Is America more likely to get a nuke sent their way by Russia or have another
terrorist attack on our home soil? The answer is obvious.
I remember Walt Kelleys' character 'Pogo' saying "We have met
the enemy; and he is us".
Broken clock. We should have invaded Crimea to make sure Russia
didn't. This is republican philosophy. Nay, that is Neocon facist
DN,Have you considered checking with anyone besides Mitt Romney about
this?Could be lots of various opinions among the many rich and famous out
Romney was spot on. You just can't stand it. Oh and Obama's track
record for telling the truth is so good also.
SCfanclearfield, UTBut the truth is, and America is now
finding it out, Obama was, is, and always will be unqualified to lead anything.
He is the biggest Presidential mistake in American history and as time goes by,
that truth is becoming more and more apparant to everyone. 7:19 a.m.
March 20, 2014=========== But the truth is, and America
already knows...Pres. Obama was elected in 2008.American
waited and watched what he did for 4 years, and then RE-elected him OVER
Mitt Romney. So, If what you say is true -- and if Obama
is the loser you calim he is, Where does that place Mitt?perhaps you might be the one out of sorts.
"Was Mitt Romney right about Russia?"------------Is water
@Noodlekaboodle – “In 1994 the US signed the Budapest
Memorandum…”I stand corrected… thank you.Still not sure what our options are since one of the treaty signatories is
refusing to uphold their end of the deal. We’ve spent a lot of lives &
treasure being the world’s police force and not always to good results.But I am all for making the moral argument that countries should uphold
treaties and should pay a penalty when they do not. @wrz –
“Because of what's next. The Ukraine, then Estonia, Latvia. Then
Poland.”I assume you don’t mean this in the context of
the Domino Theory given that communism is no longer an issue. But even as a
slippery slope argument this is dubious. Are you suggesting we start
a full scale war because of what they MIGHT do?
SCfan,"....Obama was, is, and always will be unqualified to lead
electorate had a good four years to size up Obama and then chose to give his a
second term. Romney made his case that he had something better to offer but
failed to persuade enough voters to buy it. Romney is a smart and capable man
who should have known better than to traffic in half truths when he had his
So many of you are so defensive about Obama. Just keep on attacking Mitt. But
the truth is, and America is now finding it out, Obama was, is, and always will
be unqualified to lead anything. He is the biggest Presidential mistake in
American history and as time goes by, that truth is becoming more and more
apparant to everyone. Face it, he's a failure as a leader. He should
never have left the classroom. Obama is the Peter Principle times 10.And
a very good reason why affirmative action is a bad thing.
There is a huge difference in what a candidate can say, and what the standing
leader of a nation can say. To pretend that Romney was right is like saying 4
out of 5 dentist prefer "what ever it was". Prefer what to what is the
question.We did the whole calling "the axis of evil" thing,
and it achieved us nothing. Iran amd North Korea continued on with their
nuclear programs, and Chavez called Bush names back in the UN. It achieved
nothing. Bush was trying for a "tear down these walls" moment that
didn't work. Romney was trying to channel Romney in his calling out of
Russia. He also said London wasn't prepared for the Olympics... He said a
lot of stuff... that as president of the United States, he would not have been
able to say.I do not believe for one instant that this
administration took Russia as a "friend". That is nonsense. At the
same time, I am not sure we have executed very well yet on Ukraine...but time
@Irony Guy:"And what, pray tell, would Mitt have done differently?
Would he, ahem, nuke 'em?"For one thing, Mitt would not
have canceled the US missile defense complex plans for Poland.@slcdenizen:"To declare Russia as a foe rather than an inconvenient
but necessary ally was the wrong thing to do."Russia has never
been an ally, inconvenient or otherwise. They have always been a
'geopolitical' foe back to the cold war, WWII, and beyond. China is
not a foe. In fact, China is a US creditor. Japan is not a foe. The US
liberated Japan. Australia is not a foe. Nor is Europe or Antarctica. Thus,
if the US has a geopolitical foe it has to be Russia. Mitt was correct.@Tyler D:"Can anyone explain why we should care if Crimea
secedes from the Ukraine.."Because of what's next. The
Ukraine, then Estonia, Latvia. Then Poland. As for Ukraine, the Ruskies have
already seized their military port.@OtisBDriftwood:"Just
another useless article from the DN that won't let go of the fact that
Romney lost."You mean like the Democrats who endlessly blame all
bad things happening on Dubya?
