Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Why is Mitt Romney such a Warmonger?

Here's one that baffles me: Willard Mitt Romney.

The guy is bright, confident, and by all accounts he's a faithful Latter Day Saint. He's got this great sense of humor, a beautiful and charming wife, five successful boys and perfectly coiffed hair. The guy looks like he is already President. The kind of President America needs.

I wanted to vote for him. I heard how as a fiscally-conservative-genius-leader-superman he turned around both the ailing 2002 Olympics and the Massachusetts state budget. I heard how as a 'compassionate conservative' leader he had made Massachusetts the first state with universal health care. I started thinking he was like some kind of zionistic ("and there was no poor among them" LINK) wunderkind. I started thinking that he was, perhaps, the kind of Mormon every Mormon should be.

And yet he's not just soft on peace, he's the warhawk's hawk. He wants everyone to know he REALLY supports our military action in Iraq. He doesn't just support our troops (most good people would) but everything military we are doing there – regardless of consequence. And he wants to do more of it.

Romney was in Israel just yesterday promoting his nascent presidential campaign with promises of being a hardliner on Iran. He made a special point to focus on some Iranian fighters that the Bush administration claims have been discovered in Iraq. He wanted to distinguish that – unlike the "folly" of certain members of the U.S. congress – he has no qualms about engaging Iran militarily. LINK

Mitt isn't just a warhawk in the Middle East, either. He supports militant actions here at home. In the debate on how far we curtail American freedoms 'in this time of war', Romney has let it be known loud and clear where he stands on the issue. He wants more federal funding of domestic wiretapping, secret surveillance, and investigations. He wants more equipment and personnel watching our own.

I don't understand the guy at all. Demonizing people abroad ("Iranians in Iraq" . . . where do you think hatemongering about Iranians is leading us?), demonizing people at home (he was pleading for more wiretapping funds for Massachusetts – not during the 9/11 hysteria, but four years later – seemingly out of the blue – at the end of his governorship
LINK) . . . really, who is this guy and why does he think he is presidential timber? And how can he call himself a "Latter-Day Saint"?

As a conservative Republican Mormon, I thought Romney's electable weakness might have been his very liberal public stances on abortion and homosexual rights. But that was 13 years ago in a campaign against Ted Kennedy (Kennedy's closest race ever). I figured his recently reformed and more conservative tilts on these issues might suffice. But this bloodthirsty scaremongering? . . . Where is he going with this and what strategist is advising him that it's the way to go?

The conventional wisdom might indicate that the religious right has been more readily accepting of national causes for war, but I think even the Bible belt is starting to question what we are accomplishing in Iraq – and perhaps even why we went there in the first place. Romney is anxious to overcome his 'strange cult member' status there, but pandering to their base, warlike passions doesn't seem like the most Christian decison. It may not even be the shrewdest. I was particularly impressed with Senator Webb's speech after the state of the Union last night. He is a southerner with a miltary background and a kid in Iraq . . . he wasn't pushing the kind of bloodthirsty, blindsided agenda Romney is pushing and just months ago he managed to get himself elected in a very close campaign against the 'more hardline' incumbent. LINK

Finally, I have to say that I am hugely disappointed in Mitt's Machiavellian strategies because of what he could and should have learned from his father's campaign. George Romney's mounting presidential campaign imploded when he innocently, honestly, and admirably admitted that he was upset by the 'brainwashing' he had received from Generals taking him on a VIP tour of Vietnam. It had caused him to be unduly supportive and unquestioning of our military actions in that country and when he admitted his mistake in buying into it too far his opponents squashed his campaign (what kind of leader is weak enough to be brainwashed? they taunted). Here's what Mitt himself had to say about it last year in an AP news interview:

Romney speaks heavily of his father during national TV interview

By GLEN JOHNSON , Associated Press writer

BOSTON — As he contemplates his own run for the presidency, Gov. Mitt Romney agrees his father's 1968 campaign may have been doomed when he said he had been subjected to a "brainwashing" by Vietnam War supporters.

Time later proved George Romney right.

"His point was that (Defense Secretary Robert) McNamara and (President Lyndon) Johnson had been lying to the American people, and ... in the past he had swallowed hook, line and sinker,
what he had been told by military generals," the Massachusetts governor said in an interview with C-SPAN that will air Sunday night.

"I remember that when McNamara came out with his book about 'The Fog of War,' and admitted that he had lied to the American people, my dad took a certain degree of satisfaction in the fact that the people now knew that what he said was true," Romney added. "And he used to say that in politics being right too early is not a good thing. But he was right, and it was too early."


