of national defense. You try to work out agreements using diplomacy  with nations so military force doesn't have to be used.

The Republican view is dyslexic, use military force and justify your actions retroactively  In the case of the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration claimed Iraq has phantom Weapons of Mass Destruction and also planned a Unmanned Aerial Vehicle attack on the US.

Both stories were right wing baloney.

Republicans prefer the stick to the carrot. The hawkish Progress for a New American Century (PNAC) wrote in Rebuilding America’s Defenses, September 2000, Project for a New American Century, www.newamericancentury.org:

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein ...


Although Mittens has been hammering Obama on Israel  he didn't say much about it last night. It was interesting although Bibi Namenyahu wants some red lines in the sand, Iran will not have a nuclear bomb for at least four years. In addition, Iran has no nuclear delivery system.

If you think Mittens will be a foreign policy moderate  think again! About two thirds of his foreign policy advisers are hawks from the Bush administration who believe war is good for corporate profits.

Whey spend federal revenues on roads and bridges when you can start a war and put billions into the conservative defense industries in which the defense CEOs are better paid than the banksters?

War is increasingly becoming a national GOP drill that favors conservative corporations.

Of course, If you have someone like John Bolton on your reelection team, be afraid, very afraid!  

When Mittens was governor of MA, he tried the run the state as it CEO. He is a "read my lips" director type and not a good listener. 

It is clear that Obama is doing fine job as commander -in-chief and head of state. Mittens would enter the White House on training wheels with his limited national and foreign policy experience.

Would he be smart enough to listen to his generals? Rightardia doubts it. GW Bush certainly didn't listen to his senior officers. If he had, the US would have never invaded Iraq.

Romney's performance last night convinced me he would be a mediocre CINC at best.

--
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA



Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Opinion - Al Jazeera English: Mitt Romney embraces the Neocons

Mitt Romney sees Iran as the most serous problem facing america. Mittens said:

We face an extraordinary challenge in America, and you know that. And that is internationally, Iran is about to have nuclear weaponry, just down the road here. And this president, what's he done in that regard? He said we would have a policy of engagement. How's that worked out? Not terribly well. We have no sanctions of a severe nature, the crippling sanctions put in place. The president was silent when dissident voices took to the streets in Iran and, of course, he hasn't prepared the military options that would present credibly our ability to take out the threat that would be presented by Iran. He's failed on that.

Romney made it clear where he stands on Iran on October 7, 2011, when he announced the 22 members of his foreign policy team.

Fifteen of the 22 worked on foreign policy for the George W Bush administration. Six were members of the original neoconservative group, Project for the New American Century.

PNAC was working on an Iraq invasion plan before President G W Bush was elected!

source: Mitt Romney embraces the Neocons - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

All Hat No Cattle: Lest we forget

There weren't any WMDs, yellows cake uranium or terrorist ties to al Qaeda. In fact, there is evidence that a conservative organization, Progress for a New American Century (PNAC), planned for the Iraq invasion of Iraq before the election. A senior aide to Bush, Phillip Zelivow, says the war in Iraq was fought for Israel.

When legislation was brought to Congress to end the war, it was voted against by a large group of the representatives who received “donations” from AIPAC. Misleading and discrediting 9/11 truth films, such as Loose Change mention discussing Cheney and Rumsfeld who actually didn't write one word of any PNAC paper (they just signed them).

PNAC's authors (around 25people) were the same people who lied about Iraq and passed off false information to the president and journalists. The ideology stems directly from Israeli policy papers.

PNAC's papers were written by the same people who wrote Israeli policy papers who hold dual citizenship to Israel. The Iraq war and control over energy resources is outlined in Israel's A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which was written by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. You can read the IASPS's (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Science) paper called The Afghan Vortex, written a year before the invasion.

You can also be certain that Vice President Dick Cheney was in the thick of things for the Iraq invasion. Cheney had been working on a plan to restructure the Middle East for ten years.

Of interest, Iraq just awarded the contract to exploit Iraq's giant Majnoon oil field, potentially worth $12bn. Britain's Shell and Malaysian firm Petronas have been awarded a joint contract. US firms were not competitive.

Were the Democrats faultless in the Iraq War? No, they could have filibustered but Senators like Hillary Clinton supported the war and were unapologetic about their support. She even tried to make her support of Israel a political issue during the 2008 Democratic primary.

Now several years later the cost of the Iraq War is approaching $ 1 trillion.  More than 4300 US soldiers died and 31,000 were wounded in action. The Iraqis lost between 100,000 and 1,000,000 people and five million Iraqi children are orphans.

The GOP is now trying to tell America they are the party of common sense. Oh, really?

Source: http://www.reachingtruth.com/pnacosp.html

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 4543 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Powered by ScribeFire.