Romney and his Neocon Cabal have LOST! Let the Neocon Purge Begin!

Can we please let the neocon purge begin! We must go after Lindsey Grahm, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, etc. Show no mercy. Let's make the GOP realize it will never get our support again, till it becomes a party of freedom, liberty, and peace! Can we unite around this people?

Source

"Moderate Mitt": Neocon Trojan Horse

Mitt Romney's peculiar sense of geography -- thinking Iran was some landlocked country that needed Syria as a "route to the sea" -- may have raised some eyebrows over Romney's lack of basic knowledge, but another part of the same answer, referring to the civil war in Syria as "an opportunity," should have raised more alarm.

Though Romney's goal in Monday's foreign policy debate was to downplay his warlike neoconservative stands, his reference to the Syrian chaos as "an opportunity" suggests that his more moderate rhetoric is just another ploy to deceive voters and win the election, not a real abandonment of neocon strategies.

Read the entire article

Did the 'Neocon Puppet Masters' Get Outflanked by Romney?

I'm on the road, with only intermittent access to reader e-mail, so sorry for the delay, but I've gotten a bunch of questions (and assertions!) from Goldbloggers who are wondering if the neocons were somehow outflanked by Romney in last night's foreign policy debate. After all, Romney spent most of his time agreeing with Obama; he made no effort to suggest that Afghanistan may become a more complicated, and dangerous, place, once American troops leave in 2014; he took no stand in favor of greater intervention in Syria, and so on. One reader wrote, 'It seems like the neocons have lost the battle for the soul of Romney. He said nothing about having a desire for state-building, or about the importance of intervention in humanitarian crises, etc. So what happened?"

What happened, I think, is that last night's debate wasn't a debate. If we had been watching an actual debate about America's role in the world, I'm sure Romney would have had a lot to say about the shortcomings of Obama's foreign policy. But this wasn't a debate: It was a moment for Obama to show himself to be all commander-in-chiefy, and for Romney to show himself to be sane, responsible and uninterested in foreign entanglements (Iran, of course, being the bipartisan exception). My assumption is that the so-called neoconservatives close to Romney didn't lose an argument about how to approach these issues, my assumption is that these people read polls, too, and know that Americans profess to be tired of the Middle East, and that therefore, it is best, two weeks before the election, not to recommend to their candidate that he push for greater involvement in the Syrian crisis, for example. Neocons, like everyone else in politics, are interested in winning.
Read the entire article

The Neocons' Long Game

Romney’s new foreign policy tack was evident on the very first question of the night, in which moderator Bob Schieffer served the issue of the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks to him on a plate. Romney chose not to re-boot his fumbled criticism of the Obama administration from the last debate, something his hawkish surrogates and the GOP's Fox News annex have been pushing hard for over the last week. Rather, Romney chose to draw back to a broader view of a region in chaos. His Obama-esque declaration that "We can't kill our way out of this mess," while surely appealing to voters tired of war in the Middle East, was sure to disappoint the neocons, for whom there are few problems in the world that can't be solved through the application of American ordnance.
 
It wouldn't be the last time Romney echoed the president last night. With regard to the prospect of U.S. military interventions, Romney insisted that "We don’t want another Iraq," even though neocons still proclaim the Iraq war a success (a commanding majority of Americans disagrees). On Iraq itself, though he criticized the failure to achieve a new status of forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraqi governments, Romney recoiled from President Obama's suggestion that he didn't support withdrawing American troops. On Syria and Afghanistan, Romney took positions 180 degree opposite what his neoconservative supporters have been advocating, assuring viewers that "I don't want to have our military involved" in the former, and agreeing with President Obama's withdrawal timetable for the latter.

Read the entire article

Open War Policy Revealed by Romney's NeoCon Advisers

On October 1, 2012, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney outlined his own version of imperialist American foreign policy before the Virginia Military Institute. What Romney described was, in its goals, no different than that of any other President since JFK.