So there it is: Mitt Romney has a father who is duped by his own Republican party, his own Presidential administration, and his own military leaders into believing lies so that he will help people keep supporting a war effort. Mitt's father finds out the truth and bravely speaks out about it. Mitt's father loses his chance to be President. So what does Mitt do? He goes out and proclaims to the American people that this kind of thing never happens. He claims that the warmakers never lie. He admonishes that if we are at war we gotta back it 100% and ask no questions.

Mitt promises to be extra warmongery when faced with 'the fog of war'. None of this pansy thoughtfulness and question asking. What on earth are we supposed to conclude from this?

I fear that, in Mitt's zeal to not be perceived as "being right too early", he is willing to let the 'collateral damage' fall where it may. He seems willing to sacrifice what is right entirely – as long as his presidential ambition isn't among the casualties.

16 comments:

Darren D. Johnson said...

What a great post. That is my #1 concern with him as well. I can't believe that he's so naive to think that the American people will stand to listen to the idea of another 4 years at war. I can't wait to hear him debate why we should continue this war that the majority of the country now sees as a total waste.

felman said...

"He doesn't just support our troops (most good people would)"

How does one "support our troops"? Is it by agree with every military action? Keeping our troops out of unnecessary conflicts? OR merely by buying those "support our troops" bumper stickers?

James said...

Good point. I guess I didn't even realize that I was leaving unquestioned the widespread belief that 'if you support more WAR then you ipso facto support the TROOPS' which is, upon reflection, almost clearly a mathematical negation. Basically if you support more war then you value some other ideal *more than you value the dispensable troops* . . . that is the incontrovertible, if unattractive, truth. Thank you for highlighting that.

Jeremy & DeeAnn said...

I'm a die-hard Ron Paul supporter. While I thought Romney was a good man at first, I remember watching him in one of the Republican debates discussing his opinion of what we should do with Guantanamo Bay. His reply summed up:

"I'm glad they don't have access to our lawyers."

"I want to double Guantanamo Bay."
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0U9k7Jj_40

As far as I'm concerned, this man is the Mormon version of George Bush.

Sam Hennis said...

Ron Paul is our only hope to save America. I'm giving him my full support and I'm telling everyone I meet about Ron Paul!

We support the troops by keeping them out of dangerous, no win, empire building quagmires.

Londerosa said...

So true! Ezra Taft Benson and J. Reuben Clark spoke repeatedly about the national suicide of meddling and interventionism. I guess Mitt wasn't listening. Unless Ron Paul is elected, we are going to "spend our strength warring in foreign lands, until other nations decide to divide up the lands of the United States," just like Joseph Smith prophesied. And Mitt's leading the charge! It's not as if we didn't know where all of this is leading!

Toadicus Rex said...

I'll be the first dissent.

What's a warmonger? "A warmonger is, pejoratively, someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. It is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war." Come on. I'm assuming the all of you actually buy the idea that Mitt wants to go to war??? Puh-lease.

I don't want to go to war any more than a soldier would like to go to war. If I were President of the U.S., though, I would do what it takes to insure the safety of Americans, and I would think that the LDS people above all would understand the danger of sitting on your hands while the Gadianton's Robbers gain strength.

Tell me, when will the war be over? Is this a war started by America? Nope. It'll be over when the attempts at terrorism cease, and they disband. Should we just quit trying?

I'd like to see you get that one by Captain Moroni.

Londerosa said...

Sorry Toadicus Rex, but Captain Moroni knew who his real enemy was. It appears that you don't. I think that time will tell, that an overbearing and lawless executive branch in your own government is going to be the scourge that costs you your freedom, not Islamic terrorists. We are facing Gadiantons all right, but they're a threat from within, just like Joseph Smith said they would be. If you think that Arabs with bombs are the lethal threat to the republic, then you have been taken in by your enemy's disinformation. You'd better turn off the TV news and go on a quest for the Truth. Ezra Taft Benson said that every member of the Church should read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen. Do it puh-lease, Toadicus, it's at http://reactor-core.org/none-dare.html Then you might recognize who your enemy really is. Then tell me about what needs to be done to ensure the safety of Americans, and it's not to bomb Iran. Mitt, the man who just a few days ago said that he wants to 'double Gitmo', can be fairly said to be a warmonger, or at the very least pandering to warmongers and vicious cowards. He is just another interventionist Neocon, urging us to sacrifice our constitutional freedoms for security, only embarrassingly enough, he's LDS. I'm assuming that you know what Ben Franklin said about trading freedom for security, right? You end up with neither. Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck both need to seek the wisdom of Ezra Taft Benson, J. Reuben Clark, and Joseph Smith, instead of Cheney, Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, and rest of the unabashed warmongers at the Project for the New American Century. They're something less than prophets.

