Article image
Robert Scheer
Truthdig / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 28 October 2012
“Bush and his neocon coterie recognized the glaring irrelevance of the Cold War era arsenal in the fight against terrorism, and that is why they invaded Iraq instead of focusing on al-Qaida and its supporters in Afghanistan.”

Romney’s Cold War Ponzi Scheme

Article image

Poor President Obama, as Colin Powell pointed out in endorsing him Thursday, clearly holds what should be a winning hand in the war-on-terror game, and yet Mitt Romney and his neocon speechwriters won’t cut him any slack. Suddenly it’s not Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida that matter, but rather the military threat from Red China that is killing us with slick iPhones and cheap solar panels. 

Throw in some good old Russia baiting, and if Romney has his way, the military-industrial complex will get its beloved Cold War back despite the fact that the communist threat is now one of conquering space on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Obama, the naive community organizer, thinks the foreign policy debate is about national security, but Romney, the quintessential vulture capitalist, knows that it’s always been about maximizing profit. 

That is the problem with the war on terror that Obama inherited from George W. Bush but has successfully reissued as his own product line; it’s got all the patriotic bells and whistles, but as a profit center, it sucks. You just can’t logically justify spending trillions of dollars on building ever more sophisticated weapons to defeat a 9/11 style enemy equipped with weapons that can be purchased at Home Depot for a couple of hundred bucks. Another $2 billion nuclear sub, in addition to the two we already turn out every year, isn’t very useful in hunting down potential hijackers based in some desert outpost or even in an apartment in Hamburg, Germany. 

Bush and his neocon coterie recognized the glaring irrelevance of the Cold War era arsenal in the fight against terrorism, and that is why they invaded Iraq instead of focusing on al-Qaida and its supporters in Afghanistan. As Donald Rumsfeld put it, “there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are a lot of good targets in Iraq,” meaning that we could pretend it was the Normandy landing all over again and count on an embedded media to mindlessly celebrate rolling out the mothballed war toys. There had to be another use for B-2 stealth bombers other than flying over the Super Bowl.

Saddam Hussein at least had a recognizable army and something of an air force, but even so, Bush had to invent a WMD scare to justify a hot war that would be a post Cold War bonanza for defense contractors lobbying for even more outlandish military deals. Iran now serves a similar purpose, even though the increased regional influence of the ayatollahs that Romney wildly inflates is a result of our putting Shiite political refugees, formerly living in protected exile in Iran, into power in Iraq.

But, as earlier with Iraq, the threat from Iran is a poor excuse for boosting military expenditures back to Cold War levels, and so Romney has turned to the neocons to bring China and Russia back into the threat inflation charts. As Powell said in endorsing Obama and rejecting his fellow Republican, Romney: “There’s some very, very strong neoconservative views that are presented by the governor that I have some trouble with.”

Of course, it was those same neocons who deceived Powell into sounding the false alarm in his United Nations speech over Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs, and he now knows just how treacherous they can be. The key advisers around Romney are the same folks who got Bush to trick us into a war that few Americans now defend, but their cynical appeal to Republican politicians lives on. Although Romney has been loath to identify with the now much discredited foreign policy of the former president, he is reliant on the very men who led Bush astray.

The list reads like a who’s who of the neocons who beat the drums for wasting American lives and taxpayer dollars during the Bush reign. Key among them is John Bolton, perhaps better known for his outsized mustache than for his outlandishly hawkish views. Another is Robert Kagan, who, like Bolton, was a key player in the infamous Project for a New American Century that was eagerly pushing for a massive increase in military expenditures even before the 9/11 attacks. Another is Robert Joseph, the Bush era National Security Council official credited with sticking the 16 words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech making the egregiously false claim about uranium being shipped from Niger to Iraq.

No wonder Powell is alarmed; those are the guys who fooled him once, but not twice.

This article was originally posted on Truthdig.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer, editor in chief of Truthdig, has built a reputation for strong social and political writing over his 30 years as a journalist. His columns appear in newspapers across the country, and his in-depth interviews have made headlines. He conducted the famous Playboy magazine interview in which Jimmy Carter confessed to the lust in his heart and he went on to do many interviews for the Los Angeles Times with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and many other prominent political and cultural figures.

Top Stories

10 comments on "Romney’s Cold War Ponzi Scheme"

LongshotCharlie

October 29, 2012 2:38am

As to Romney's Ponzi scheme--Regan did the same thing with his 500 ship Navy. I worked for a shipyard at that time. We went from 3000 employees to 9000 in less than 2 years. No extra work to go with it.

BozoAdult

October 28, 2012 11:32pm

The United States of America is on the cusp of becoming a fascist state. I can see it coming right before my eyes.

If we elect Romney the risk will be increased exponentially.

William Bednarz

October 28, 2012 1:42pm

. . . George Bush - two wars . . .
..President Obama signs deal with Afghanistan for an additional ten years of aid??? George Bush and Dick Gheney expressed their desires for long term bases in the region. . . . . .
- - - - - - - - -
Neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney discuss any plans for PEACE......
We will win at any cost... Bush ?? Cheney ?? Romney ?? Obama ?? WE WILL WIN AT ANY COST.........
.......BUT........THE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ARE TALKING P E A C E ......
. . . I AM VOTING FOR A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE
............I ..AM.. VOTING.. FOR.. P E A C E
and it is cheaper than WAR...........no more wasted lives for oil - for world conquest - world domination.....P E A C E ......
IT WILL BE FREE - - - REALLY FREE TRADE .....NOT WASHINGTON's UNDER THE TABLES DIRTY DEALS

Ron in NM

October 28, 2012 2:51pm

WILLIAM:

It will make you feel better to vote for a third-party candidate for president. But will it change anything at all in our national life?

