I was just about to post along those same lines. What, nothing on the return to Bush’s war policies and how irresponsible they were then, and would be again, as outlined in the quoted piece from The American Conservative?
You mis-typed. That should read “half as effective” and “twice the price.”
Obama’s somewhat muted, but not silent, response was probably the best thing. As he noted at the time, he didn’t want the U.S. to become the issue inside Iran. In other words, he knew that he had to walk a line of being supportive while not giving the Iranian government a pretext for claiming that the U.S. was behind the protests.
You have to remember that the U.S. is not exactly the most popular country in Iran, given our past history there…And, one of the best ways for the government in Iran to rally people to their side is by making any sort of not-completely-implausible claim that the U.S. is somehow behind their opposition.
Such subtleties are clearly lost on Mitt Romney who has shown quite a bit of “skill” in diplomacy on his overseas comedy tour a few months ago. (Oh, you mean it wasn’t meant to be a comedy tour? My bad.)
I should hope so; American support would be pure political poison to any faction in Iranian politics.
No…My magical mystery gun is actually more effective, because I ain’t gonna tell anybody how it works and that way it will be less prone to simple countermeasures as the missile defense that we were working on!
Power, yes, but he was talking about size. And he very specifically qualified that as equating the number of ships: " The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines."
Have any cite that they were completely renegotiated? Here’s one that says otherwise:
I totally agree. But agreeing that silence was the best position does not make it a lie if some one says we are silent. :dubious:
Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is? We’re going to magically shit out 15 new ships a year? For how long - his entire 4-year term? That’s 60 new ships, over a 20% increase. Madness.
Hell, I could even point out that the initial claim isn’t right. The current Navy has 285 ships. It was as low as 278 in 2007, according to the Navy’s own website: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm#2000
How come candidates can keep getting away with statements that are objectively and factually wrong?
What could be done to stop them from out right lies?
Vote for the other guy (or, more likely, the guy that you feel lies less often and less egregiously)?
I liked the end of the speech where he declares, “The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror and war and economic calamity. It’s our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom and peace and prosperity.”
Terror and war and economic calamity? Aren’t those some of the reasons many Americans voted for Barack Obama in the first place? Why is Mitt Romney reminding voters of George W. Bush?
Can’t something more than that be done? I want to be able to vote for the guy that has the best policies. for the best reasons - I don’t want to be have to be fact checking everything he says.
Spin a bit, fine - but outright lies should be stopped in their tracks.
“Stopped” how? Candidates can say whatever they want, the media has the duty to inform the populace re: the facts, and the voters have the job of deciding who is full of how much shit and voting accordingly.
It’s perhaps not a perfect system, but it’s better than any alternative I can think of.
I also can’t think of a better system - but I would love to see some sort of “truth ray” being applied to lying politicians - when they say stuff that is objectively, factually wrong they should suffer some sort of repercussion beyond the media calling them out.
Philosophy and interpretation is one thing, but example, saying that the navy is smaller now than at anytime since 1916 which is just flat out wrong, he should have to offer an official apology or something.
and who decided there were insufficient ships to fulfil missions? Or is he projecting future missions which’ll be engaged in during his presidency?
Kaplan from Slate gave this example:
What’s next? “Under President Obama, we have fewer muskets than at any time since the Revolutionary War!” “Our cannonball stockpiles have dwindled to post Civil War lows!” “We cannot afford to ignore the threats coming from East Germany!” “I propose a Strategic Sailcloth Initiative!”
Exactly, “Total number of ships” might allow the British to claim the largest navy ever… at least during the Dunkirk evacuation. 
What do you expect when – for a relatively foreign policy inexperienced Romney – he surrounds himself with a team of major neocons from Bush era (and before) including Dov Zakheim the guy who was able to create a synergy of being CEO of US Defense major weaponry computers systems contractor, consultant for Office of the Secretary of Defense, Bush Jr. foreign policy advisor and who even became Bush Jr. a Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in 2001.
All the necessary ingredients for a behind the scenes war monger with solid financial interest and ideological bent to boot.
Like Mitt wrote any of that :rolleyes:
I have to agree with Mitt here. Instead of Obama’s cautious, thoughtful response, I want Mitt’s immediate jingoistic reactions, carried out with the full force of the American military, to define American foreign policy responses. Certain to help us win friends across the globe!