Romney’s Foreign Policy Team, Same as Bush’s.

If you liked our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, you will like a Romney administration.

Looking at some of the characters now on his foreign policy team, it includes the same Keystone Cops that were on the Bush team.  They are like cartoon characters.

The best know is John Bolton.  You may recall him in the Bush Administration.  He was one of the principle figures saying intelligence pointed to weapons of mass destruction.  They later pushed him over to the U. N.  I could see a Romney Administration renewing the search for Iraq weapons of mass destruction on Day One.

For a while, Bush was cute with hints that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attack.  This was promoted by Elliot Cohen, now, too, a Romney insider.

Then, there is Robert Joesph who pushed the false story Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger.  It took a while for that story to be become comedy material, but it did.

The uneasy thing about these people is you can almost hear their voices when Romney speaks, just as we could while Bush was President.  Romney talks of military action against Iran.

We all have to admit, foreign policy, war and peace and everything involving international affairs must be complicated with much information hidden from those of us in the public.  But, after the fact, we can see if mistakes were made.

The Bush Administration looks worse and worse as time goes  on.  I hope we don’t vote in another team like that one.

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Romney’s Foreign Policy Team, Same as Bush’s.

  1. Henry says:

    Jon, you left out some facts. The reports of WMDs in Iraq were the result of the 2002 NIE. The 2002 NIE was initiated at the recommendation of…….Democrats. (Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism ANd How They Compared With Prewar Assessments, Page 139).

    Nothing changes. It is Bush’s fault.

    • Henry says:

      Here is the Democrat commissioned report that set it all in motion:

      http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf

      I guess the Dems were saying there were WMDs.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Henry 1:54 I see you did not quote the UN weapons inspectors who could not find the weapons of mass destruction.

        • Henry says:

          The Iraqis saw their blue helmets coming their way and were able hide.

          The UN delegation was too Blitzed to see anything anyway.

          I really don’t know why the Dems can’t take responsibility for their 2002 report that started this.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 4:17 “I really don’t know why the Dems can’t take responsibility for their 2002 report.”

            I’m glad for you–you are able to conclude Bush and company had no role in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

        • Henry says:

          The UN sure does have some strange reports. Here is a list of some of the WMDs the UN destroyed:
          -50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
          -Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
          -2 large propellant casting chambers
          -14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
          -Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
          -Some 122 mm chemical warheads
          -Some chemical equipment
          -224.6 kg of expired growth media

          Yeah, no WMD’s were found. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 4:33 You certainly come up with a lot of stuff that doesn’t count. Are you advising we invade every country that has what you listed, a garage full of stuff that wouldn’t harm people more than a little ways away?

            The chemicals reminds me of a sort of personal story. Our son was the right age, needed some money and called to tell us he had signed up for the army reserve during the Irag build up. He went into training to deal with the “chemical warfare” with was the BIG topic of the time. He was at the “grunt” level, but a college educated grunt.

            After a few weeks, he told us the “chemical warfare threat” was a big joke and it would never amount to anything. And, so it was.

          • Henry says:

            That was not what they told us, and I was still “in” during Desert Storm. MOPP 2 anyone? Drink lots of water.

            Our NBC guys took the threat very seriously.

            I would presume your son enlisted during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

      • Stan says:

        If there were no weapons of mass destruction then why this? http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues-144204378.html

        WMD means nuclear, chemical or biological. If you are thinking nukes only you are wrong. The Kurds of northern Iraq may disagree with you if they could. But they can’t…..they were killed with gas.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Stan 11:04 “The Kurds of Northern Iraq..”

          We have several close friends here in Fargo who are Kurds from Northern Iraq. Their stories of fleeing their villiages to avoid the gas, eventually going to refugee camps and then to Europe and here are ones that have filled many evenings. Of course, many others returned to their villiages. Like all other groups, they argue among themselves about what to do next both in their part of Iraq and Iraq as a whole.

        • Stan says:

          So Jon, were they gassed or not?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stan 11:36 I wasn’t challenging you post, just rambling. Obviously, my friends were not gassed. Other kurds were.

            I recall the TV stories at the time following the gassing implied Kurds were fleeing Norther Iraq. Our friends, and I guess most of the people they knew, went up to higher ground near where they lived and slipped back and forth to their home for a long time.

          • Stan says:

            If poison gas isn’t a WMD what ius? If he had it then he had it later. Right now people are concerned that WMDs in Syria will fall into the wrong hands. Where did Syria get them? There are more then one credible reports including information from Russian government officials that many of them were moved from Iraq to Syria.