As was made clear in his speech, the presentation of the mutated Manifest Destiny to be ushered in by Romney would be significantly more open than the “leading from behind” destabilization and coalition-based Obama treachery, as the candidate has clearly stated this on more than one occasion.   Read the entire article

Romney Should Be a Neocon, but Hide It in Debate

First, the good news: Even the editorial board of the Journal seems to understand that speaking openly about their plans for more wars would be bad politics. Accordingly, the Journal doesn’t “expect Mr. Romney to offer an explicit defense of the Bush Doctrine” and they worry about the implications of Obama charging Romney with wanting to get the United States into a third (and fourth) Middle East war. This is in keeping with the previous assurance of Bret Stephens (pictured above) that Romney wouldn’t start any new wars. Romney should deny wanting any more wars while doing a number of things that make them inevitable.

Second, the bad news: Instead of suggesting that Romney actually trim the neocon sail a bit, the article suggests Romney continue his strategy of wheeling out a fog machine and saying “leadership” and “strength” instead of discussing details. The American people who tune in Monday night deserve to hear some specifics. Not the level of specifics that would satisfy the people who think about international politics for a living, sure, but some specifics. Instead, while suggesting that Romney “offer[] a serious critique of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy that doesn’t descend to clichés,” the article suggests clichés but not seriousness.

Read the entire article

John Heilemann: Romney Surrounded By Pro-Interventionist Advisers ‘In The Neocon Camp’

Clinging tightly to a studied vagueness when pressed for unpopular specifics, Mr. Romney has put forward a budget framework that would not eviscerate Medicare and Social Security, as is commonly believed, but would slash everything else that’s not defense.

President Obama should use Tuesday night’s debate to press Mr. Romney to defend — or even just explain — these proposed cuts, which would be far more draconian than those advanced by his running mate, Paul D. Ryan. Mr. Ryan is widely viewed as the real fiscal hawk, but in key areas, his views on spending levels are actually closer to Mr. Obama’s than to Mr. Romney’s.

Panelist John Heilemann later argued that — as “cheap” as he conceded this talking point may be — Romney has surrounded himself with people who are “in the neocon camp” when it comes to foreign policy and defense and are, thus, rather “pro-intervention” when compared to other pockets within the GOP. He also noted that Romney has difficulty presenting a contrast against Obama on foreign policy because there really aren’t too many differences between the two — except, perhaps, when it comes to intervention in Syria.
 

 Read the entire article

Mitt Romney and the Neocon Mind Pre-911

Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech on 8/12/2012 that was right out of the neocon playbook. The great neocon talking points, especially, "American Exceptionalism", were used. American Exceptionalism is a code phrase for American Dominance or American Imperialism.

Niall Ferguson has said that America is Imperialistic, and should show it off, flaunt it. He supports the neocons and American dominance in the middle east.

Read the entire article

Neocon versus Realist: Romney Punts At VMI

So where did Mitt Romney come down in his big speech, "The Mantle of Leadership," at the Virginia Military Academy, on the side of the neocons or realists? He didn't. Instead of choosing between neocons and realists, he chose not to choose. His speech was a blend of great power chest-thumping that artificially inflated the differences between him and Obama, on the one hand, and cautious prescriptions that did little to suggest the course he would pursue as president, on the other. Rhetorically, the speech was pure neocon. Romney talked about returning to the great traditions of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. He talked about spreading freedom abroad. And he painted a Manichean portrait of the Middle East, suggesting that Obama has failed to appreciate the urge for freedom and liberty in the region, while foolishly distancing Washington from Jerusalem. Romney sought, above all, to suggest that Obama is a new president Carter, that once again America is under siege abroad. According to Romney, Read the entire article

Neocons Return, Set Sights on Romney

The Foreign Policy Initiative on Dupont Circle is a neocon nest. It's where Amb. Eric Edelman, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor — who are all directors — and others, think, speak, write and hatch new neocons.

If you've puzzled over who advised Mitt Romney, a foreign policy fledgling, to declare Russia America's “No. 1 geopolitical foe”during the campaign and to assure in his speech at the Republican National Convention, “Under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty, and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone,” look no further than FPI.

