« Hillary Leads From the Front | Main | You Go, Girlfriend! »

October 16, 2012

If Romney Had Said This, He'd Be A Lying Liar (Who Lies!)

Fortunately, since it was only the Vice President of the United States, the media will be along any second now to tell us what Joe really meant to say:

Despite statements by Vice President Joe Biden, the State Department is about to begin formal negotiations over the extension of U.S. troops past 2014, a top State Department official said Tuesday.

Last week, U.S. and Afghan negotiators met in Kabul to talk about the Bilateral Security Agreement that will govern the extension of U.S. troops past 2014, when President Barack Obama said the combat mission in Afghanistan will end and the U.S. will complete the transition of the entire country to Afghan government control.

Also last week, Biden told Americans during his Oct. 11 debate with Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan that U.S. troops were leaving Afghanistan by 2014.

"We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion," Biden said. "We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's."

Well alright-y, then. Glad we got that cleared up. But that wasn't the only untrue assertion made by Vice President. Peter Feaver explains:

The Obama administration has a civil-military problem and, I have reason to believe, they know it. Significant portions of the military believe the administration abandoned them on Iraq, sent them unsupported into battle in Afghanistan hampered by a politically driven timeline, and is jeopardizing national security with unsustainably deep cuts in military spending.

If Obama wins a second term, he and his national security team will have a lot of remedial work to do to repair relations with the military.

I think Vice President Biden made that job even more difficult with his remarkable comments in each of those areas in the VP debate.

On Iraq, Biden criticized Romney-Ryan for recommending that we have a 30,000 stay-behind force in Iraq. When Ryan pointed out that the Obama administration had actually been trying to negotiate a stay-behind force, Biden just smiled mockingly at him, as if Ryan were talking nonsense.

But Ryan was not talking nonsense. The official position of the Obama administration until late in 2011 was that they were seeking a Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) to permit a stay-behind force in Iraq. The exact size was in doubt, but the 30,000 figure was what the military wanted and the White House supported the concept, if not the exact number. The Obama administration wanted this for the very same reason the Bush administration wanted it: It was the best way to solidify the gains of the Iraq surge and to build a stable partnership with Iraq.

Biden knows all of this because he was leading the effort to negotiate the SOFA. Was Biden's mocking smile saying something else, perhaps that Obama was never seriously committed to negotiating a successful SOFA? Was Obama's decision to delegate this task to Biden a sign of how committed Obama was to it? Or how uncommitted he was? Was Biden's guarantee that he would get the SOFA just idle bragging from someone assigned a trivial task?

The U.S. military leadership believed they accomplished something significant in the Iraq surge, and they believed that the Obama administration wanted to get them a SOFA that would help secure those accomplishments. Did Biden tell them otherwise in the debate last night? Or did Biden, as Ryan pointedly asked, simply fail at his SOFA assignment, in which case the mocking laughter is beyond inappropriate?

On Afghanistan, Biden's comments were even more troubling. Let's set aside the extraordinary "mission accomplished" boast, a remarkable thing to say when American men and women continue to risk their lives under very dire circumstances in theater. Biden got away with it, and neither Ryan nor the hapless Martha Raddatz called him out on it.

Where things really got dicey was when, in response to the charge that the Afghan surge withdrawal timeline was driven by political considerations, Biden tried to hide behind the military. Raddatz pressed him on the complaints she is hearing -- we all are hearing -- but Biden dismissed it as nonsense. He pretended that the withdrawal timeline was proposed by the Joint Chiefs rather than imposed by the White House.

That is not true. The Joint Chiefs and the Afghan combatant commander did go along with the White House order, but they proposed a slower, conditions-based timeline and they certainly did not want it announced at the outset.

Not to worry, however. We can rely on our friends at the NY Times to warn us of the really pressing dangers. Like the strong possibility that, if sElected, Mitt Romney will parse the Constitution and discover a heretofore undetected penumbral Article One power that allows womyn-hating Republican presidents to single-handedly reverse Supreme Court decisions. And then he'll snatch your birth control pills and outlaw woman-on-top sex.

Al Qaeda? Don't be silly - recent events in Benghazi notwithstanding, that's just fear-mongering:

As part of their ongoing effort to pump up their candidate, David Kirkpatrick of the Times informs us that Al Qaeda is now a story used to scare the gullible. And the partisans, of course.

Did we mention that Mitt Romney wants to chain women to tiny pink EasyBake ovens and force them to bake cupcakes for The Patriarchy? There are serious issues facing the nation.