Toadicus Rex said...

Ok, Londerosa. I always appreciate discussion, so I'll bite. And I'll go through this one piece at a time so I don't miss anything. Please note that I don't intend to be offensive here... but I can't control whether or not you're offended. I like numbered lists though, as you might notice from other posts.

1) Sorry Toadicus Rex, but Captain Moroni knew who his real enemy was. It appears that you don't. I guess I'm not really sure what you mean. Do you have inside knowledge that I don't? I mean, from everything I gathered, Captain Moroni's real enemy was the destroyer of souls... and I thought that was my enemy too. So can you fill me in on how I differ from him on that front? I'm a little confused. Additionally, Captain Moroni wasn't fighting Gadianton's Robbers. He was fighting Lamanites. So I'm going to have to say that the relationship you drew doesn't make sense. Now... before you go off and say I mentioned it first, I referred to the fact that Moroni wouldn't have sat on his hands and not done anything - I was not drawing a parallel between time periods.

2) I think that time will tell, that an overbearing and lawless executive branch in your own government is going to be the scourge that costs you your freedom, not Islamic terrorists. Wow. That's a pretty bold statement. I'd like to see you justify that one with prophecy, since you seem keen to attempt to apply it.

3) We are facing Gadiantons all right, but they're a threat from within, just like Joseph Smith said they would be. Agreed. Couldn't agree more. I never stated that Militant Islamic Fundamentalists are the contained source of the problem.

4) If you think that Arabs with bombs are the lethal threat to the republic, then you have been taken in by your enemy's disinformation. : Nope, I think that Militant Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are a lethal threat to the republic, and more so to the economy.

5) You'd better turn off the TV news and go on a quest for the Truth. : I don't watch TV. Not at all. I can't stand it, never have been able to. And yep, I'm on a quest for truth. I would hope that everyone would be on one, and that it wouldn't stop until we have received it fully from the Source.

6) Ezra Taft Benson said that every member of the Church should read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen. Do it puh-lease, Toadicus, it's at http://reactor-core.org/none-dare.html : Done, interesting read. I've read a number of things very much like it. And yeah, we have a significant problem here in the U.S. with communism, but I have my doubts that either President Bush or Mitt is somehow the root of it... or for that matter even a full part of it.

7) Then you might recognize who your enemy really is. : See #1.

8) Then tell me about what needs to be done to ensure the safety of Americans, and it's not to bomb Iran. : I'd love to. Let's start with this. Keep in mind these are my feelings, and I don't care if you disagree with them, nor do I really feel the urge at this point to clarify beyond what I'll do here.

a) abolishment of the IRS and our dependence on the federal reserve.
b) complete return of the public school system to communities, with federal oversight being completely eliminated. I'd even go so far as to say it should be sold to private companies - at least encourage competition.
c) phase-out of all "social programs", including social security, medicare, and welfare. Government is not a charity, and any attempt to do so is evil.
d) abolishment of any and all health-care regulations not directly involved with criminal acts.
e) punish frivolous lawsuits.

I'm not going on. That's enough for now.

9) Mitt, the man who just a few days ago said that he wants to 'double Gitmo', can be fairly said to be a warmonger, or at the very least pandering to warmongers and vicious cowards. He is just another interventionist Neocon, urging us to sacrifice our constitutional freedoms for security, only embarrassingly enough, he's LDS. Ok. Hmmm. You didn't justify that at all. What do you think "doubling Gitmo" means? I'm not going to do it, but you go on to cite "trading freedom for security" and "sacrific[ing] our constitutional freedoms"... I'm assuming you mean something other than Gitmo, as you didn't state anything that does that, and I don't see how "doubling Gitmo" is "pandering to warmongers and vicious cowards". You're going to have to clarify what you mean if you want me to address it. Regarding Gitmo, there aren't any American citizens being held there, so they don't have Constitutional freedoms, but I almost feel silly bringing that up as its so patently obvious. So I could use some clarification. Additionally, you can feel embarrassed if you feel so inclined, but don't try to be embarrassed for us all. Some of us don't agree with you.

10) Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck both need to seek the wisdom of Ezra Taft Benson, J. Reuben Clark, and Joseph Smith, instead of Cheney, Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, and rest of the unabashed warmongers at the Project for the New American Century. They're something less than prophets. : Agreed. But honestly, I don't have any reason to suspect they're doing anything contrary to that. Perhaps you missed "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? I guess I'd have to question why you think your moral position is supported by prophets and theirs is not? I'd also have to question why you think Romney and Beck are seeking the wisdom of the "Project for the New American Century"... in short, I don't think you've established any sort of case (or for that matter even lent credence to any) other than ad hominem attacks against them.

Londerosa said...

Whew Toadicus Rex, I don't have your appetite for lists and parsing. Just let me reiterate that it makes a great deal of difference if the bull is charging the red cape offered him, or if he correctly assesses that the matador waving the cape is the real threat. I feel, yes, little me, sans prophecy, armed with only books and the internet, that the Islamic militant threat is being fostered and used by a group who wants us to be overwhelming motivated by our fear of it. I think that you might be dutifully running at the red cape, instead of the matador. Did you happen to notice the information coming out of the White House this week, that Alqaida's #3 is now working for us in Iraq? Ever thought of the possibility that he has always been working for us? No, you're gonna gore that red cape! Fine. The legislation being passed to keep us safe from the threat du jour robs us of our civil rights and I think, yes, sans prophecy, but only with my judgemental little brain, I think, that it will someday be a source of persecution to Christians in general and LDS in particular. Instead of splitting hairs with me you should be haranguing and lecturing your senators about HR 1959 this week, because it will greatly affect your life and the lives of your children. Is that prophecy? No, just a knowledge of history.
So you don't have a problem with Mitt's wanting to double Gitmo? Personally I have a problem with my government doing things that We the People have decided are illegal, and ought not to be done. So I have a real problem with "torture, or not torture", rendition, mystery prisons overseas that don't exist, an apparent lack of oversight, and a run away culture of secrecy in our government that has entirely devoured openness and integrity. America is better than that, or used to be. Also, it's just a matter of time until those abuses, which work soooo well on foreigners, will be used on American citizens. I tend to believe William Blum, no prophet, but a former employee of the State Dept., who said that no matter how paranoid you are, what your government is doing is always worse than what you imagine. With your stated goals regarding the IRS and
Dept. of Education, your government, armed with HR 1959, could declare you to be an homegrown radical, and subject you to life imprisonment or execution without trial. You may not care what happens to non-citizens at Gitmo, but you will when American citizens begin to receive the same treatment. Prophecy? No, history. Naomi Wolf has a great talk on this subject, Toadicus. Google her.
Am I being judgemental by feeling that Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck are doing some warmongering? Well, if they were private citizens living quiet lives, voicing their opinions by voting and writing letters to the Editor, maybe so. But one is running for the highest office in the land, and the other is ponficating for millions to hear. I think that I am entitled to judge whether or not they are correct. In case you missed it, because you don't watch TV, Beck recently had David Horowitz, a former Marxist on. The two of them came to the conclusion that Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians are 'in bed with the Islamofascists', are a threat that should be militarily suppressed, and that there is little difference between the Jihadist websites and those of American Libertarians like Lew Rockwell. Now that is such an outrageous lie, and such a malevolent one, that I feel quite safe in judging Glenn Beck. I'm going to really stick my neck out here and say that he is not on the side of Liberty, no matter how much he protests that he is. And correct me if I'm wrong, but your opinions about the IRS ought to make you part of this obviously dangerous group of malcontents deserving a jackboot to the throat. I judge that I will listen to him no longer, and hold him in low esteem. You and God can spank me for my judgementalism later. Similarly Mitt is offering himself to me and all voters as the supreme leader, and I'm unimpressed by his analysis of the big picture. I think that he is making great show of running at the red cape. Based on his past statements, (Do I really need to list them for you, Toadicus?)I do not find him a man who will "raise the banner of peace", and apply Christlike principles of governance if elected. Judgemental? It's my job as a citizen. You judge that Mitt Romney and President Bush do not perceive a conspiracy, and could not be a part of it. Well, I hope you're right about Romney, but Bush, not a chance. I feel, like Thomas Jefferson, that "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery".
I tend to see a series of dots that can be connected. You don't want to connect them, Toadicus, fine....

Toadicus Rex said...

No offense, Londerosa, but your statement of "I don't have your appetite for lists and parsing" appears tantamout to "I'm not going to address what you said." I answer you, and you don't respond, and instead try to divert my attention to something else.