Read the entire article

The neocons inside Mitt Romney’s head

Romney and Paul Ryan haven’t spent time thinking and speaking a lot about foreign policy. They have simply taken the path of least resistance and parroted the views of their neocon advisers. They talk all tough at Iran and Syria and label the president a weak apologist and buildup bogymen and rant about how America must dictate events in the Middle East. That’s not a doctrine; it’s a treacherous neocon echo. It’s amazing that many of the neocons who were involved in the Iraq debacle are back riding high. (Foreign Policy magazine reports that 17 of Romney’s 24 special advisers on foreign policy were in W.’s administration.) But no one has come along to replace them, or reinstitute some kind of Poppy Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft realpolitik internationalism. The neocons are still where the GOP intellectual energy is, and they’re still in the blogosphere hammering candidates who stray from their hawkish orthodoxy. Democrats have claimed the international centre once inhabited by Bush senior and his advisers. Read the entire article

Romney Foreign Policy Shows Strong CFR, Neo-con Influence

William Kristol deserves special mention, due to his background in one America’s premier neoconservative families. He is founder of The Weekly Standard, which has been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible."

Kristol’s father, the late Irving Kristol, served as the managing editor of Commentary magazine and has been described as the "godfather of neoconservatism." (More about neoconservatism in a moment.)

A look at Reuel Marc Gerecht and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the other organization mentioned by the Times, shows a similar neoconservative bent. Gerecht is a former director of the Project for the New American Century's Middle East Initiative and a former resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. The Project for the New American Century was co-founded by the previously mentioned neo-con William Kristol and CFR member Robert Kagan. As for the American Enterprise Institute, a Wikipedia article notes:

Read the entire article

Is Mitt Romney a neocon?

In the wake of renewed Mideast violence, neocons — still tarred by their hawkishness during the Bush years — are embracing Mitt as one of their own.

Mitt Romney has taken a lot of heat, even from fellow Republicans, for his swift attacks on President Obama's handling of last week's first embassy protests in Egypt. One group, however, enthusiastically rallied to his side: Neoconservatives — the foreign-policy hawks who support using military might to spread democracy and defend U.S. interests abroad — argue that Romney was right to accuse Obama of projecting weakness. Of course, such support can be a mixed blessing for the GOP presidential candidate. Neocons like William Kristol and Liz Cheney, whose ideology defined George W. Bush's foreign policy, bring a lot of baggage with them, thanks largely to the problematic way the Iraq war unfolded. So Romney is left facing a delicate balancing act: He won't want to distance himself from a key GOP constituency, but likely wants to avoid the unpopular "neocon" label. So: Is Romney essentially a neocon, or isn't he?

Yes. Neocons have Romney in their clutches and are making him one of their own: After 9/11, neocons "captured one Republican president who was naïve about the world," says Maureen Dowd in The New York Times. They're at it again. Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have no experience abroad, but their "disdain for weakness and diplomacy" and enthusiasm for bombing Israel's neighbors (look out, Iran) sound "ominously familiar." Why? When their lips move, you're hearing the voice of their neocon puppet masters.
"Neocons slither back"

Mitt Romney, nationalist

The case that Romney’s reaction was neoconservative (if Horowitz had cared to present one) would have to rest on the candidate’s statement that is “a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.” But this sentiment is not confined to neoconservatives. Romney’s articulation of it is so widely shared that no politician, including Obama, would publicly advocate its negation — i.e. that it is sometimes a good course for America to apologize for its values.

Those who see neocons under their bed, or who exploit the term for ulterior motives, are missing a key point: unwillingness to apologize for American values is not the same thing as being willing to impose them on others through military, or even political, action.

Romney runs from ‘neocon’ label– because Americans reject neoconservatism by more than 2 to 1!

The Washington Post reports that Romney doesn't want to be called a neocon, even though he's mobbed up with neocons:

The Romney campaign does not dispute that Mitt Romney is a neoconservative, it just refuses to say the word neoconservative.

“His embrace of American values and interests and his call for American leadership abroad throughout this campaign is indicative of a philosophy of peace through strength,” Alex Wong, the campaign’s foreign policy director, said in an interview.

