Romney DistortsBlasts Hillary
Ami Eden reports for The Jewish Daily Forward that Mitt Romney issued a statement “blasting Hillary Clinton’s call at a recent AIPAC meeting for engagement with Iran.” From that statement:
“In a speech two days ago in New York City, Senator Hillary Clinton said that she needs to quote ‘understand’ unquote Iran better – and we need to quote ‘engage Iran’ unquote. She argued that our strategy of engagement with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was a model for how we could deal with Iran.
“I believe this strategy to be a mistake, and yesterday, to a group of fellow conservatives, I said as much. Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.
“Instead of responding to my policy criticisms, Senator Clinton has chosen to attack me personally. Let’s take a step back and consider the broader and more pressing issue at hand – Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas and the threat they pose to us, Israel, and the civilized world…
“Against the backdrop of last summer’s war, I was especially stunned to learn that Senator Clinton is now advocating for better ‘understanding’ of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas. Rather than attacking me, why doesn’t she join me in calling for a policy that puts even more pressure – not less – against these adversaries?”
Ami writes at Forward that ‘would be fair to the describe the release as a cheap shot, in so far as it misrepresents Clinton’s argument that engagement would help the United States better understand the regime in Tehran. She was not saying “If we just understand each other better, then we can all just get along.â€?’
What is it that Hillary Clinton, then, said?
“If we are having to pursue potential action against Iran, then I want to know more about the adversary that we face,� Clinton said. � I want to understand better what the leverage we can bring to bear on them will actually produce. I want to get a better sense of what the real power centers and influentials are, and I also want to send a message, if we ever do have to take more drastic actions, to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities.�
Ami’s article at Forward is quite right. I have to say that it is quite sad that two people, who have a fair shot at becoming America’s next president, misrepresent each other’s words like this (in this case the ‘guilty one’ seems to be Romney). Why is it sad? Because they are not truly addressing each other’s views, they are not really addressing the other’s arguments. They (I write ‘they’ because this is not limited to Romney: this happens every day in politics… sadly) distort the opinion of the opponent, they completely invent an opinion, then present their own opinion which is the opposite of the invented opinion and go on to explain why the invented view – which they describe to their opponent – is wrong / not wise.
There is – of course – a difference of opinion between Romney and Clinton. As Ami explains: “He opposes talks with Tehran, she’s in favor of them.”
Does she say that they will get along mighty fine if they talk? No. She referred to “(drastic) action” which, I presume, doesn’t refer to buying Khamenei and Ahmadinejad ice cream.
Does Hillary Clinton have a point? Yes.
Does Romney have a point? Yes.
The problem? What Hillary Clinton said really isn’t that debatable. It’s not a very controversial remark, except for that she doesn’t seem to rule out using force, but that is – of course – not a point on which Romney will differ with her.
So, what does one do if one wants to appeal to the conservative base who hates Hillary Clinton? Distort whatever she says and act tough.
26 Responses to “Romney DistortsBlasts Hillary”
It will be interesting to see if anyone has equal vigilance in calling out the inevitable distortions that come FROM Democrats TOWARDS Republicans in the upcoming election season.
Prediction: There will be no similar vigilance.
Romney DistortsBlasts Hillary…
…
Jason, are you saying that I favor Democrats above Republicans? That I will ignore stuff like this if committed by a Democrat?
I am not anti-Romney. I just believe that we should call anyone out who distorts.
If a Democrat distorts something a Republican said, I will write a post quite similar to this one.
Now, how about the actual post? About what Romney did? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Well that’s politics for you. Instead of a discussion on policy that could reveal different potential strategies for achieving the same goals, we have the national equivalent of a Kindergarten squabble. God forbid we feel anything but disgusted at the end of the campaign.
I do blame the politicians and they’re jackals political operatives for this, but not just them. The American voter, with an attention span for anything but American Idol of 30 seconds, has helped. If people cried out against these dirty tricks (on either side), if it was known that using distortions and lies would lose you more respect than a picture of you coming out posing with a stripper in college, if people took the time to inform themselves, if only with the wikipedia, instead of basing their decisions on the ads and how their parents voted, then maybe it’d stop happening.
hmmm jackals was supposed to be crossed out. Ah well, I’ll never get the hang of this.
MvdG–
I love this! Thank you! Keep it up! And let rip on all candidates!
Jason–
Won’t you be available to monitor the statements of Democratic candidates?
Michael, thanks for the post, as such media (including the blogosphere) truth-squadding represents what little hope we have for honest debate in the coming election cycle.
Romney is, of course, just trying to shore up his standing with a Republican base skepticle of whether his stance on their hot button issues is sincere or opportunistic.
And Jason, while I’ve no doubt some Democrats have resorted to using such straw man arguments (and would appreciate if you’d care to post some examples) still, when their most famous practitioner is President of the United States, you can understand when it garners rather extensive press coverage.
I had the opportunity to listen to Mitt Romney when he stopped by New Hampshire last Thursday to give a talk about health care.
It was actually a pretty good talk, but throughout the entire talk, I couldn’t help but remind myself what Romney said back on September 1, 2004 before the Republican National Convention:
Romney never specified who exactly this “Blame America First” crowd was, but given that it was in the context of praising Bush for his leadership in prosecuting the War on Terrorism, one has to assume that his words were directed towards those of us who have been critical of Bush’s foreign policy.
If Romney truly feels that speaking out against our government is “Blaming America”, then he’s lost more than my vote. He’s lost any ounce of respect that I might have had for him.
I don’t know what you personally will or will not do, Michael. Your politics is distinctively European and thus hard to classify in American political terms.
My prediction was larger in scope — I believe the majority of posters and commenters around here lately are strongly left-leaning and, more to the point, that the most prolific among them are willing and even eager to lavish their attention on anything that can be perceived as bad about conservatives/Republicans while granting a pass (or even a vicious defense) to any liberals/Democrats that might be doing things that are similar or even worse. Witness for example the hatred heaped on Marc for having dared to criticize George Soros.
So maybe there is nothing to see here, Michael, or at least little that has directly to do with you. My comment was mostly provoked by continuing frustration over the general political atmosphere where moderate politics is almost impossible because of all the far-left haters.
Jason,
Actually, what will really be interesting to see is if the media has gumption to point out that liberals and moderates and paleoconservatives and Independents and Libertarians and Greens overwhelmingly oppose going to war with Iran–a war which a number of people in AIPAC support.
Senator Clinton spoke to AIPAC, and being the panderer that she is, played up the threat of Iran and how the United States would go to any lengths to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But as hawkish as Senator Clinton was, it wasn’t enough to placate the members of AIPAC. Nor was it enough to placate Romney, who seems determined to outhawk Senator Clinton on the issue of Iran.
nicrivera,
Actually, what I find really interesting is to observe how many people are willing to let an fascist genocidal maniac run completely unchecked as long as it means that they still get to bash Bush.
The priorities that some people have boggle the mind.
By the way, I oppose a war with Iran at this time, but I do NOT oppose taking a strong line against the threat posted by Iran. The administration’s actual policy towards Iran so far (distinct from the distorted version of that policy that BDS carriers inaccurately attribute to the administration) has been mostly pretty good. I’d like to see some negotiation and a little less of the empty saber-rattling, but I have no problem at all with drawing some clear lines in the sand and sticking by those lines.
Unlike BDS’ers, I don’t think Bush losing is an end in itself and I don’t think that all costs are justified just to avoid granting the administration a concession in the foreign policy argument.
Jason, the fact that someone doesn’t think Bush’s strategy on Iran (if he has one, something that’s not clear to me) is the right one, doesn’t instantly mean that they’d rather have him go on “unchecked”. Many people may think Bush’s strategy is utterly ineffective, and you may think other strategies are utterly ineffective, but implying that anyone is mean spirited enough to hope things get worse with Iran for the sake of insulting Bush seems slanderous to me. That’d be like hoping the mission in Bosnia failed so you could bash Clinton, or being happy when American soldiers die in Iraq because it affirms that going there was a mistake (and I’ve seen republican pundits make such accusations, but only the more extreme ones).
Such implications lower discourse, no matter who they come from, and, just like Romney’s distortion, makes politics less about policy, and more about name calling.
If and when (and it’ll happen, I’ve no doubt) Romney’s Mormon faith comes into play, doubtlessly in a highly disrespectful manner, I expect this blog to cry out about it. I think Bush is an idiot, and a closed-minded one at that, but I hope to God he can hold it together until ’08. I don’t need any more Iraq’s or Katrina’s to reinforce my opinions, I’d just as well everything go A-OK until he’s gone.
You can be sure that, indeed, we will “cry out about it” if, or perhaps better, when that happens.
Jason: I am a Dutch conservative which makes me less conservative than American conservatives are, but I do have more in common with right of center in america, than with left of center.
An example, you list six subjects on which you disagree with conservatives:
I agree with 3-4.
My point?
I’m independent and I call people out as I see it. When I call out Republicans people get angry, when i call out democrats other people get angry.
Jason,
It’s comments like that that make me so frustrated.
NO ONE in congress–Republican or Democrat has been more outspoken against this war than Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. He has stood before the members of the House to criticize this war on numerous occasions. He has been an outspoken critic of both George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s foreign policies with regards to Iraq.
The Libertarian Party has been more outspoken against this war than either the Republicans or the Democrats.
The Green Party has been more outspoken against this war than either the Republicans or the Democrats.
The 2004 presidential candidates for the Libertarian and Green parties gave numerous speeches in which they passionately and articulately condemned the war. But the Republicans and Democrats wouldn’t even debate them. In fact, when the Libertarian and Green presidential candidates showed up at the Presidential debates to peacefully protest their non-inclusion, they were ARRESTED!
So much for freedom of speech!
When you accuse those of us who oppose the war for opposing the war for no other reason than to “bash Bush”, you sound incredibly foolish and incredibly partisan.
Thousands of American lives lost. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost. Hundreds of billions of dollars lost.
But you, opposition to the war was all about “bashing Bush.”
Incredible.
