The Democrats are definitely the tough guys in the room now. They were the ones chanting USA USA USA. The Democrats were the ones stressing Made In America. The Democrats recognized our troops who are in harm’s way.
Notably missing from Republican speeches was the mention of bringing home our troops and ending the longest war in American history. Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech totally omitted any mention of our troops or the war in Afghanistan despite the fact that American troops are still in harm’s way. What was he thinking?
Has the GOP gone soft on foreign policy? Are they simply going to abandon the troops that they sent to war? Is this yet another mess for President Obama to clean up? It sure sounds like all of the above.
Romney needs to fire his speech writers and his handlers and he needs to try to recapture lost opportunity. It is unacceptable for a presidential candidate to not pay tribute to the American troops when we are at war. It is unfathomable that he didn’t thank them and those who have returned for their service.
President Obama suggested that his contenders were amateurs. He is obviously right. They just aren’t ready. Yes, Mitt Romney, we are at war! Our troops who are in danger 24/7 deserve better. President Obama saluted our troops, many times over.
I wished that he HAD spoken about the troops too, but, he’s on track with Obama’s plan to pull them out. I wish that he would cancel Obama’s weird plan and pull them out January 2013.
Romney talked about the troops at the American Legion the night before.
Let’s see what the content is.
Obama
I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. And we have. We’ve blunted the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over.
(Yep. He did. And he almost didn’t send ANY extra troops. And the Taliban is back because they know when we’re leaving.)
A new tower rises above the New York skyline, Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama Bin Laden is dead.
(Took long enough for the tower. And yep, OBL is still dead., quit bragging already.)
And tonight, we pay tribute to the Americans who still serve in harm’s way. We are forever in debt to a generation whose sacrifice has made this country safer and more respected. We will never forget you. And so long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will sustain the strongest military the world has ever known.
When you take off the uniform, we will serve you as well as you’ve served us because no one who fights for this country should have to fight for a job, or a roof over their head, or the care that they need when they come home.
(Well Said.)
Then he ruins it with this:
My opponent — my opponent said it was “tragic” to end the war in Iraq (CONTEXT PLEASE), and he won’t tell us how he’ll end the war in Afghanistan (Yes he has. He said that he’ll stay with YOUR plan). Well I have, and I will (Except that you’re really not because they will be there until 2014 and prior to killing UBL it could be seen as surrender). And while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want (Really? I’ve heard them say that the cuts will be horrible), I will use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways. (And the last part is a complete and utter lie because he hasn’t done any of that YET, even with money supposedly dedicated to it….the stimulus)
Because after two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation- building right here at home.
http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/08/30/video-and-transcript-romneys-speech-to-the-112th-vfw-national-convention/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-2012-obamas-speech-to-the-democratic-national-convention-full-transcript/2012/09/06/ed78167c-f87b-11e1-a073-78d05495927c_story.html
compare and contrast
Yes…I know that Romney’s speech was dedicated to the troops while Obama’s was a more general.
That’s all I had to go with. As I said….I also think that he should have said something, but I understand why he did not. Oops.
HuH? Do you think they just forgot?
I have always said that Americans didn’t have to give up anything for those wars. Only the military families had to sacrifice and man, did they ever!
I think all war should impact every American on a daily basis. Perhaps we would take them more seriously and hold our elected officials more accountable.
@Moon-howler
Perhaps we would take them more seriously and hold our elected officials more accountable.
Heck yes.
I see the next target in the sights of the neo cons. Watch out Iran, here we come. We need to keep feeding our military industrial complex!
I want to hope that the American people simply won’t have it. Yea, right.
Unless civilians suffer during war time, why do they care?
@Elena
Who are these neo-cons that you speak of?
I seem to remember that “neocons” once were very popular with Democrats.
And where, seriously, have you seen that we’re “coming” for Iran?
What? When were neo-cons ever popular with Democrats? The only Democrat I can think of who might have liked them was Liebermann.