No, a single event does not prove Romney was right. Not even a sequence of
events from Georgia to Syria to Crimea make him right. China remains the
preeminent rival of the US, and it's not even close.What's
happening now is a failure of 20 years of foreign policy. Instead of engaging
Russia as a partner, we have fed its deep paranoia that we're all out to
get it. We indulged the mess that was Yeltsin while insisting on
economic reforms that resulted in shockwaves that sent millions of Russians into
nostalgia for the good old Soviet days. We ignored the resentment
we created in Russians who perceived us as arrogant victors eager to take
advantage of them.We viewed the dilapidated Russian military with
glee instead of working for mutual security cooperation. We
ostracized it when integrating the rest of the Soviet Bloc into the EU and
NATO.We naively ignored Russia's kleptocracy with misplaced
optimism in the inevitable triumph of democracy.We failed to see the
rise of Putin, a man we didn't understand whose objectives were never
aligned with ours.We've missed our window of opportunity to
make good with Russia.
Precisely what would Mitt have done if he was president?I'll answer
it for you: Not. One. Thing.
@ Noodlekaboodle:Spend some time learning before posting. Romneycare
was/is not Obamacare. Romney didn't make unfulfilled lies about
his program. Obama did and does.Romney's program had the layout kinks
fixed before being released. Obamacare is still a work in progress 6 months
later.Romney's program was created as a local state-sized program,
and therefore workable. ObamaCare is trying to socialistically swallow the
country and is economically imploding as a result. Romney never once
said his program was "terrible". If so, when? I'd like some proof
you're not still making things up to defend your personal ideology.@ GaryO:Though some undoubtedly exist, it's difficult
to immediately find Obama's wrong quotes toward Russia because he's so
passive regarding them. He often refuses to take a stand.Russia
(Putin) has him intimidated and most countries of the world are now recognizing
it. Putin made him look weak in Syria after his red-line statement and then
later in dealing with Iran in not receiving anything in return from one-sided
negotiations. Iran is still laughing about that as they proceed unabated with
their nuclear program.And so it continues...
@ LDS Liberal:Your obsession with liberal ideology apparently makes
it difficult to recognize noble causes. It doesn't matter if one is willing
to sacrifice for a noble cause if it can't be recognized. You
obviously never spent much time learning about Romney, which makes it extremely
ironic you would even try to say what he would or wouldn't do in any given
situation. In truth, you really have no idea whatsoever what Mitt Romney would
currently be doing as president.That fact you think Romney
"trampled the Constitution" shows how very little you actually know of
the man. In actuality, he's one of the few high level politicians who
would've sacrificed his personal political career to save it. To the
contrary, the current administration seems willing to sacrifice the Constitution
in order to save it's political agenda. @ GaryO:Since you bring up "filling the air with useless blather", your
personal example is one of the best I've seen. A lot written, but almost
none correctly stated.Russia continues opposing the USA at every
turn... with Syria, Iran, Ukraine... all AFTER 9/11.Romney is
actually moderate, less boisterous, much more correct than most politicians.
@ Schnee:In the grand scheme of things, the differences between
Obama and Romney would've been substantial and very noticeable in their
results. To think otherwise is naive. Their ideologies are mostly like night and
day. Romney is a get-it-done sort of person. Obama... well, not so much.