I can appreciate the matador metaphor... but you're going to have to give me a link to Al Qaida's #3 working for us in Iraq. Hadn't heard that, can't seem to google it either. You'd think that would be on the major news sites, particularly the Drudge Report, but it isn't, so I'm a little surprised.

Next, can I request that you stop leaping to conclusions about where I stand on such bills as S.1959 (note that it's a Senate bill, not a House of Representatives bill). I don't agree with the bill, and nothing I have said would contradict that feeling. If you're going to say something like that, at least provide some support. I don't like ad hominem attacks, and I don't appreciate the condescension.

As far as Gitmo, I guess we have a simple solution. Let's just execute the prisoners. Since we can do nothing else with them, we might as well just do that, right? It's not like they can be returned to attack us again.

Whether or not Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney are quiet private citizens or national elected public figures is irrelevant. You have a god-given right to judge whether or not they are correct. That's fine, and you can even voice your opinions.

That said, I am allowed also to have my opinions. Interestingly enough, I find it absurd that Doug can suggest in another posting that he could arguably vote for Obama! I'd like to understand how the Libertarians did decide to argue the same talking points as Liberals... it's incredibly odd and sickening to me. And I don't have any desire to spank you, thanks.

I do not see in the scriptures where Christ exclusively "raises the banner of peace." Specifically,

1. John 2:15 : And when he [Christ] had made a ascourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables

2. Alma 46 and following, summarized: The Title of Liberty was a rallying point for war, not peace.

3. Alma 51:20 : And the remainder of those dissenters, rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the atitle of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country.

4. Joshua (pretty much all of it, and others) : God basically tells the Israelites to walk in and destroy everything, man, woman, and child.

My point in saying this is to point out that your suggestion that Christlike principles of governance only involve peace is fallacious. So any argument based on that has a false premise. I won't go further into that, as you don't.

Also, as far as my apparent judgment that Mitt and President Bush a) don't percieve and b) couldn't be a part of a conspiracy is completely unsupported by anything I said. I've never said that Mitt and President Bush are or are not aware of a conspiracy, nor have I insinuated that they "could not" belong to one. It is possible, but it is my opinion that they do not. If you're going to state my opinion for me, please do so faithfully.

Further, I don't see a "series of oppressions, pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, [which] too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery". I'm asking you to point out the dots. If you point out the dots, I may agree with you. But so far you're only spouting unsupported rhetoric, and I can't base any judgment on that. If you have knowledge that I do not on the subject, enlighten me.

But regardless, please stop insulting my intelligence. I haven't insulted yours.

Londerosa said...

Young Toadicus, Toadicus, Toadicus! You don't even want to know what I think. As I said, I have no patience with parsing and hairsplitting. Just watch this video and think about what you see happening around you. Maybe you will then see some dots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

Toadicus Rex said...

Alright. I almost chose not to respond to that last post. I don't think you know my age. In fact, I'm pretty certain of it, since I don't know you and I haven't made that public. Please stop trying to characterize me in one way or another in order to give some bizarre sense of validity to your unsupported statements.

Now, let's consider the rest. "Naomi Wolf". Well, that says quite a bit for me. Consider the source. But I'll go ahead and address some anyway.

There are a number of problems with her arguments. In fact, a ridiculous number of problems - but here are a few.

1) She establishes a "blueprint". Then she finds evidence that matches her blueprint. Therefore she's right. Umm... am I the only one scratching my head? I reject the idea that her blueprint naturally generates a dictator. Good heavens, that was a stretch. And yeah, I listened to the whole thing.

2) What did the Jews do to make this "pretend enemy" before WWII? Did I miss something, or are the World Trade Center towers still down? There's a difference between a real and proven threat and an imagined one.

3) She got on "the list". She's campaigning for the impeachment of the president, and is associated with environmental groups - which she apparently sees as innocuous but have carried out numerous terrorist attacks against American corporations for their "mission for the environment". Let's be blunt, I'd be checking her out too. There's reason for it, and I'm not surprised she doesn't like it.

Let me state this. Your own blog says you are a Republican, but you're listening intently to someone who was part of one of the campaigns for one of the most corrupt politicians in American history, if not the most corrupt. So I'm not sure what to make of it. She's intelligent, but this is a woman who would have us search little old grandmas in an airport on random searches rather than those most likely to cause problems. I just find it amazing that you're using her arguments as justification for voting for Ron Paul? Do you not see a little strangeness there? Do you think Ron Paul would buy off on her arguments?

