Maybe he is running in 2016:
In the midst of international crises triggered by Russia, China and the Islamic State, the White House and Congress risk "decimation of our defense" – and security – with continued cuts to the nation's military, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warns.
The 2012 Republican presidential nominee, in an opinion piece for the Washington Post that was posted online Thursday, took especially sharp aim at President Barack Obama's "ludicrous" assertion that "things are much less dangerous now."
"The 'safer world' trial balloon has been punctured by recent events in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Iraq. 'Failures of imagination' led to tragedy 13 years ago," Romney writes, quoting a conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report.
It isn't "failure of the imagination"; it's deliberate neglect, sabotage, and side-switching. I would also question Mitt's overabundance of optimism in asserting that further Pentagon spending cuts would decimate our defenses when our defenses have pretty much been decimated by the slashing Barack Obama has already carried out. But he probably feels that he can't go that far publicly, and besides, he's a turn-around artist, and turn-around artists never consider any cause to be lost.
"[T]oday, no imagination is required to picture what would descend on the United States if we let down our guard."
Romney argues that the real reason for proponents' wanting to shrink the military is "to keep up spending here at home."
"Entitlements and programs are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes," he writes. "To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash defense."
Romney made increased military spending a theme in his failed 2012 bid for the White House, faulting both Obama and Republicans in Congress for approving big military slashes.
His opinion piece returns to the theme, challenging "Washington politicians" to "choose whether to succumb to the easy path of continued military hollowing or to honor their constitutional pledge to protect the United States."
Sure sounds like he's running. If so, it'd be in the Nixon template: general election loser comes back with "See, I told you so" successor campaign against exhausted opposition party and sweeps to victory. Okay, Nixon didn't sweep to victory over Hubert Humphrey, he barely eked out another photo-finish, and this is "50-50 nation," but you know what I mean. And how much stronger a position would Mitt be in this time, having been vindicated across the issue board? Just about every significant policy point he made and plank he offered in 2012 has been borne out in the past two years. And how much more dire a turn-around situation is America in now versus then?
Thank God the GOP has such a deep bench of gubernatorial executive talent from which to draw. Otherwise even I might be tempted.
No comments:
Post a Comment