He's more of a smooth talker and vacationer.@ Mike in Sandy:Unless you were being sarcastic, that's a great example of exactly
what a low-information voter is.@ two-bits:Yes, he was
right. And yes, it most certainly does matters. It matters a lot in that we can
use this as an opportunity to learn from our mistakes for the next election.@ slcdenizen:You bias is unbelievable. To the point that all
credibility becomes lost.@ Craig Clark:Russia has been
and continues to be our foe. They were with North Korea, Syria, Iran and now
regarding Ukraine. @ OtisBDriftwood:If it doesn't
matter, then why take the time to both read and comment on the article? It
obviously matters to both you and lots of other people posting.@ LDS
Liberal:Yes, it does depend on how one looks at it. In your case,
Can anybody give an Obama quote that shows he was "Wrong about
Russia?"No?I didn't think so.
to do anything other than treat Russia as our most "Geopolitical foe"
and never trusting them as we did during the official cold war is a mistake.
Lesson Learned. Now go forward and try and stop the Russian attempt to recover
their lost empire whereever possible.Russia never helped our
position with other countrys anyway.
Why does it matter if he was right? He's not the president. I would have
love Mitt to be President RIGHT NOW!
@PatriotWas Mitt right about Obamacare when he implemented it in
Massachusetts? Or when he changed his mind, and said it was terrible, even
though it's a very popular program(that he created) in Massachusetts.
@2 bits – “Now they are sandwiched between Russian Crimea and Russia
itself.”Looking at a map of the area I’m not seeing what
you apparently are. They are bordered by a number of countries to the west and
have a number of ports in non-Crimean Ukraine (e.g. Odessa). Even Kiev has river
access to the Black Sea. What am I missing here?But
assuming you’re right on all accounts, what do you suggest we do? The
Europeans don’t seem interested in doing anything substantial, although I
like what they’re doing in the area of international transparency laws
(i.e., a public registry for multi-national corporations) in an effort to stamp
out corruption, money laundering, etc… which given the current state of
the Russian economy may do far more to isolate (and change) their regime than
any military pin prick will do.And Putin talks big but as Sochi made
abundantly clear, Russia is still little more than a third world county with a
gas pump and a bomb. If they go too far, a full European isolation would ruin
Mitt was right about ...RussiaChinaIranThe
economyObamacareTax reformYes Mitt was right about all
of this but who listened to what Mitt was saying?? Maybe 20% of America. The
other 80% were more caught up in the cool cat president who appears on Leno and
Letterman and gives free stuff out to everyone. I'll tell you another thing
Mitt was right about...the 47% comment he made about people who see themselves
as victims and are owed a living by the government. The dummbed down America of
today is only a faded shadow of what it was even 30 years ago. The real question
is how much longer can that "dummbed down America" continue to exist
living off of other peoples money and pretending the world is a safe place???
LDS Liberal,I too am a veteranI too would throw myself
on a grenade for a noble cause------I'm LDS also
I've noticed you post almost word for word the same thing as
some other poster who goes by Open Minded Mormon. You also employ a similar
formatting, a very unusual formatting, as does he/she.-------Probably just coincidence though------Isn't it
interesting that these liberals want to tell us it doesn't matter that Mitt
was right on and Obama as usual didn't have a clue when he was talking
about Russia during the presidential race. Yes, it does matter that Obama once
again has shown he doesn't know what he's talking about. And yes,
we'll continue to remind people when Mitt was right about something.
@Tyler DIn 1994 the US signed the Budapest Memorandum, a treaty where
Ukraine(and Kazakhstan and Belarus) agreed to give up nuclear weapons that were
left over from the USSR days. So we(and to be fair also Russia) agree to protect
@ 2 bitsWrong on both fronts. He used the term "foe" and
referred to it in the context of America's world position, not
Europe's. The reason our economy is stagnant isn't because
businesses don't trust the president. That claim does not even deserve a
response. The economy functions fluidly with your spending increasing my income
and vice versa. There is unused capital and high unemployment, with the
resulting loss of transactions. It's very simple and doesn't require
voodoo explanations that are coming from your side of the aisle. Perhaps if our discussions were more rigorous and false assumptions more
easily dispelled, our political atmosphere would be less toxic. American
conservatism was once a viable and coherent political philosophy but has since
devolved into conspiracy-mongering and hate-filled diatribes toward the unpure.
