Senator Kerry Blasts Mitt Romney on WaPo op-ed denouncing START

[flpoljunkie]

Going Nuclear: Romney vs. Obama (and Kerry)
Posted by MICHAEL CROWLEY Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Yesterday Mitt Romney blasted Barack Obama via a Washington Post op-ed denouncing Obama's nuclear Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia as the president's "worst foreign policy mistake yet." Romney complains that the Russians "badly out-negotiated" Obama and came out with a decided strategic advantage in the treaty, including the power to walk away from the treaty if the U.S. presses too far ahead with missile defense systems. Today, John Kerry, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, hit back at Romney (also in the Post), calling his argument "baloney," and tossing in some tart insults:

I have nothing against Massachusetts politicians running for president. But the world's most important elected office carries responsibilities, including the duty to check your facts even if you're in a footrace to the right against Sarah Palin. More than that, you need to understand that when it comes to nuclear danger, the nation's security is more important than scoring cheap political points.

On the substance, the NYT's Peter Baker fact-checked Romney yesterday, and Slate's Fred Kaplan tore him apart today. But ultimately I find Romney's op-ed more interesting as a political document. (It's not clear that START has major strategic implications--both the U.S. and Russia will maintain apocalyptic nuclear arsenals, after all--beyond helping to thaw relations between Washington and Moscow.) To wit: As a former business executive, Romney has shown little past interest in arms negotiations. But that's true of nearly all the most-often discussed 2012 Republican presidential possibles: Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, John Thune and Tim Pawlenty. (To be fair, Palin does talk about national security; but no one would call her an expert.) Hence Romney's piece feels like an effort to play national security wonk and elevate himself above a field of domestically-oriented figures. Max Bergmann of the Obama-friendly Center for American Progress says it well:

From a political perspective Romney is severely compromised with the Republican base for his past liberal positions on domestic and social policy issues (pro-choice, health care reform, etc). But one area where he is a blank slate is on foreign policy. And Romney has made a concerted effort to fully embrace the Heritage Foundation's national security positions.

more...

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/07/going-nuclear-romney-vs-obama-and-kerry/

[flpoljunkie]

1. Slate's Fred Kaplan's article: Wrong Headed Romney

Wrong-Headed Romney
Mitt Romney's dumb critique of Obama's New START nuke treaty.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, July 7, 2010,

In 35 years of following debates over nuclear arms control, I have never seen anything quite as shabby, misleading and—let's not mince words—thoroughly ignorant as Mitt Romney's attack on the New START treaty in the July 6 Washington Post.

Senate Republicans are looking for some grounds—any grounds—to defeat this treaty, which was signed in April by President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev, and which will soon come to the Senate floor for a vote.

Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, clearly feels the need to pump up some foreign-policy swagger in advance of the 2012 presidential primaries. But one would think he could have found a ghostwriter who had even the vaguest acquaintance with the subject matter.

Let's take his rant—critique is too serious a word—line by line.

more...

http://www.slate.com/id/2259779/

[MBS]

2. Thanks for this. I loved Sen. Kerry's comment

(your italicized sentence)-- bingo!!

[Wednesdays]

3. And Russia is an enemy...why?

:shrug:
I thought communism bit the dust there, like, 19 years ago?

[Bitwit1234]

4. I have one thing to say

If republicans were so wonderful on foreign policy why were we in two wars in the Middle East.