“When you take off the uniform, we will serve you as well as you’ve served us because no one who fights for this country should have to fight for a job, or a roof over their head, or the care that they need when they come home.”
Nice rhetoric…been hearing the same pot of beans since my time began at the tail-end of Vietnam War. And yet, the Veterans Administration is still the biggest boondoggle and centric organization it has always been. Only now beginning to realize they should decentralize and pay for the Veterans care in his/her local community vs. their big complexes. And the quality and level of care and your satisfaction with the V.A. all depends on how close you are to a VA Medical Center or Clinic…which really stinks if you live in a rural area with limited transportation support to get there.
The big V.A. creates ideas and initatives, and then passes the buck to the regional Medical Center to deal with. And yet, the budget process is screwy: for Veterans 65 and Older, budget about $4800 a year for care; for the younger Veterans, they budget $3600 in the master plan. Really? Fortunately they are beginning to look at the numbers in Medicare to realize for the Older Veteran their budget number stinks. And it is the younger crowd that are running bills on an average of $5000 a MONTH in care.
Disabled by your service? Hope it is on the list from 1945 because that is when the list was created and not updated since. Shoot, it took the V.A. till last year – LAST YEAR! – to publish the list of all the ships that carried Agent Orange. Nice…Vietnam was officially over in August 1975 and it took that long to read manifests?
Of course, part of the problem is also Congress. The V.A. proposes changes, and good ole Congress just holds one committee meeting after another, and maybe a bill gets put in, then dies for lack of attention.
Ok, rant over. Thanks for reading!
@Ray,
And you should rant. I doubt that those Born on the 4th of July scenes are that far off base.
On another note, I have reason to believe that things are improving. My brother in law was finally diagnosed with PTSD–finally. He is 65 and a Vietnam War Vet. He is getting about a thousand dollars more a month which is ..more money. I was glad to hear it because he just hasnt been right for years.
Here is what we do KNOW, Clint Eastwood, talking to the invisble man, was the ONLY speaker to mention Afganastan!
@Ray Beverage
Absolutely correct!
Heck, McCain’s idea of letting vets visit THEIR doctors for VA treatment was one of the things that changed my mind to hold my nose and vote for him.
We know where the troops are……..where are the jobs?
Eastwood was the only speaker at the repugs’ convention to mention our troops, and he criticized Obama for not pulling them out immediately, to which the crowd erupted in cheers. Go figure.
Really? This is all you’ve got? Obama gave an insubstantial, boring speech that was panned by the Left and Right alike. The unemployment rate decreased to 8.1% largely due to 368,000 more people dropping out of the labor force. The resulting participation rate of 63.5% is a new 30-year low only because it is lower than the previous low participation rate in July.
Romney has concentrated on the big issues of the day. He probably should have mentioned Afghanistan, but the long-term plan has already been set.
If you want to discuss a meaningful national security issue, perhaps we should discuss whether the Egyptian government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood should receive U.S. foreign aid. The administration appears to be ready to resume payments.
So far, Romney’s foreign policy team is a diverse mix of views including but not dominated by neo-cons:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443295404577543371831603292.html
Note that this group does not include Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz was the leading neo-con and the first to advise attacking Iraq in response to 9/11. The addition of Wolfowitz to Romney’s foreign policy team would concern me.
Republicans want out of Afghanistan at this point as badly as do Democrats. It has become a bi-partisan issue. Going into Afghanistan after 9/11 to clean out al-Qaeda and the terrorist training camps enjoyed huge bi-partisan support also. What most of us did not sign up for, however, was the nation-building exercise there instigated by the neo-cons, which has become the longest war in US history. Just about everyone is ready for our men and women to come home. If al-Qaeda or the Taliban set up any more terrorist facilities, we’ve still got plenty of cruise missiles and drones.
Go Clint!! I thought his speech and the empty chair were great. I am one of those Republicans who agrees with Clint that rather than set a date, we should bring everyone home from Afghanistan tomorrow morning.
@Elena
I agree completely. However, Iran is an existential threat to Israel, and Israel is one of the few foreign countries that I think deserves US support. They are the only democracy in the region, our close friend and ally, and are threatened on all sides by neighbors whose mentality resides still in the Medieval Era.
However, I don’t think that a pre-emptive attack on Iran is necessary to protect Israel, despite what many in Israel, including perhaps Netanyahu, believe. An attack would only delay rather than destroy Iran’s nuclear program.
Deterrence worked for 50 years to contain the Soviet Union. Our stance should be one of solidarity with Israel, and assurance to everyone that any form of Iranian attack on Israel will result in full retaliation by both Israel and the U.S., including use of nuclear weapons, if necessary.
Brett Baier interviewed Romney on Fox this morning and asked him if he regretted not mentioning the troops of the war in Afghanistan in his speech. Romney first said “I only regret you repeating it day in and day out. (LAUGHS)”
Then Romney explained: “Because when you give a speech, you don’t give a laundry list. You talk about the things that uh you think are important.”
Should he win, that will make a fine line in the letter the Commander-in-Chief sends the families of fallen warriors: “Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I regret your son died doing something I didn’t think was important.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/07/transcript-fox-news-channel-interview-with-mitt-romney/#ixzz25ouVJ3jX
He really shouldn’t be allowed to speak. He had better start thinking it is important. Good Hell! What is he running for? Dog catcher seems a little lofty. Even if you don’t think it is important, don’t say so.
thanks Moe.
Great point Moe! Putting your life at risk isn’t important?! Well, I guess since he doesn’t have any “skin” in the game in his mind, he might take that point of view. I don’t get it Moe, there is such a cognitive dissonance with the people who are in the military and vote republican. The repubs went into Iraq, taking the focus off of Afganastan, Romney doesn’t say ONE word about Afganastan and Obama has to “beg” for military votes? WTF!
Iran’s strength has grown due to our intervention in Iraq, that is why Israel is more at risk. Having said that, I don’t necessarily believe that the leadership in Iran is crazy, I don’t think they would start a war with Israel.
I agree with your POV by the way on deterrence NTK!
Romney’s acceptance speech contained these lines:
“His trillion dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk”
and
“That America, that united America, will preserve a military that is so strong, no nation would ever dare to test it.”
I sincerely hope military absentee ballots will be counted this year. Many thousands were disenfranchised in 2008 and 2010. Any candidate or Commander-in-Chief who really cares about the military should be ensuring that they get their ballots in time.
We wouldn’t want to insult any “Corpsemen”!!
So, who do we think the vast majority of military are going to vote for? Obama? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
If Romney doesn’t think our troops are important, he has no business being president.
Except he never said the troops weren’t important. Nice try.
Brett Baier interviewed Romney on Fox this morning and asked him if he regretted not mentioning the troops of the war in Afghanistan in his speech. Romney first said “I only regret you repeating it day in and day out. (LAUGHS)”
Then Romney explained: “Because when you give a speech, you don’t give a laundry list. You talk about the things that uh you think are important.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/07/transcript-fox-news-channel-interview-with-mitt-romney/#ixzz25ouVJ3jX
Sounds pretty clear to me about how important he believes our troops are.
I know how hard it is for you to be fair, but maybe you could also cut and paste the next couple of sentences after that quote. How hard would that be?
You should point this out to Morris Davis! I don’t think he knows about this, Einstein.
@SlowpokeRodriguez
Pokie you might want to rethink that veiled threat. Hmmmm….what are the military demographics? I expect for those who look like you, you are right. Those who look like “others” and there are a lot of “others” in our military, might be voting for Obama.
Oh, Lord, “others”, “code words”. You libs really are pretty funny. Actually, I’ll say quite simply that when it comes to foreign policy, I’ll go with Obama. Drone strikes? Check. Small Precision operations? Check. No intervention in Syria? Check. I’m not convinced that Romney won’t get us into a war with Iran and won’t return to overspending on defense. Someone did a study recently that showed even the Defense Department believes there is no reason to have a base in every other nation on Earth. Aside from his bowing, scraping, and prostrating himself before Putin, for the most part I’m with Obama on foreign policy.
Problem is, 16 trillion in debt, 3.85/gallon of gas, 8%+ unemployment, illegal immigration, socialized health care, these are all domestic problems.
@Elena
The military is a pretty can-do organization, but it has a long memory. Obama’s strategy has resulted in a doubling of the U.S. casualty rate in Afghanistan despite plans to pull out in 2014; he spent more time boasting about his own role in the Osama Bin Laden take down than crediting the Navy SEALS. And his threat to allow huge cuts to the DOD under sequestration could take the military back to the hollow force of the 70s.
So I suspect that a cheap, throw away line in a convention speech is not enough to fool the vast majority of active military and military veterans.
Kelly, I think you say that because you don’t like him. What did you feel about mission accomplished? Was that bragging? Reminder, Obama isn’t in charge of military strategy. I think you just implied that Obama is responsible for American deaths. I find that offensive. I believe he listens carefully to what the generals tell him they want and need.
@Elena
The leadership in Iran is most definitively as crazy as it is possible for a human being to be. However, most Iranians were born after the hostage crisis and would prefer a government more like Turkey than the wacko Islamist regime under which they suffer. Let’s hope than we can avoid a military confrontation until the Islamic nutcases die out and the younger generations in Iran take power.
“Iran’s strength has grown due to our intervention in Iraq,”
Iran’s strength has grown because we left. That’s to be expected.
http://news.yahoo.com/iraqi-leader-obama-why-did-leave-iraq-iran-165009381.html
@Moon-howler
The President IS responsible. He may not write the plans, but he is responsible. Period. He is the Commander-in-Chief.
Obama is responsible for everything related to his orders….the buck stops there. Just as a ship’s captain is responsible if his ship runs aground even if he’s not aboard at the time., Obama is responsible. HIS policies, from when we leave, to the restrictive Rules of Engagement, to his general directions to the generals in charge of operations, are responsible for the fact that men and women will die because of those policies. That’s the nature of the job. And if he listened carefully to what they need, he would not have made Gen’l McCrystal wait over 30 days before meeting with him and then delaying the request reinforcements and those given in inadequate numbers.
As for mission accomplished…nope. Because once he said it, he didn’t keep repeating it. Obama and his people keep on reminding us about the fact that Obama was instrumental in making a decision…that apparently he had to be pushed into to doing…..to go after UBL.
The real question is will he sign those letters himself: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08/obama-honored-fallen-seals-by-sending-their-parents-a-form-letter-signed-by-electric-pen/
From that reliable source, The Forked Tongue….err the gateway pundit.
wowowowowowow be afraid.
@Moon-howler
The military strategy in Afghanistan certainly is Obama’s. He ordered it, and despite recent casualties, he he announced that he is sticking with the same strategy. If you do not believe me, consider what the president has said:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/08/20/20120820obama-no-shift-afghanistan-war-strategy.html
I am offended that we have people dying in Afghanistan for a strategy that isaccomplishing nothing, other than to provide a pretext for an extended drawdown. Either the strategy should be modified, or the pretense that it has any chance to accomplish anything should be ended and we should drawdown immediately.
Clearly the ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech was a silly mistake. But you should compare the text of Bush’s speech with that of Obama’s OBL takedown speech. Bush’s speech was focused entirely on the troops and their accomplishments. Obama’s OBL speech focused a great deal of attention on himself, ‘I did this …, I directed that …’. The differences between the two are striking.
The source doesn’t matter. Same thing was reported by a million sources.
Where? Find me a regular newspaper reporting it.
Prince Harry has deployed (again) to Afghanistan. Beau Biden deployed to Iraq in 2008-2009. Funny that you never see a Blair or a Bush or a Cheney or a Romney or a Gingrich or any of the other chickenhawks or their offspring wearing their country’s uniform. It’s a lot easier to talk tough and wage wars fought by other peoples sons and daughters. When the nation asks, “who shall we send, who will go for us?” the chickenhawks respond “send them, not me.” What patriots.
You do know that George H.W. Bush was a naval aviator in WWII and George W. Bush was a pilot in the Texas ANG, don’t you? No one has denigrated your service as a JAG — I expect you to accord the same respect to others, including the Bushes.
I believe Moe was specifically speaking of the politicians’ children–nopt they themselves.
Don’t blind Morris with facts, kelly.
Obama mentioned the troops only because he thought Romney did not. Most of his other campaign speeches have been pretty much silent on foreign affairs.
In fairness, Obama mentions the troops every time he speaks, or so it seems. I can’t think of a time when he didn’t although I am sure there are a few times. He is the commander in chief.
Where is all this Obama love you were talking about the other day?
@kelly_3406
I won’t get into W’s service in the TXANG, but I do have enormous respect for H.W.’s service in WWII. There’s a great book called “Flyboys” that describes how close he came to getting captured by the Japanese and probably killed when his plane was shot down. I suspect his war experience played a part in how he approached the Gulf War where he gotter’ done and got us out quickly. But over the past decade these families who haven’t hesitated to get us into protracted wars and sent off other peoples sons and daughters to fight and die have never had one of their own sons or daughters in harms way. I believe that is in part why Romney didn’t think it was important … it’s just one more area where he has no personal experience and can’t relate to those that do.
@Kelly,
Doesn’t it become tiresome, repeating talking points you hear other people say, like on Faux News?
Obama gave tons of credit to the brave SEAL team, how can anyone with any objectivity dispute that fact is really beyond me. I mean seriously, there are “gotcha’s” to get Obama on, that isn’t one of them. You simply come off sounding like a petulant whiner, irritated that Obama was the one to make the call to send the SEAL team in to get Bin Laden.
As far as directly causing deaths in Afganastan, I guess as well as Phd climalatolgist, you are also a well reknowned military strategist! Damn, we sure are lucky here on Moonhowlings to have such a plethora of experts 😉
@Elena
Can you not just read the two speeches and form your own opinion? I actually read the two speeches TODAY. If you disagree, fine, but quit accusing me of repeating stuff. You make quite a few assumptions of which you know nothing about.
Bush’s speech in 2003:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml
Obama speech in 2011:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058783-503544.html
@Elena
And by the way, I was simply answering your question as to why “Obama has to beg for military votes.” As a veteran with many friends on active duty, my answer summarizes private discussions that I have heard or taken part in about Obama. You can try to shoot the messenger if you want, but this is a fairly widespread perspective as far as I can tell.
70% white, 85% male. You got me. Majority is over 50%. Hands in the air here.
@Moon-howler
I don’t understand….are you saying that the majority white will be voting for Romney because of race or voting for Obama because of race?
Because the military members that I know are voting because of policy and actions.
You get to figure it out. Who will most white males vote for? $64,000 question.
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Try the following: If you are white and if you are male, there is a greater likelihood that you will be voting Reublican. Geez.
@Moon-howler Where is all this Obama love you were talking about the other day?
To know him (and to vote for him) is not to love him. There’s still a lot I don’t like. This year boils down to pure self-interest in casting my vote.
That’s probably how we all should vote rather than by ideology.
I think I am still voting self interest…maybe more so than ever. I am thinking of being retired rather than who pays for whose contraception. I need to worry about who changed the dough nut hole my husband is getting ready to enter from 86% of cost to 50% of cost. That would be Mr. Obama.