It's a shame our news outlets have become an echo chamber for it.
It depends on which audience he was speaking to. I have no idea what Mitt said
about Russia since he said so many different things about it. Flip Flop! He
could never make up his mind. So chances are, he's both right and wrong.
Ostriches put their head in the sand when they are afraid of what they see, so
they can pretend it isn't going to hurt them.Obama lovers here
look just like ostriches.The still ailing economy, that would be the
Obama economy, is a dead weight on our foreign policy. It is hard to argue for a
better way when we aren't exhibiting one. Pretty sad when the Russian
economy looks inviting. Of course the armed Russian soldiers undoubtedly had
some effect on the vote too.
The bottom line is that Obama thought to appease Putin by derailing the
defensive missile system in Poland, going on his infamous apology tour, sending
Hillary to Russia to do the stupid "re-set" button embarrassment and
promising Russia that he would be more "flexible after his election".
Obama's mistake was that he thought all this was a message of co-operation
and thus currying the good will of Russia and our enemies. Putin and our other
enemies see it as weakness which they are now fully exploiting! Which nation
will Putin annex next?
I feel like quoting the immortal words of Sec of State Hillary Clinton...
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one
night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said.
"What difference – at this point, what difference does it
make?"At this point, what difference does it make if they were
right or wrong???
Yes, I know, Romney filled the air with useless blather. And now
"Conservatives" are braying about him being "right?" Well, even
a broken clock is right twice a day, and Romney has not been right nearly that
often.I really don't buy that Russia is America's greatest
"foe." Russia didn't knock down the twin towers.Was
Romney right? Not really. Russia is a country with its own interests. Sure they
and we (the US) are opposed on certain issues, but we share the same greatest
"foe." And that is Islamic radicalism of the kind that created 911 and
and the Muslim terrorist attacks in Russia.If radical elements in
the Middle East (including those in control of governments) had their way, they
would wipe us "the great Satan" off the face of the earth, even if they
destroyed themselves in the process.And Russia actually has that
ability and does not use it.No Romney is just another loud and
boisterous "Conservative." He's politically right wing, but as
usual, far from right.That doesn't mean that Russian could not
become America's greatest foe. With Romney as President, that certainly
would have already happened.
Irony guy makes Romney's point. Today there is nothing we can do. And
that is why Putin acted and that is why Crimea fell.The time for
effective action was long ago, when even the likes of Sarah Palin were
predicting Russia's incursion into Ukraine. Obama's foreign policy is
feckless and the Ukrainian's are living its consequences.
Tyler D,Yes, yes... this is a win for the pro-western Ukrainians.Now they are sandwiched between Russian Crimea and Russia itself.Their ports are controlled by the Russian military. IF they expect to have
any form of economy or trade with the West, or even get food or fuel to the
pro-western Ukrainians... they need Russian permission. A Russian block-aid of
Ukraine would be simple at this point. They could starve them out in a
heartbeat.How long do you think pro-western Ukrainians will remain
pro-western Ukrainians? Or have an independent country, or an independent
economy? (hint... it's almost over for them).I would be
getting out now if I were them. Many already are.
And once again barack was completely wrong
It depends on how you look at it...a "President" Romney
would be too busy deal with Russia -- With all the troops still in
Afghanistan, Those he would have never pulled out of Iraq, The
newest forces he just deployed to Syria, the gearing up for massive
invasion of Iran, to begin the planning for the liberation of
Crimea from Mother Russia.[all without raising taxes, paying down
the Deficiet, and creating new jobs]It would seem the ONLY GOP plan
for creating American jobs is to just keep sending the poor into the military
and sending them far away into conflicts around the globe.Who's...buying up all those Armies and Navies?because, after all --
you can buy anything in this world with money.FYI -- I'm
a veteran.Like Mormon or Capt. Moroni, I will gladly throw myself on
a gernade for a righteous and noble cause.i.e., Family, God, Country.What is the America interest in Crimea?Our Borders?Our People?Our rights?Our Constitution?Thanks for Trampling the Constitution -- Mitt.
