Max Power
Not Rod Carey
Posts: 10,064
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
|
RE: Romney now up nationally at RCP
(10-09-2012 05:22 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: (10-09-2012 04:41 PM)Max Power Wrote: What differentiates Obama and Romney is what I posted above, and I think it gives a pretty good indication of what a Romney vote is asking for.
So what about Obama's advisers?
Quote:"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/2...2720080422
Quote:Dennis Ross
Middle East envoy for both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross was one of the primary authors of Obama's aforementioned speech before AIPAC this summer. He cut his teeth working under famed neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon in the 1970s and worked closely with the Project for the New American Century. Ross has been a staunch supporter of Israel and has fanned the flames for a more hostile stance toward Iran. As the lead U.S. negotiator between Israel and numerous Arab nations under Clinton, Ross' team acted, in the words of one U.S. official who worked under him, as "Israel's lawyer."
"The 'no surprises' policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking," wrote U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller in 2005. "If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel." After the Clinton White House, Ross worked for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish pro-Israel think tank, and for FOX News, where he repeatedly pressed for war against Iraq.
Martin Indyk
Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Indyk spent years working for AIPAC and served as Clinton's ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, while also playing a major role in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran. In addition to his work for the U.S. government, he has worked for the Israeli government and with PNAC.
"Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner by appealing to the most hard-line, pro-Israel elements in this country," Ali Abunimah, founder of ElectronicInifada.net, recently told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, describing Indyk and Dennis Ross as "two of the most pro-Israel officials from the Clinton era, who are totally distrusted by Palestinians and others across the Middle East, because they're seen as lifelong advocates for Israeli positions."
Quote:Mark Lippert is a close personal friend of Obama's. He has worked for Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Democratic Policy Committee. He is a lieutenant in the Navy Reserve and spent a year in Iraq working intelligence for the Navy SEALs. "According to those who've worked closely with Lippert," Robert Dreyfuss recently wrote in The Nation, "he is a conservative, cautious centrist who often pulled Obama to the right on Iraq, Iran and the Middle East and who has been a consistent advocate for increased military spending. 'Even before Obama announced for the presidency, Lippert wanted Obama to be seen as tough on Iran,' says a lobbyist who's worked the Iran issue on Capitol Hill, 'He's clearly more hawkish than the senator.' "
This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House
Quote:In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options remain on the table”, the report declared: “We believe a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a military strike “would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”
Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior Democratic advisers “unanimously approved” the document, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for defense under Clinton.
Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September, which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an element of any true option”. While Ross examined the diplomatic options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements” that had to underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial bombardment of Iran.
Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled, “Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on the Iranian nuclear challenge”, drafted in June by a Washington Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of policy options”, including “preventative military action”. Ross was a taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/o...iran/4813/
Basically, the only difference between the two candidates' policy is that Obama is telling his anti-war voters what they want to hear, while Romney is telling his neo-con voters what they want to hear. That's it. If you want to choose Obama because of Romney and his advisers' bluster, go for it, but please stop pretending there's any difference between the two aside from the rhetoric.
Hillary called for attacking Iran if they attack Israel. That's an important qualifier. The guys surrounding Romney don't have any such patience.
What you're left with are a few low level officials who, as far as I've heard, haven't called for us to attack Iran, except as a "last resort." And even if they have, the past four years of no such attacks are evidence that Obama has resisted their efforts and influence. Ross in particular opposed Bush's policy against direct talks with Iran, and given that diplomatic stance I severely doubt you'll find anything about him calling for an attack now.
The bottom line is Mitt Romney's high profile 1. advisers, 2. megadonors and 3. friends want an Iran War. And he publicly says Obama's sanctions aren't strong enough and wants to put carriers in the gulf off Iran's coastline. And let's not forget we're talking about a man with no spine who has never stood up to any element of his party's base I can recall; who has never spoken out against any war and in fact protested FOR the Vietnam War as a student. In contrast, Obama has had the power to start one since 2009 and hasn't; has taken famous doveish stands in the past including speaking out against the Iraq War when that was launched; has shown willingness to stand up to Netanyahu; and from all indications and rumblings I hear, Obama does not want an Iran War. For example, see the below Foreign Policy magazine article from yesterday. Dan Senor (Bush neocon and now a close Romney advisor) went on Morning Joe a couple days ago and charged Obama had to be dragged into agreeing with the sanctions, and the author says people close to Obama "wonder about his commitment and that of the U.S. military to taking action against Iran."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20...at_to_iran
Quote: In the hours before the speech was delivered, neoconservative Romney foreign-policy advisor Dan Senor suggested on MSNBC's Morning Joe that Obama effectively had to be dragged against his will toward tougher sanctions on Iran -- the same tough sanctions for which the administration is now regularly taking credit because they have started to work. Senor noted that both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg pushed back against bipartisan congressional support for the sanctions out of concern that they would have unintended negative consequences for the U.S. and global economies.
A centerpiece of the Romney campaign's argument that Obama has not been tough enough on Iran is that the president has not offered a credible military threat against the Iranians. Say what you will about the rest of Romney's remarks -- and broadly speaking, there was not much new in them except that for the first time, the Republican nominee has addressed foreign policy recently without tripping over one of his own misstatements -- but even some of the president's supporters have told me privately they wonder about his commitment and that of the U.S. military to taking action against Iran.
I'll give you that it's no guarantee we will avoid an Iran War with another Obama term, but the odds are much heavier under Romney. It might just be bluster, but after Iraq I'm taking neocons' bluster seriously.
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2012 10:26 AM by Max Power.)
|
|