I do not think that all opponents of the Iraq war are only doing so to bash Bush. I do think that Bush-bashing is a major reason for some opponents of the Iraq war. I think the difference can be told by a simple test — when people who once supported a “troop surge” suddenly oppose it when Bush proposes it, I conclude that BDS is the probable explanation.
In regards to Iran, when I read articles saying that “Bush’s war on Iran” is looming, I conclude that the only thing about Iran that they think it important is whether Bush will start another war. They usually don’t even bother to discuss the actual problems with Iran, they ONLY discuss it in context with the name “Bush”. From that, I conclude that BDS is what is really in play and that the authors of such articles aren’t interested in dealing with any other issues, no matter how serious. They really ARE willing to prefer Islamofascism over GWB.
“…what I find really interesting is to observe how many people are willing to let an fascist genocidal maniac run completely unchecked as long as it means that they still get to bash Bush.”
Whoa!
This argument is of the ‘abetting the enemy” ilk used by such as Cheney- basely intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
Everyone, Left, Right and Center, would like to see Iran checked in its tracks. The debate is, rather, about how best to do that.
Pushing the ‘military option’ in public statemtnts, to my way of thinking, is just baiting Iran to become more hardened in its postitions. We can keep that option open more quietly, much more quietly. As I’ve said before, diplomacy is as much about tone as content.
Pressuring Iran is, equally, a very delicate dance. Too little pressure, and we lose leverage. But too much pressure, and we risk producing countermeasures by Iran.
In the meantime, as tensions rise, we are at increasing risk of a rash decision, with potentially horrendous consequences. What we really need are some cool heads to step back and assess this dangerous situation in realistic terms
Lack of knowledge about Iraqis was a definite impediment to any kind of success there. If we are to engage with Iran in any way at all, we definitely need to understand it better. Knowledgeable pundits keep refererring to Iran as a Persian country, but Persians are not a clear majority (I’ve heard estimates as low as 40%). Small bits of information like that can have an enormous impact on trying to gauge possible outcomes.
The ‘no talking’ approach to negotiations, I find to be a dead end approach. Essentially, you’re asking the enemy to publicly admit defeat before the negotiations begin. Diplomacy requires a face saving measure for the capitulaing side to tout to its constituents.
Also, negotiations do not constitute appeasement. Like Baker pointed out, at the very least, failure would dramatically showcase Iran’s recalcitrance. As it is, we are the reclacitrant ones, and will forever be blamed for not trying out this road, if the worst happens, and there is a military confontration.
While trying to isolate Iran, we have been pretty good at isolating ourselves. We can not survive alone. We need allies.
Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy.
So sorry –
this was meant for the Bush bashing comments re war policies.
Double sorry -
I am in the right place, after all.
Early altheimers, you know.
Critising failed policy means support of OBL – BS:-(.
It might be in that category IF I were applying it to ALL critics of administration policy. I am not. I am ONLY applying it to that segment that want ONLY to talk about how Bush is supposedly exaggerating the threat or just looking for an excuse to start another war. If you think these people don’t exist, check out Alternet or Democratic Underground or DailyKos or, if you don’t want to travel, this post by a TMV contributor who claims explicitly that Bush is more dangerous than Iran.
So, unfortunately, it is not true that everyone, left, right and center, actually only disagrees over how best to stop Iran. There exists a substantial contingient that ONLY wants to think about how to stop BUSH and is willing to let the Iran threat run unchecked until stopping Bush is accomplished first.
Perhaps you should have read my other posts before assuming that I only prefer the military option. My previous post, made only a couple of weeks ago, can be found here.
Never said that. Explicitly corrected that misrepresentation twice now. You guys really need to come up with more creative lies if you insist on using lies to avoid engaging the actual argument.
I agree about the distortion by Romney, at least from the information presented. I’m curious to read more of Hillary’s statement though and also curious about Romney’s remark that Hillary was attacking him personally instead of debating the issue. Does anyone have a source of full transcript of her speech or of the remarks directed at Romney?
Yes C.S. I was looking for that as well, that she attacked him personally. Can you find something on that?
No, MvdG, that’s why I asked
It leaves me wondering, did she actually ‘attack’ or did she criticize him for attacking her by distorting her position. And, I wonder if there was any other part of her speech that justified his statement of her position at all (did she, for example, sound hopeful that direct negotiations would lead to a resolution without having to go to war- this would be at least a bit closer to deserving the characterization of her position by Romney, that she favors taking some pressure off of Iran by agreeing to direct negotiations.)
Well lest she was sleeping in class we were pretty much buffaloed by The USSR for the better part of 50 years and hardly had a grasp of who was really in charge.
What understanding we had of the USSR came thru an elaborate CIA network that worked in conjunction with the NATO countries and spy sattelites and NSA wire taps…….gasp….working to understand the advesary that amassed thousands of tanks along the border straining to be released against us.
SHE wants to understand IRAN by……..???? Having a few fireside chats?
Sorry but when you really analyze these two positions I have to go with Mitts. Unless we have a massive spy agency…..they are not going to say okay here is all our inner secrets Hillary, just because we like you so much and you want to get to know us.
Sorry Hillary but once again your total lack of experience frightens me.