Mitt Romney: Still Infatuated With Discredited Neocon Ideas About Foreign Policy

I want to connect the Romney statement—now so well-critiqued (see, for instance, William Saletan’s superb post on Slate today) to the point made by Kurt Eichenwald in his Sept. 10 New York Times op-ed and then further on my Current show that evening. The White House received about 70 CIA briefings stressing the imminence of an al-Qaida attack before 9/11, and yet didn’t sufficiently respond. A reason for this, Eichenwald said, is the prism through which the Bush White House saw the world. The neocons who were making decisions could not understand that nonstate actors such as Osama Bin Laden were perhaps just as important as the traditional state actors they had dealt with during their last time in the White House, eight years earlier. This may have led them to discount the importance of the new terrorist threat while focusing almost exclusively on the threat of Iraq.

So it is with Romney. The same neocons still surround him. He seems to still view the world and its threats through a Cold War prism, misunderstanding the threats that actually exist. The ultimate outcome of the Arab Spring is impossible to predict. But the one clear point so far is that Romney and his team have misstated what happened, misunderstood what needs to be done, and let politics intercede where careful diplomacy was needed. Bluster is not diplomacy, and a lack of understanding of history does not make good policy.

Would Neocons Control Romney?

Citing findings in the recently released poll of American opinion on foreign policy conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Drezner observes that “most of America — and independents in particular — want pretty much the opposite of” what Romney says he wants regarding increased military spending and more hawkish policies toward Iran, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea and illegal immigration.

Drezner further notes that what is striking in the poll results is “how much the majority view on foreign policy jibes with what the Obama administration has been doing in the world: military retrenchment from the Greater Middle East, a reliance on diplomacy and sanctions to deal with rogue states, a refocusing on East Asia, and prudent cuts in defense spending.”

Romney Had Best Not Listen to Bush’s ‘Neocon Lunatics’

Is Mitt Romney taking advice from too many neoconservative Bush advisers? For Russia’s Izvestia, influential Russian analyst Andranik Migranyan, who is thought to have Putin’s ear, writes that Romney’s comments about Russia and the world make it imperative – for the sakes of America and the world – that if he wins in November, he act as he did as Massachusetts governor: realistically. And in any case, America lacks the cash to follow the precepts of the neocons he surrounds himself with.

For Izvestia, Andranik Migranyan writes in part:

I would like to address how Republicans view America’s place in the international community. Unfortunately, up to now, the impression has been, as Talleyrand said of the Bourbons after the restoration of the monarchy, “they have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.” The Republicans criticize Obama’s foreign policy on all fronts. The criticism is often forced and absolutely baseless. Particularly when it come to Obama’s attempts to normalize relations with other countries and U.S. allies, marred by the Bush Administration’s condescending policy of unilateral domination. In this context, it is not surprising that in this context, Romney uttered the words, clearly aimed at the average American, that if he wins, U.S. policy toward Russia will be less flexible and more rigid.

Romney's Neocon advisers want a Do-over

Behind the scenes the Neocon players, are now playing the neophyte Romney.

They want their "An American Century" Do-over -- and Mitt Romney is just their "front guy" to get their second go at it.

The cornerstone of Romney's foreign policy white paper is "American exceptionalism" -- just xeroxing a page ... from his neocon advisers.

Romney Neocon Foreign Policy Advisers Push Romney to the Extreme Right

The job of president of the United States is sometimes said to be three-quarters foreign policy. Despite this, presidential elections are often decided on domestic issues. In 2008 many questioned President Obama’s foreign and national security policy chops, having never served in uniform and serving only one term in the Senate. However, after four years in the chair and many successes under his belt, these arguments don’t carry much weight in 2012. Mitt Romney doesn’t possess a resume long on these areas either. His overseas campaign tour was unimpressive at best, and he said virtually nothing about the military, national security, or foreign policy in his convention speech in Tampa. With so little to go on, it is hard to imagine what policies a Romney administration would implement.

One would be forgiven for mistaking a list of Romney’s foreign policy and security advisers for a list of officials from the Bush era. Simply change the heading. Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton, Cofer Black, Dan Senor, Robert Zoellick, and Michael Hayden were all appointees of George W. Bush and are all advisers to Mitt Romney. It is important to have experienced folks to advise you, but it is more important that they have the right kind of experience. If one sets aside the partisan will to defend the record of George W. Bush, it is clear to see that these advisers were the architects of policy that the majority of Americans came to roundly reject. The wide victory margin of President Obama in 2008 is proof as he ran partially on a platform opposed to their policies.