We live in a society that has a "winner-take-all" Electoral College that decides the election results. Voting for peace, no matter how many capital letters you use, will not count when the electoral votes are tallied. Your vote for peace will be silent and impotent.

I think Obama is LESS likely to get us involved in another unjustified Middle Eastern war. Less likely than Romney, who doesn't seem to have good sense or stability. None of his offspring would have to fight in such a war, so why should he care? Besides, it might please many of his corporate supporters. He touts a bigger Pentagon budget, and talks of this creating jobs, knowing that lack of jobs is a concern of most voters in America today.

Obama, however, speaks of more jobs in alternate energy industries, and he's supporting them with action, not just talk.

I'll be glad when this election is over, but frankly, if Romney wins, I'll wish that I was younger and could just emigrate to another country. I served my country for 3 years in the Army, I've voted in every general election since I was eligible, and the only presidents my votes helped elect were JFK and Bill Clinton.

I don't regret my voting record, which included votes for some third-party candidates, mostly at the local level, but I am frankly disheartened by the rightward drift of the American public, and the corporate takeover of so much of our government, but I know that voting for Jill Stein for president will not change a thing, for she hasn't a ghost of a chance of winning the election. Even the most dedicated Green Party members must know in their hearts that they're just spitting into the wind.

If Greens really want to change the course of this country, they should start running viable candidates in local elections. Only when Green candidates get elected to state legislatures and the US Congress will they have any power or influence, and enough "weight" to run a successful campaign for the presidency. Just providing a "none of the above" option every 4 years is not going to change anything in the real world.

HarleyBud

October 30, 2012 4:59pm

Actually voting for third party candidates serves an important goal. If enough third party candidates get votes...they have to be included in future debates. THAT is the thing we all need. To have a different voice in those scripted dog and pony shows. They put off the second debate for the third party candidates until Nov 5th at 9-10:30 eastern time...RT is loaning their DC studios for the event and feeding the thing free to any media who wishes to cover it...Bet you most shun it like a bad penney

Banh

October 28, 2012 5:59pm

Ron, before you go flicking that little lever for Obama, your lesser of two evils, you'd better consider how his "War on Liberty" will effect you at home. Are you NOT paying attention to the multitude of ways Barack is gutting the Constitution and stripping you of your sovereignty as a human being? Is that not very important to you, or do you believe that he's doing all this "for your own good"?

As far as your Greens are concerned, they will be every bit as dictatorial and dangerous to us as Hitler's SS. We don't need any more whackos who think they know what's right and wrong. Buying political jargon and rhetoric from this party or that is still not going to relieve us of our own individual responsibilities. As soon as we stop seeing government as our surrogate parent, we'll grow up and be more responsible rather than the hypocrites we are.

Obama... war on America
Romney... war on Terrorism

Flip a coin and vote 3rd party.

This is the most evil we've been served in any election over the past few decades. I believe it's time we stop being idiots, don't you Ron?

Ron in NM

October 29, 2012 9:16am

BANH:

I've already voted early, and I have no desire to change my vote.

You make a lot of charges against the President, and since they are so grievous, I ask you to submit your documented proof that Obama is some kind of fascist dictator.

Presidential elections come only every four years, and during those elections we only have a choice between one imperfect candidate over another. I have ideals, but I don't let my ideals destroy my common sense.

Either I vote for Obama (which I already have) or I vote for Romney. That's the bottom line. If third parties want to get some leverage, they have to get into the state legislatures and the U.S. Congress.

I don't feel I'm an idiot in working with what we have, and trying to make it better. The alternative to that is to do nothing but whine and snarl at those who do.

Democracy, in our limited form, is not the easiest way to govern, but it's generally conceded to be the fairest.

But again, how is the President "gutting the Constitution" and stripping me of my sovereignty as a human being? Quite frankly, this is the kind of rhetoric I hear from the extreme right-wing in the town where I live and as usual, they provide no specifics.

What's your position on all the things you mention? Just sit there and spit at everyone else?

HarleyBud

October 30, 2012 5:03pm

Some folks never let truth get in the way of a serious hatred.
The Faux Noise machine is evident in many and the tone and wording shows up even if they deny the influence.
I too voted early...like so many have.
I voted third party to give them numbers that they can use with the two party run election and debate commissions.
This so called democracy has stollen the elections for so many and the electoral college has got to be scrapped before it ruins what we have left of a choice

BozoAdult

October 28, 2012 11:29pm

Banh, you say the Greens will be every bit as dictatorial and dangerous to us as Hitler's SS.

I agree when you say it's time we stop being idiots. How about we start with you, IDIOT NUMBER ONE!

Norman123

October 28, 2012 10:56am

It appears that the elites have been busy drawing war plans for over 50 years and will choose the timing of wars whenever convenient for them to get out of a tight situation, such as the current one of continued US economic/legitimacy decline. What can be more securing for the elites than to shut everyone up under the war emergency powers, start a war with someone apparently weak, send poor people to wars over there to kill a lot of innocent people, then bring those still alive, dump them on the streets to become irrelevant to society who will likely resort to violence here. All this leading to more contracts for corporations for everything related to reconstruction (the living eating the dead's share of the economy) until next round. It is a global game repeated every time the elites feel danger....