Hey Obama, The 30s are on the phone, they want their foreign policy
back. How would Romney have addressed Russian aggression? With
serious economic sanctions. Barack's sanction is probably refusing to allow
Russia to buy adspace on his Healthcare website. Ever. Although after the next
election they could maybe talk about it.
Who would not want to be under the US umbrella. A conflict occurs and we spend
all of our money and lives fighting for them.We are in debt. We
borrow money from China to fight wars.At what point do we stop going
out of our way to involve ourselves in every world conflict?This
mindset must change. One way to change it is to pay TODAY, for the wars that
we get into TODAY.If they are worth our lives and our money, pay for
them TODAY. Cut other spending or raise taxes.Then we will see how
"necessary" all of these "conflicts" are to the American people.
slcdenizen,Romney didn't declare them a "foe". He said they
were a ego-political threat, not just to the US, but mostly to their neighbors
in Europe and Asia (and obviously they are). That doesn't declare them
our foe. It means we know who they are, and don't see them with the
rose-colored-glasses Obama did.===It doesn't matter
if Romney was right or not. He's not President.====People say it wouldn't matter if Romney or Obama won. I agree on
foreign policy. But I think on the economy... there would be a BIG
difference.I think the leaders of nations would be gathering around
Romney at economic summits wanting to hear what he has to say, instead of our
President sitting in the corner with not much to say, and nobody really caring
what he has to say.I think trade with the huge markets in the United
States would be seen as an asset and used to attract friends (even Russia and
her satellite nations).I think it's presumptive to assume that
Romney would have gotten us into a war every time something happened.
Can anyone explain why we should care if Crimea (populated mostly by Russians)
secedes from the Ukraine (apparently by overwhelming popular vote)? Seems like
this could be a win-win for everyone including the remaining pro-western
Ukrainians (now free from the shackles of the Crimean vote) to elect who they
want without Russian interference and form closer ties to the EU.I
mean other than a conservative obsession to constantly show the world how
Reagan-like tough we are, I don’t see what the problem is here, and I
certainly don’t see how this negatively impacts our national interest.I’m open to being convinced otherwise…
During the Presidential campaign, the wars Iraq and Afghanistan were working to
Obama’s advantage because they were winding down after a decade. In an
effort to divert attention from those wars, Romney cited Russia as
America’s number one geopolitical foe. It wasn’t true then. It
isn’t true now. It only seems true to some at the moment because of
Russia’s seizure of Crimea.
To declare Russia as a foe rather than an inconvenient but necessary ally was
the wrong thing to do. He could just as easily have labeled China as our
greatest geopolitical foe and when they moved ships toward the disputed
territory to the north of Japan the discussion would have been the same as it is
regarding Crimea. Mr. Romney told one half-truth for every three false
statements during his campaign. Let's not get carried away and revise
things too much.
Obviously he was right. We know that now. It's not a question anymore.The question is... does it matter?The answer is... NO.What does it matter if he was right or not? ZERO!
If Mitt said it, It's wrong.
In the grand scheme of things nothing would be substantially different between
an Obama Administration and a Romney Administration on this matter. The Romney
one would be more antagonistic towards Russia but since we still wouldn't
choose war anyway a more blusterous bluff or a missile defense shield in Poland
doesn't do anything to deter Russia from its' current course of
action. (There's also a chance we'd be less able to even bluff if
Romney got us involved in a war with either Iran or Syria, the latter would be
more supported by conservatives if a Republican was proposing it than when Obama
was proposing a limited air campaign similar to that used in Libya).
And what, pray tell, would Mitt have done differently? Would he, ahem, nuke