Romney makes most reckless error of campaign

Raees wrote:

Romney also delivered a policy speech, pointedly calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel (a controversial declaration that U.S. presidents have avoided for decades), and saying that the U.S. has a "solemn duty and a moral imperative" to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that "no option should be excluded" toward that end.

Senior Romney foreign policy adviser Dan Senor was more explicit Sunday morning, saying that "if Israel has to take action on its own" to stop Iran, "the governor would respect that decision." Is all-but-endorsing a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran really a good idea for a presidential candidate?

Romney is being reckless: If Israel attacks Iran, says Martin Longman at Booman Tribune, much of the world will blame the United States, as we give Israel a huge amount of foreign aid. So it's downright "dangerous and irresponsible" for Romney to openly bless such a strike, especially with no conditions. That not only slaps at President Obama's foreign policy, it undermines it: "We are trying to prevent a war and Romney is urging Israel to start one." Besides, rather than making Romney look strong on defense, this "makes him look weak," as it appears that he's playing second fiddle to Netanyahu.

http://theweek.com/article/index/231239 ... esponsible

I'd like to address the part at the beginning of the quote where the left has outrage that Romney called Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

The same outrage was expressed in another thread here as well...

http://285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21821

Romney is a candidate, and not the President nor a US government official. So what's the problem? When President Obama was a candidate in 2008 he pretty much said the same thing about Jerusalem, but later flip-flopped. Why wasn't the left outraged when Obama called Jerusalem the capital, but they are now that Romney does the same?

[youtube:2b28m971][/youtube:2b28m971]

pineinthegrass wrote: Romney is a candidate, and not the President nor a US government official. So what's the problem? When President Obama was a candidate in 2008 he pretty much said the same thing about Jerusalem, but later flip-flopped. Why wasn't the left outraged when Obama called Jerusalem the capital, but they are now that Romney does the same?

Because when Obama said it his statement was a confirmation of the existing foreign policy that the current administration had put into place. Once the administration changed, so too did the foreign policy with regards to recognizing Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel - along with the sovereign borders of Israel and a lot of the other long standing policies that had remained consistent regardless of who was sitting behind the Resolute Desk. Romney's statement is inconsistent with the revised foreign policy positions of the current (hopefully soon to be former) president - which is why the collectivists are outraged at the moment. They view Romney's statement in the same manner as others would have if Obama has been truthful about his intentions during the last campaign and said the capital of Israel was subject to the outcome of talks instead of adhering to the current foreign policy as established by the administration then in place.

The left doesn't want to talk about Obama's deceptions during the last campaign, or his "flip-flops"; nor do they wish to draw attention to the alteration of long standing policies regarding the US alliance with Israel. They don't want you to remember that Obama never once visited this ally during his first 4 years, even though he managed to find time to visit other nations in the same region. They don't want you to remember the dismissive manner in which he treated the head of the Israeli State when he came calling on Obama at the White House. That might cost Obama Jewish votes don't you know and he's going to need every vote he can get if he hopes to keep occupying his current seat and avoid having to change his address towards the end of next January.

PrintSmith wrote: The left doesn't want to talk about Obama's deceptions during the last campaign, or his "flip-flops"; nor do they wish to draw attention to the alteration of long standing policies regarding the US alliance with Israel. They don't want you to remember that Obama never once visited this ally during his first 4 years, even though he managed to find time to visit other nations in the same region. They don't want you to remember the dismissive manner in which he treated the head of the Israeli State when he came calling on Obama at the White House.

I WANT to talk about your comment on the "dismissive manner in which he treated the head of the Israeli State when he came calling on Obama at the White House."

What the hell are you talking about?

Romney isn't qualified to be a tourist, much less a head-of-state.

Democracy4Sale wrote: Romney isn't qualified to be a tourist, much less a head-of-state.

He was more qualified than Obama was 4 years ago. How soon they forget....

Raees wrote: I WANT to talk about your comment on the "dismissive manner in which he treated the head of the Israeli State when he came calling on Obama at the White House."

What the hell are you talking about?

Compounding the problem, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a fiery speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington declaring that “Jerusalem isn’t a settlement, it’s our capital.” A furious White House promptly denied him all the trappings of a presidential meeting with Mr. Obama the next day, refusing to allow photographers to take pictures of the two men in the Oval Office, as is usually the case for meetings with foreign leaders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world ... wanted=all

In addition to no photographs, the request for a joint press release was also denied. Let us not also forget that Obama walked out of another meeting with Netanyahu. Where he went may be in dispute, but not that he abruptly left the meeting when the discussion wasn't going the way he wanted it to. And who could forget Biden showing up 90 minutes late to a dinner hosted by Netanyahu in the capital of Israel - Jerusalem? There is little doubt that the relationship is noticeably chillier than it has been with other recent administrations, is there?

Uh huh.. So you're choosing to focus on 2011 and not on his most recent visit in 2012?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/ ... -netanyahu



http://bit.ly/PuiYGc

Some US Presidents rarely visit Israel. GW Bush only visited once and that was in 2008, that last year of his 8 year term. Clinton visited 4 times. GWH Bush never visited. Carter visited once. Ford never visited. Nixon visited once. LBJ never visited. JFK never visited. Ike never visited. Truman never visited.

And you are choosing to focus on what occurs while the president is campaigning for reelection over how he conducted himself in between elections? Continuing in his earlier behavior might cost him votes - which he is going to need every single one he can manage to obtain if he hopes to retain his current position. I am certain that by acting differently in 2012 Obama is hoping many Jews will forget about his earlier actions. Reality, as evidenced recently by his administration's continued refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, is quite different from the illusion that Obama wishes to weave ahead of the election.

They have actually met 9 times, so it should be no surprise that one could find at least one example of less than cordial relations. What I have to wonder from reading all this......why do so many think that it is essential for the USA to pander to the Israelis, yet not for the Israelis to give the same consideration to the US. It seems from what I am reading that the tail is wagging the dog here, the US must jump to do Israel's bidding, but Israel gets to do whatever they damn well please and the US is supposed to support them no matter what.

I want the US president to say.....Hey, this may not be in our best interest Israel, and I will do what is best for America first, not necessarily what is best for Israel. You want our support.....then work with us, and you may even have to compromise.