. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Iceland is the world’s 15th most armed country per capita. Yet a police shooting in 2013 was that nation’s first.
There were 461 "justifiable homicides" by U.S. police in 2013, but not one in the United Kingdom.
Data from Ireland, New Zealand and 12 Pacific island nations is similar.
How can this be? What are they doing?
Their formula isn't complicated. It turns out that it is virtually impossible for a police officer without a gun to shoot people. (In rare situations, an officer may check out a gun for a given assignment, after which it’s returned.)
Just as a gun in the home is many times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, arming police apparently creates more gun violence than it prevents.
Doesn't this impose greater risk on those officers? Apparently not. A 2004 survey revealed 82% of British police did not want to be armed, even though one-third had sometimes feared for their lives. Less than one-fourth of Irish police are even qualified to use a gun.
Maybe begin with a community policing trial. Maybe we’d first need to remove the causes of crime, poverty and systemic racism from the U.S. But, shucks, we ought to be doing that anyway.
There is so much nonsense spouted about impeachment these days, whether deliberate obfuscation or unknowingly, that you might find these items useful. (The most basic sources, from the Constitution, are Article II, Section 4 (impeachment power), Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5 (possessed by the House), Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 (trial in Senate). You are spared additional footnotes, though specific citations can be provided if desired.)
This material is hoped, intended and believed to be accurate, but does not purport to be, and is not, either a "legal opinion" or "scholarship."
The Obligation to Impeach. Every president, House and Senate member, and federal judge has sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution requires each branch (legislative, executive and judicial) to maintain the balance of power among the three branches and prevent constitutional violations by the other two.
Thus, it can be argued the House has a constitutional obligation to begin an impeachment inquiry when there is reason to believe a president may have said or done things that precedent suggests constitute “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The Congress has no more constitutional right to evade this responsibility, to fail to exercise this specifically granted power, than it has a right to fail to exercise its power to take the census every ten years. It certainly cannot refuse to start an impeachment inquiry because it might be politically harmful to the majority party in the House, or because the president may fail to win reelection. Nor can it fail to impeach because the Senate is unlikely to convict, any more than a grand jury can fail to indict because of the possibility the trial jury may be biased in favor of the accused.
Why? Because there are more reasons for the impeachment power than the potential removal of a specific president. Impeachment is designed to maintain for the future both (1) the standards of presidential conduct required by the founders and (2) exercise of the checks and balances the Constitution compels between the Legislative and Executive branches.
Impeachment Standard Not “Illegality.” President Trump’s defenders have altered their arguments as facts evolved – from, in effect, “he didn’t do it,” to “he may have done it, but he did nothing wrong,” to “he may have exercised bad judgment and done something wrong, but he did nothing illegal,” to “it can’t have been illegal because there was no quid-pro-quo,” to “even if it was illegal, and there was a quid-pro-quo, it is not an impeachable offense.”
As “Late Night” host Seth Meyers would say, “It’s time for a closer look.”
The founders modeled their constitutional standard for impeachment on British practice, which had its origins in 1341. Articles of impeachment in Great Britain included such things as “arbitrary and tyrannical government,” “procuring offices for persons who were unfit, and unworthy of them,” “squandering away the public treasure,” “improprieties in office,” “gross maladministration,” “corruption in office,” “neglect of duty,” excessive drinking and cursing that created “the highest scandal . . . on the kingdom.”
The British practice was to treat impeachment as a remedy separate from the process and standards of the criminal law and to include conduct not expressly recognized as “illegal.”
Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language is influenced, but not bound, by British history. But American history is almost identical. The writings of Constitutional Convention members Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and James Madison indicate they believed impeachment did not require criminal offences. Nothing in the records of the states’ ratification of the Constitution indicate they believed impeachment was limited to criminal offenses. Of the first 13 impeachments by the House since 1789 (mostly of judges), at least 10 included charges that did not involve criminal law. Finally, Congress has never attempted to define “impeachment” in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (criminal code).
So far, three U.S. presidents have been impeached (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton) and a fourth (President Trump) is undergoing an impeachment inquiry. None, so far, has been removed from office following the Senate trial. (President Johnson was saved by one vote; President Nixon resigned before his seemingly inevitable formal impeachment.)
