The Creaming of Paul Ryan
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/14/the-creaming-of-paul-ryan/ Justin Raimondo dissects the debate and points out the big failures of little Ry-Ry.
snip-In the first exchange of the presidential election season over foreign policy issues, the neocons — in the person of GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan — got creamed. That’s the good news. The bad news is that Ryan got creamed by Joe Biden — who serves in an administration that is pursuing each and every one of the neocons’ policy goals, and doing a much better job of it than George W. Bush ever did.
Ah, but these days we must take our pleasures where we find them, and who can deny it was fun watching the amateurish Ryan stammer as he tried to remember the talking points the neocons had drilled him on. One fully expected his ears to start fluttering and helicopter him outta there. Martha Raddatz, a respected reporter who specializes in the Middle East, moderated and her first question was about Libya: wasn’t this a “massive intelligence failure” on the part of the administration?
If you’ll recall, the administration — in the person of UN ambassador Susan Rice — first came out with a statement attributing the Benghazi attack to a protest over the “Innocence” video that got out of hand. And my regular readers will further recall that I said the administration would soon backtrack on this, which they did. And you’ll note Biden didn’t say the attack was pre-planned: he just brushed the question aside, went on the offensive against Romney — whose premature public statement on Benghazi was patently unpresidential — and signaled his strategy with a very effective concluding statement: “The last thing we need is another war.”
That’s because both Romney and Ryan believe the first thing we need is another war, despite Ryan’s protestations at the debate. In his answer to Biden, Ryan sighed and whined like an undergraduate arguing with his professor over a failed grade: well sure “we agreed with the Obama administration” on getting out of Iraq, except … they didn’t. Because, you see, Washington “failed to get a Status of Forces agreement.”
Is Ryan suggesting we should have somehow forced the Iraqis to sign the agreement? It’s not clear, nor is it clear what the differences are on Afghanistan, where, Ryan averred, “we agree with a 2014 transition” — except, we really don’t, because, you see, “we also want to … make sure that we’re not projecting weakness abroad, and that’s what’s happening here.”
Translation: You need a microscope to discover the differences between the two tickets on these issues.
Asked about how appropriate it was for Governor Romney to accuse the President of “weakness” and making “apologies,” as Raddatz put it, “right in the middle of the crisis,” Ryan evaded the question, denounced the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate, said we should have spoken out in support of Iran’s “Green Revolution,” accused the administration of describing Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer,” and decried “devastating defense cuts.” The doe-eyed Republican pin-up boy probably has no idea the leaders of Iran’s “Green Revolution” have the same position on the nuclear issue as the ayatollahs: his neocon handlers probably thought this tidbit might complicate the narrative unnecessarily.
Biden’s answer was nearly an early knockout blow, as he informed the audience Ryan had voted to cut $300 million from the embassy security budget — “so much for the embassy security piece,” he said with a smile. I almost felt sorry for Ryan: he looked like a student being lectured by his professor on the subject of why one always ought to do one’s homework.
Desperate to score points, Ryan even cited the alleged “terrorist attack” against the Saudi ambassador supposedly planned by a used car salesman in the US in conjunction with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Of course, the fact that the accused man, one Mansoor Arbabsiar, has been diagnosed with a mental illness may cause serious people to take the charges less … seriously. There was one Bizarro World moment when Ryan’s confusion was particularly apparent as he demanded that the “military option” against Iran be put “on the table” even as he averred that “the key is to do this peacefully.” Huh?
Here we come to the crux of the matter: Romney-Ryan say the Obama administration is projecting “weakness,” that they are letting the Iranians get away with assembling the components of a nuclear weapon, and that they aren’t doing enough to stop it. So what do they want? Biden went for the jugular: “When Governor Romney’s asked about it, he said, we got to keep these sanctions. When they said, well, you’re talking about doing more, what are you — are you — you’re going to go to war? Is that you want to do now?”
snip--- Raddatz brought up Syria, and again Ryan tried desperately to carve out some real differences between his position and the administration’s — to little avail. Biden assured him the Obama administration is sending “humanitarian and other aid” to the rebels, and asked again if Ryan would prefer going to war with US troops on the ground. Ryan denied that, but struggled to define how he and Romney would do things differently.
Ryan stumbled over the answer to that question because a Romney administration wouldn’t deviate from Obama’s script all that much: rhetorically, we might strike a few more poses, but in reality the differences would be nearly undetectable. That’s because the War Party dominates both parties to such an extent that there is no real debate on foreign policy this election season — and there hasn’t been since the Vietnam war era. Obama is merely continuing, with a few unimportant variations, the same policy of global hegemonism and regime change in the Middle East that his predecessor began a decade ago.
The only difference is rhetorical — and, in politics, that makes all the difference. Biden spoke for a warmongering administration in the language of peace, while Ryan spoke for a campaign that wants to “prevent war” in the language of irreconcilable conflict.
Rah Rah Rah more bleating
Hey you airhead cheerleader, your pantyhose are 2 sizes too tight and have cut off the blood to your brain, not to mention pantyhose are out of style. Just admit it John, you`re a liberal come out of the closet, denial ain`t just a river in Egypt.
Re: Rah Rah Rah more bleating
You see De Con, Raimondo just points out the facts, that doesn't make him a fan of smiling Joe, real people don't vote for the lesser nor ignore reality, there are better parties than either end of headless beast. You see De Con not everyone cheerleads for whatever is their parrotmaster's current puppet. You would cheerlead for full pisspot if it was the ziocon's candidate, you got your head permanently stuck inside your panties.
You got that right, John.
I`d rather see a pot of piss in office over Obama, at least the urine would have some plant value. So you`re for Gary Johnson these days? Lemme ask you this: What would you tell a Obama backer to convince them why they should vote for Gary Johnson over Obama, give 3 reasons that someone shouldn`t vote for Obama.
Re: You got that right, John.
"Ah, but these days we must take our pleasures where we find them, and who can deny it was fun watching the amateurish Ryan stammer as he tried to remember the talking points the neocons had drilled him on".
Ryan is the one who came up with the talking points. But Raimondo will gladly support Biden even after he voted for 2 wars. Raiminodo wants some one the liberate the palestinians and knows Obama is the best chance since the founding of Israel.
Re: You got that right, John.
Keeping with the line of logic that you just interjeted here, do you not feel that liberation should be a goal that all of us should hope for and seek all people? That you admit that the Palestinians in the occupied areas ARE being held in bondange and you prefer that it stay so?