WhatFinger

Oh well. No matter. He won anyway.

VIDEO: Obama chastises Romney for calling Russia a threat, wanting troops in Iraq


By —— Bio and Archives--June 17, 2014

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Remember when Russia was invading the Crimean peninsula, and some of us reminded you that President Obama had chastised Mitt Romney two years ago for calling Russia a strategic adversary to the United States? Well that wasn’t all Obama got smugly loud about in that foreign policy debate. He also took serious exception to the notion that the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq. Here is some of that exchange:

.

Now there’s now way to prove that, had Romney been elected, he would have taken the necessary steps to prevent the ISIS incursion. But at least we can say from this exchange that Romney had a clear view of the problem, which is more than we can say for Obama. Here is a more complete transcript:

OBAMA: Gov. Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq. But just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. And the — the challenge we have — I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy — but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong. You said we should have gone into Iraq, despite that fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day. You indicated that we shouldn’t be passing nuclear treaties with Russia despite the fact that 71 senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted for it. You said that, first, we should not have a timeline in Afghanistan. Then you said we should. Now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong, but you were also confusing in sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies.

So, what — what we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. And unfortunately, that’s the kind of opinions that you’ve offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for American strength, or keeping America safe over the long haul.

SCHIEFFER: I’m going to add a couple of minutes here to give you a chance to respond.

ROMNEY: Well, of course I don’t concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that I’ve said. They don’t happen to be accurate. But — but I can say this, that we’re talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we’re seeing, and the rising tide of tumult and — and confusion. And — and attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East, and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence.

But I’ll respond to a couple of things that you mentioned. First of all, Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe. Not…

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone. Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed I believe that there should be a status of forces agreement.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Oh you didn’t? You didn’t want a status of…

OBAMA: What I would not have had done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. And that certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

ROMNEY: I’m sorry, you actually — there was a — there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with…
(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor…

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ...that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor?

ROMNEY: ... I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got…

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ... no troops through whatsoever.

OBAMA: This was just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in Iraq.

ROMNEY: No, I…

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ...I’m sorry that’s a…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: You — you…

ROMNEY: ...that’s a — I indicated…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...major speech.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ...I indicated that you failed to put in place a status…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: Governor?
(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: ...of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that existed.

OBAMA: Governor — here — here’s — here’s one thing…

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...here’s one thing I’ve learned as commander in chief.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: Let him answer…

OBAMA: You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. You just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East.

Now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. And so what I’ve done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts.

Number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel’s security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region.

Number three, we do have to make sure that we’re protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can’t develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing.

Number four, we do have to develop their economic — their economic capabilities.
But number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can’t continue to do nation building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we’re doing nation building here at home. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need.

Obama never really explained why keeping forces in Iraq wouldn’t help us in the Middle East. I don’t think he really had a reason in mind. He just figures that if the idea bothers him, it must not be helpful. That’s pretty much the way Obama constructs his entire foreign policy. If something feels like a drag to do, don’t do it, and if all kinds of problems result, they must not be problems worthy of his attention.

The only real question that matters is this: Would ISIS be overrunning Iraq today if Obama had signed a status of forces agreement? Of course not. Iraq is vulnerable today because Obama never wanted Iraq to be his problem, and Obama only pays attention to the things he wants to pay attention to, not the things that global events dictate he has a duty to tend to.

Not only was Obama wrong about Iraq, but he was so arrogant that he took the liberty of condescendingly lecturing Mitt Romney for disagreeing with him. That’s a pattern with Obama, and so far he hasn’t been made to pay a political price for it. It appears, however, that everyone who lives in Iraq may be about to pay a huge price for Obama’s ignorance and arrogance.

 


CFPSubcribe

Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.


Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: