October 22, 2012

Monday debate preview — stand by for WAR!


Stand by for WAR!
Wikipedia photo
Remember the 2004 “foreign policy” presidential debate, where John Kerry tried his hardest to prove that, if elected, he would kill more Iraqi “terrorists” than George W. Bush? How about the 2008 “foreign policy” presidential debate, where Barack Obama rhetorically moved heaven and earth to say he would kill more Afghan “terrorists” than John McCain?

Well, to riff on Paul Harvey’s old signature phrase, stand by for WAR! Or warmongering, at least.

Monday, we’ll get to see this year’s “foreign policy” warmongering debate. And, yes it will be just that.

First, Mitt Romney has shown that foreign policy is his weak suit, and would be even if he were standing in Israel with Sheldon Adelson whispering in his ear.

Second, speaking of that, he’s shown that he’s more tea party-wingnut on social policy than on domestic issues. Since Mormons don’t believe in the rapture, and more conservative rich Jews would give him money even if he were only a semi-wingnut, I honestly don’t know where this one comes from. But, it’s there.

The “first” showed up horribly for Romney in the town hall debate, on Libya, even though the mainstream media and Obamiacs both have overplayed it somewhat, in my opinion. That said, Romney does like to look macho, so look for him to talk about killing al-Qaeda in Africa, Hamas (and even the Palestinian Authority, perhaps) in Israel and the nation of Palestine, for him to kill any Taliban in sight in either Afghanistan or Pakistan (showing his willingness to flirt with World War III), to kill any Iranian he can, and to kill any Syrian he can.

He’d offer to kill Chinese, too, but they’re too valuable as serf labor for factories in Bain Capital takeover companies.

Anyway, the last two debate cycles have shown that it’s the candidate who is either a challenger (2004) or perceived as inexperienced (2008) who feels the need to sound like a Strangelovean Gen. JackD. Ripper protecting American vital bodily fluids.

To the degree I remember 2000, I think Bush used some of the same tough-guy angle on foreign policy.

But, let’s not forget that Obama hasn’t been all talk since his election.

Remember Anwar al-Awlaki? An American citizen killed without trial by an Obama drone.

And, if that’s not enough to convince you that Dear Leader will fight fire with fire, there’s something else. It seems like we’re now backtracking on pulling out all of our troops from Afghanistan.

The fact that Team Obama wants to keep25,000 there is also yet another reason to move past bipartisan warmongering and vote Green.

And, let’s not forget that civil liberties get shot at in the “War on Terror,” too.

How many “sting operations” like the one that resulted in an arrest earlier of an alleged terrorist have also bent and folded civil liberties?

Meanwhile, per what Martha Raddatz got wrong at the Veep debate, let’s not forget that this “foreign policy” debate (speaking of Sheldon Adelson) will definitely, on Romney’s part, be an attempt to dog-whistle and fuse Israeli foreign policy and US foreign policy at the hip.

Question is … how weakly will Obama respond? Especially if Romney blatantly goes into warp drive on his pandering and publicly calls for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel? (No, it wouldn’t surprise me.)

Meanwhile, free trade vs. fair trade as a foreign policy issue will get ignored.

So too, per that link about Raddatz, will be:
• Chinese cyberwar
• The possibility of Pakistan becoming a failed state
• The possibility of Mexico becoming a failed state
• Canada, tar sands and Keystone XL won’t get ignored, per se, just the facts about it vs. “energy independence” myths.

No comments: