Where to begin? I get
more and more dismayed by the current state of politics, and by extension, the
state of this country.
In my last post I said that Mitt Romney is a liar. That may sound like a strong statement, maybe
a little hyperbolic. I’ll be more
explicit: Romney is a liar on a level
that I have not seen before in politics.
Lying seems to come natural to this man.
His egocentricity is on full display when he lies. It’s an expression of his utter contempt for people,
a belief on his part that he can say anything to the rest of us because he
believes we are inferior. The flip side
of the lying are his reversals of position.
He was for something before he was against it but now he is for it
again. This is yet another expression of
his arrogance, an attitude that he has no obligation to state what his policy
is and be consistent. All politicians
dodge and shift, but few of them completely reverse their policy positions to
pander to their audience.
Romney actually believes a lot of the nonsense that he says,
because much of what he says is a restatement of the same claims that are made in
the conservative media. His audience is
already primed by the constant repetition of untruths in the rightwing echo
chamber, a repetition that ultimately creates an alternate universe that people
dwell in. This is how Romney stepped in
a gigantic pile in the second debate when he asserted that Obama took two weeks
to call the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. Ignoring for a minute the asininity of a talking
point that demands a president use the words and phrases it chooses, here’s my
take.
In the debate Romney’s two weeks assertion was a restatement
of what had been said many times by conservatives. It was factually wrong and the video of the
conference in the Rose Garden clearly shows that. You can spin it six ways to
Sunday but that’s what he said the day after the attack with the Secretary of
State at his side. Now some conservative
pundits are claiming that Obama was talking about something else, apparently
because he did not use the syntax that they required. Oh Puhlease.
How many grammatical knots do you have to twist yourself into to make
one thing into something else?
The Republicans are now clutching their pearls in righteous
outrage. They want to know why the
president took so long to clarify that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was
a coordinated attack not the acts of an angry mob. They want to know why there was not more
security in place. The investigation by
Darrell Issa’s committee is underway.
Answers must be found. This may
seem perfectly reasonable, but there’s more to it than that. So here’s a little background.
Qahdaffi’s despotic regime in Libya was overthrown with the
help of US and European air support, but without US troops on the ground. That’s not to say there were no CIA or
Special Forces there doing covert work.
Libya is essentially a new nation that is trying to establish a stable
government. There are a lot of competing
factions vying for power. The situation
is dynamic. It’s in the interest of the
US to see that a stable government friendly to us is established, but without
the presence of our troops on the ground.
Lord knows we don’t need to have our military occupy yet another Middle
East country.
Given the instability in Libya, you can’t expect a normal
diplomatic structure to be in place. I
don’t know why the ambassador was staying in Benghazi that day. The main embassy is in Tripoli and this was a
secondary consulate. We now know that
one of the two buildings in Benghazi was a CIA station. That information was made public
inadvertently during one of Issa’s public hearings on the incident. It’s likely that the CIA was the security
force at that consulate.
Bottom line, there’s a lot that we don’t know and won’t know
because much of this country’s activities there take place covertly. It’s not a simple case of do you send more
security people to an embassy because a lot is happening under the radar.
Holding public investigations into such events has been a
place that congress in the past has been reluctant to go because they can
expose covert operations and endanger lives.
The Issa investigation chose to hold televised hearings, undoubtedly for
their political effect. Those hearings
have so far revealed that a consulate building was a CIA post. They have also outed a number of Libyans who
support us and shared information with us, putting these people at risk. The information is now out there for all to see.
Now the Republicans can
press on with this attack and I expect that they will. They know the administration is in a bind
because they can’t say too much without compromising activities in Libya, but if it holds back information it will be accused of a coverup. In all this
charade I ask myself, would a Republican president have handled the Libyan
attacks any differently? And the answer
is probably not.
Years ago a presidential
candidate would not have tried to exploit this tragedy for political gain,
recognizing the potential damage in doing so.
It was a line that was not crossed, and that is why Romney was condemned
by old school Republicans as well as Democrats when he made his accusatory statement the
day after the attacks.
We can have the larger debate
whether this country should engage in covert activities all over the
world. Indeed we can have the debate
whether this country should try to act as the world’s policeman, whether we
need hundreds of military bases in every corner of the world, whether we should
be engaging in wars to protect access to resources and if drone strikes are
acceptable. But if covert activities are
what we are doing in Libya, then we should not have public rhetoric that puts
our people over there at risk.
What we get instead is a
faux debate, a political witch hunt that
can jeopardize Americans overseas.
Anything to get elected, to get back in power. Nothing is off the table for these
people. I’m not happy with either
political party. I think they are both
irredeemably corrupt and beholden to big money.
But it is the Republican party that has truly gone off the rails in the
last few years. It seems there is no
action, no statement that is too extreme if there is a potential political
reward for it. There is no claim by a
rightwing pundit that is too batshit crazy to be uttered, in fact repeated
again and again. In the words of former
GOP operative the Republican party is now more like an “apocalyptic cult” than
a political party.
Here’s a quote from a
blogger called Meteor Blades that sums up the Romney stump speeches on foreign policy.
Romney said the president
"went around at the beginning of his term and apologized for America
around the world, it made us just heartsick." Never happened. A lie.
"The president is planning on cutting $1 trillion out of military
spending." A lie. Romney said President Obama "went before the United
Nations" and "said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in
on Israel from the Gaza Strip." A lie. Romney said, "[T]his president
should have put in place crippling sanctions against Iran, he did not." A
lie. Romney said Obama "failed to communicate that military options are on
the table" with regards to Iran's nuclear program. A lie. Romney said Syria is Iran's "route to the sea."
A lie, and a dumb one since Iran doesn't share a border with Syria and has more
than a thousand miles of its own coastline. Romney said Obama "decided to
give Russia their number one foreign policy objective—removal of our missile
defense sites from Eastern Europe—and got nothing in return." A lie.
Romney said: "You know how many trade agreements this president has
negotiated? Zero." A lie.
Is a
lie about your opponent a personal attack?
Does pointing out that Romney is not telling the truth constitute a
personal attack? It’s a bizarre
political universe we now live in.