Try to focus, people.

Posted by Cassandra at October 16, 2012 02:50 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4374

Comments

Hey is Okay if I bake brownies instead? Have to make several Cookies and Cream Brownie batches for my son's Cross Country Carb night tomorrow! LOL.

Seriously, they are trying to make us believe that AlQueada and it's affiliates are not something to be concerned over? And this guy lives in NYC? If so, why do I have to be molested every single time I fly? Me! A 50 YO white blond blue eyed chubby mom of two usually flying with one or both of my kids. Because old arthritic ladies with knee replacements are a clear and present danger? Huh? How about some common sense? If there is no threat (even thought we know that is false) why not return to letting the airlines run the security measures? Why not target the portion of the flying public most likely to commit an act of terrorism using just a little common sense!

Posted by: TexasMom2012 at October 16, 2012 04:28 PM

Years ago (2005 or 2006) I wrote a post about going back into the archives of the NYTimes during the Clinton administration when they were writing horrified articles about what a menace Saddam Hussein was, and how Amnesty International had cited Iraq for human rights violations committed by Al Qaeda in Iraq (you know, the "imaginary" al Qaeda types invented by Der BusHitler to "lie us into war" with his fear-mongering ways)?

It really is comical, the lengths to which these folks will go to rationalize whatever their agenda-du-jour happens to be.

*sigh*

Posted by: Cassandra at October 16, 2012 04:50 PM

...why do I have to be molested every single time I fly? Me! A 50 YO white blond blue eyed chubby mom of two usually flying with one or both of my kids. Because old arthritic ladies with knee replacements are a clear and present danger?

If it makes you feel any better, TSA used to all but strip search my active duty Marine husband when he was flying on official orders :p

Because nothing screams, "terrori.... err...brave, truth-to-powering Freedom Fighter" like a guy in uniform, on official orders, sporting a high and tight haircut.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 16, 2012 04:53 PM

"If it makes you feel any better, TSA used to all but strip search my active duty Marine husband when he was flying on official orders :p"

Because nothing screams, "terrori.... err...brave, truth-to-powering Freedom Fighter" like a guy in uniform, on official orders, sporting a high and tight haircut.

Indeed...Good ole, Janet The System Worked Napolitano sure had his number.
Even though he was still on active duty, 'twas close enough for DHS/TSA work...

Posted by: bthun at October 16, 2012 05:31 PM

"Try to focus, people."

Ummmm......with these " ...he'll snatch your birth control pills and outlaw woman-on-top sex." and "As part of their ongoing effort to pump up their candidate,..." flying thru the post on it's tandem trapeze?
Srsly??

Posted by: Evil Twin at October 16, 2012 06:52 PM

he'll...outlaw woman-on-top sex" and "...part of their ongoing effort to pump up their candidate..."

Might that be because Michelle is a stronger man than he is, and he needs help...pumping...up?

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at October 16, 2012 07:31 PM

The immages you people inspire. Hans und Franz with EZ bake ovens to make strudel for the masses.

Posted by: Carolyn at October 16, 2012 08:08 PM

When women-on-top sex is outlawed, only outlaws will have... Ah. Excuse me.

Someone's breaking down my front door...

Posted by: Hank at October 16, 2012 08:58 PM

You guys are great... Love the humor here! Sorry about your marine corp hubby being harassed. Really it is so wrong yet inline with Nappy's belief that the biggest terrorist threat we face is returning military personal. BS. I am a little more worried about the thousands of rounds of ammo our civilian government has placed on order, WTH? I would not resent the really invasive pat downs if people with Korans or from ME countries had to experience the same level of harassment that I, who can trace my linage to New Freakin Amsterdam, has to submit to! Nuff said!!!!!

Posted by: TexasMom2012 at October 17, 2012 12:25 AM

I am a little more worried about the thousands of rounds of ammo our civilian government has placed on order, WTH?

Well, If you have armed agents, you need practice ammo. Using what budget you have available to stockpile for expected shortages due to sequestration is just good planning.

That said, why the Department of Education needs armed agents at all is the more troubling question.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 18, 2012 11:36 AM

"That said, why the Department of Education needs armed agents at all is the more troubling question."

And the IRS needs tactial shotguns....why?
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at October 18, 2012 12:32 PM

Because, protests about wanting to pay higher tax rates to the contrary, they'll never take Warren Buffet alive?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 18, 2012 12:36 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)