I'm not responding to unsubstantiated arguments anymore, and quoting Naomi Wolf, Al Gore, Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and other prominent liberals as though they are somehow magically experts and not politically motivated doesn't cut it.

If you want to substantiate something on your own, fine. But this is getting ridiculous. You make a statement, I address it, you say you aren't going to address what I said, and you say something else. I address it, you say you aren't going to address it and then attempt to qualify your arguments with this? Pepper all of that with a consistent condescension (like calling me "Young Toadicus")... what are you playing at?

Toadicus Rex said...

One last thing. It's not "Parsing and Hairsplitting". It's called a relentless search for the truth... and you are the one that sounded the clarion call for that, right?

If an argument is false, you can't just go off some gut feeling, you have to identify the point of failure; or you may find there are none - at which point you assess your own position to determine if you are incorrect. I'm not trying to be condescending here, but I'm going to use this and need to establish my groundwork.

In any investigation, burden of proof is on the party prosecuting a position. You've postulated your position, and I've asked for your evidence. If you want me to take your position seriously, please provide it, don't merely post partisan political arguments gleaned from prominent liberals.

In the meantime, might I suggest something? I believe (and this is wholly my belief) that your habit of not "parsing and hairsplitting" (I call this serious study and analysis) has led you to some positions that may appear to be valid but have little in the way of substance. I read your current blog article. You have quoted a number of people in a way that appears to support your position, but one is left scratching their head at the end; you mix political pundit and philosopher without regard or acknowledgment of their own personal positions. It doesn't provide a particularly clear picture.

You might also consider the books "The Naked Communist" and "The Naked Capitalist" by Dr. Cleon Skousen, both of which are phenomenal.

Also, please pay no attention to my dis-proportionate pattern of prosaic alliteration. :)

Doug said...

Toadicus,

I for one, don't think it is justified to imply that anybody who has come to different conclusions than you is certainly less committed to ultimate truth than yourself. :] But maybe you didn't mean to imply that.

I think that Londerosa's concerns have more substance than you've currently encountered. Specifically the concerns about the denigrations of civil liberties by the executive branch. And the less-than-acceptable end-games of the types of people that have been advising leaders like Bush and Romney.

You might personally have great trust in our current leaders and institutions. I don't fault you for that. Chief Justice Robertson spoke on BYU campus recently and noted that the constitutionally enumerated powers of the executive branch are even as strong as they are, in part, because the framers could picture George Washington - specifically - exercising such power appropriately (and it was all but decided that he would be the first executive). But, even then, they were extraordinarily careful not to ascribe many powers that they would have liked to give an executive like Washington because of the full knowledge that you couldn't be sure who would end up in that seat. In the framers debates some good men advocated a king but in the end (as in Mosiah 29) prudence [and inspiration, I believe] dictated against it.

Those like Cofer Black (CIA, Blackwater, Romney's foreign pol advisor), Norman Podhoretz (WSJ pundit "praying" that we bomb Iran *before* diplomacy can intercede, Giuliani's foreign policy advisor), and the large group of PNAC advisors in Bush's cabinet might be totally sincere in their commitment to a strong America. But - the more PNAC documents, Podhoretz writings, etc. I read - I find that their idea of what the American Empire should be and my idea of what the Republic of the United States should be differs in quite a number of fundamentals.

Toadicus Rex said...

Doug, I'm surprised at you. I certainly didn't imply that at all, much less mean to imply that anyone who disagrees with me isn't seeking truth. Londerosa has stated several times that she doesn't want to "parse or split hairs". I made the comment that it was tantamount to ignoring what I said and changing the subject.

And no, I don't see them as having more substance than anything I've seen. My frustration with them is simply that even if I respond, she's unlikely to justify anything.

Since we're playing the "denigrations of civil liberties" game now... exactly what civil liberties have you been stripped of?

Regarding Cofer Black, Norman Podhoretz and others... every person has a different perspective. That's what elections are for, and I applaud your determination to make your voice heard and be involved in the political arena. You and I see eye to eye on many things, not everything certainly, but on enough that we generally agree. Isn't that the whole concept? These guys won't be in the Presidential cabinet next presidency (at least most likely), and we'll get a whole new set of perspectives, some right, some wrong. Fact is that I do not see the conspiracies that are being alluded to; I see conspiracies.... but I don't think Bush is a part of them, at least not knowingly.