The thin line between bravado and delusion

[ProSense]

The thin line between bravado and delusion

By Steve Benen

<...>

But if Mitt Romney's campaign actually believes its own rhetoric about foreign policy, the Republican and his aides aren't just embracing bravado; they're also slipping into delusions.

Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.

"There's a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you'd be in a different situation," Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview.... Williamson added, "In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations -- the respect for America has gone down, there's not a sense of American resolve and we can't even protect sovereign American property."

Again, I don't know Williamson personally, and his comments to the Post may be little more than partisan chest-thumping.

I'm more concerned, however, with the notion that Williamson might actually believe his own nonsense.

<...>

For one thing, "American resolve" looks pretty secure in the Obama era. Romney and his team may not realize this, but this president ordered the strike that killed bin Laden, decimated al Qaeda, helped topple the Gadhafi regime, and has maintained a strong, steady hand in negotiations with foreign leaders around the globe. To blame Obama for these protests is, on its face, ridiculous.

For another, Romney and his team may not remember recent history, but angry protests in the streets of countries in the Middle East and North Africa sometimes occurred before January 2009. It's shocking, I know, but it's true. What's more, there were plenty of attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad before Obama took office -- many took place during Ronald Reagan's and George W. Bush's presidencies.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/14/13860795-the-thin-line-between-bravado-and-delusion

On Williamson:

Romney Adviser: Libya Attack Never Would Have Happened Under Romney

Benjy Sarlin

<...>

Williamson served as an official under President George W. Bush. Numerous deadly attacks on diplomatic compounds in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Syria took place during the Bush administration. When countries around the world were engulfed in protests over Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, the Bush administration condemned the material as “unacceptable” even as it repeated the United States’s dedication to free speech.

The United Nations, where Williamson served as a diplomat, suffered a massive attack in 2003 when a truck bomb in Iraq killed 22 people including the U.N.’s top envoy to the country at the organization’s headquarters. The international body withdrew nearly its entire staff from the country for several years.

- more -

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-adviser-under-president-romney-libya-attack-never-would-have-happened.php

I vote delusional. Guess he missed the whole Romneyshambles episode, Mitt's other disastrous moments (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021040432 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021054693) and his latest idiotic statement.

Romney knows he's toast. Idiotic defense alert!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021338307

[spanone]

1. it's easy to say anything when you're on the outside looking in

[justiceischeap]

2. This is going to sound like an insensitive statement but I don't mean it to be

Wasn't one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq & in Afghanistan is so it happens there and not here? So, even BushCo understood on some level, there is going to be terrorism in the ME. People who strike out against America because we're America (this isn't a policy debate argument I'm making). So, if BushCo sends troops to the ME so they hit us there and not here, and then they hit us there... well, I guess I'm lost in how that's a bad thing. Yes, it'd be better if there was no terrorism, no American loss of lives, etc., but isn't it better that it happens there instead of here? I know that's like choosing two evils but still... maybe I'm not articulating this correctly.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Not insensitive

True. Bush Corp DID say that.

[ProSense]

4. Yes, Bush did, but

did it mean that RW assholes should inflame the situation?

The same smirking neocons who have been pushing war with the world for decades are encouraging these RW nuts.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Nope

It doesn't mean they can inflame the situation. It DOES mean we can point out to them . . . . buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut Dubya said. And then: But why are you so upset? But why are you so angry? How many times DID you vote for Bush anyways?

But I'm kind of a bitch like that!

[ProSense]

6. LOL! n/t