            Again you dance around the subject you introduced though. Did Saddam have WMD’s?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stan 12:58 Did he have some gas? Did he have a few guns? I would assume so. Was it a threat to his neighbors or us? No.

          • Stan says:

            From the original post “He was one of the principle figures saying intelligence pointed to weapons of mass destruction.”

            And they were there but and they are still a danger http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues-144204378.html

            But Jon has assured us they were never a danger to anyone but a few thousand Kurds.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stan 1:29 As my son explained after some military trainging when the press was full of stories hyping the threat of gas warfare, gas is not in the same league as a threat as nucs in modern warfare. If you know the enemy has it, you can predict what he will do and act accordingly. Use of gas is weather dependent.

            The gas destroyed did not seem to help Iraq’s army. It did give apologists for the Iraq evasion something to pretend was the WMD which were never found.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “…gas is not in the same league as a threat as nucs in modern warfare.”

            Rock, paper, scissors, dynamite….. Depends. Nukes aren’t a big deal either. Just dig a hole and crawl in if that is what you are afraid of Stay away from the fallout.

            Love the attempt at logic though. Nuclear is more potent than chemical, therefore chemical is not to be feared and should be dismissed. Further extrapolating from that is Bush was an idiot because he should have known chemical weapons are not weapons. When weapons are found, no weapons are found. I love it.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:51 Only arm chair apologists use the garage sized items found in Iraq as “WMD” finds. Dick Chaney said the WMD were moved out of the country. He didn’t crow, like you do, about the stuff found in Iraq.

          • Stan says:

            Chemical weapons sure work well against unprepared civilian populations don’t they.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stan 12:11 “against unprepared civilian populations don’t they.”

            Yes they do. So do assult weapons with clips. The kid in CO had one. A few of these and you have the threat from what was found in Iraq.

            When you take all the numbers, there is no way to escape that the invasion of Iraq took more lives than it saved. As I posted in Henry’s, if there had been something called “WMD” found, Chaney/Bush would have claimed them. They didn’t.

        • Stan says:

          personally I would have said go for it when we found out prisoners were being fed into plastics waste shredder feet first.

  2. Avatar of Long John Long John says:

    I never have been able to fugure out why Sadam wouldn’t let the U.N. weapons inspectors to do their job. He would require advanced notice of which buildings etc. that they wanted to inspect. This would lead most people to believe that he was moving something around. Since he had no W.M.D., that was a hugh mistake on his part. It lead to his loss of leadership and eventually his death.

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      What do you suppose would have happened if everyone knew that he was an empty shirt and that 1) he let someone come into his country and do just whatever they felt like and go wherever they wanted to go and 2) that he had no W.M.D.?

      The Kurds in the North of Iraq and on that border, the majority Shi’a population, and Iran would have moved against him immediately.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        sea 4:56 “would have moved against him immediately.”

        I agree. As I recall, the conclusion our government made, eventually, about Sadam was that most everything he did was posturing for his neighbors. He seldom had the U. S. or the western world in mind. So, when he gave a lot of resistance to the U. N., it wasn’t because he had something to hide, as we later learned, it had something to do with how he wanted his neighbors to perceive him.

        The perception in the U. S. was the U. N. did not have adequate access. Yet, the U. N. people were living there. They had the opportunity to talk to people, read reactions and faces. They looked at lot of places. By the time they left, they knew prettey well what was going on.

        Books I read by Iraqis at the time say the way Saddam held back access to the U. N. was the same as how he treated his own staff. People were not allowed access to other parts of the government. That’s why the military itself was surprised when Sadam finally admitted to them he had no weapons of mass destruction.

  3. Stick to scoffing about Christianity..keep your political views to yourself!
    You are not allowed to change horses in the middle of the river!!!!!!

    (for strong political views you can read MY blog every now and then)
    But I can do that because my blog is a huge Potpourri.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Buffalogal 2:29 “Stick to scoffing about Christianity..”

      Do you find sort of a mystery as to what appeals to you to write about on a given day and what does not appeal? I often file through topics that on another day I might choose, but on a particular day it just doesn’t get me motivated. Days later, the same topic is fun.

  4. Michael Ross says:

    “When Democrats say Romney is “anti-Israel” or Republicans say Obama is, don’t believe them. If “pro-Israel” means following Binyamin Netanyahu’s lead on all matters relating to the Middle East, they are one and the same. And that is the pity.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-romney-israel_b_1725153.html

    “Romney’s Foreign Policy Team, Same as Bush’s.” . . . The same as Obama’s, who has five (5) drone wars going (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>