Each presidential impeachment has involved some article dealing with other than criminal illegality.
As discussed in ”Trump’s High Crimes and Misdemeansors,” October 31, 2019, President Andrew Johnson’s tenth article of impeachment charged “That the President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States . . . [did] make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces . . . amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled . . ..”
The first of the Articles of Impeachment regarding President Nixon included: “[Nixon] has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice . . .. [He has] engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry [into Democratic National Committee headquarters]; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. “ (This is followed by nine examples.)
Article II, par. 5, alleged that “he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . and the Central Intelligence Agency.” Article III charged that he “has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives . . ..”
President Bill Clinton’s third article of impeachment included, after citing 7 specific items, “In all of this, [Clinton] has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, [and] has betrayed his trust as President . . ..”
Taken together, the evidence is overwhelming that the validity of an article of impeachment does not turn on whether a "law" has been violated. Thus, even if it were true, as some Trump defenders contend, that "he has done nothing illegal" it does not follow that, therefore, he cannot and should not be impeached.
But wait, even if one insists that a violation of law is a requirement for impeachment . . .
Trump Has Violated the Law. Although unnecessary for impeachment, for a response to those who argue “he did nothing illegal” or “there was no quid-pro-quo” it seems clear he did violate the law, and that the law he violated does not require proof of a “quid-pro-quo.”
The law involved is contained in Section 30121 of Title 52, United States Code (“Voting and Elections”).
The relevant words are, “It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . or receive . . . from a foreign national ["a . . . thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal . . . election"].
(The primary subsection is Sec. 30121(a)(2). The [bracketed] words are from subsection 30121(a)(1)(A) because Sec. 30121(a)(2) defines what cannot be received as that which was "described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).")
Thing of Value. Given the quantity of confirming testimony regarding the range of ways that Trump displayed his desire to obtain dirt on former Vice President, and candidate for president, Joe Biden, there can be no doubt he considered such information “a thing of value in connection with a Federal election.”
Solicitation. Notes from Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky included Trump’s now-infamous line, “I would like to ask you to do us a favor, though.” It turns out there was more than one “favor” requested, but one is enough to clearly establish “solicitation.”
Quid-Pro-Quo. Note that the law does not require a quid-pro-quo. So even if there had been no quid-pro-quo that would have been irrelevant to whether Sec. 30121 had been violated. Clearly, it would not have been a defense. But for whatever relevance it may have, it seems to have clearly been the impression of many of those who have testified before Congress that a quid-pro-quo was understood by both presidents.
Without exploring yet another possible crime, the existence of a quid-pro-quo, while irrelevant to Section 30121, may be very relevant to a charge of bribery.
Our 16-years-long military efforts in Afghanistan qualify as "stupid stuff." The list of reasons is long, and has been discussed in a variety of contexts by me since 2001, illustrated in the 23 examples linked below. So I'll try to keep this short.
-- Sam Cooke, "What a Wonderful World" ("Don't know much about history . . ..")
History. We fail to learn from history. When it comes to war, we go where "no nation has won before."
France had been interested in Vietnam since the 17th and 18th Centuries, ultimately creating a large colony (French Indochina) in 1887 which it ruled until defeated by the Vietnamese in the First Indochina War [1946-1954]. ["France-Vietnam Relations," Wikipedia.] Never mind. We're not French. Those Vietnamese won't be able to defeat our military might. Remember how that worked out for us?
And so it's been in Afghanistan.
"Great Britain and Russia [were] maneuvering for influence in Afghanistan" as early as 1826. The British brought military force to Afghanistan on three occasions: 1839-1842, 1878-1889, and 1919. None ended well for the British.
Following the 1839-1842 conflict, "The Afghans. . . would tolerate neither a foreign occupation nor a king imposed on them by a foreign power, . . . insurrections broke out" and ultimately the British were run out of the country. The outcome of the second Afghan War was a little more complicated, but ended with the murder of the British envoy, and a joint effort of Britain and Russia to draw what are today's Afghanistan boundaries.
After the 1919 war, Britain had to recognize Afghanistan's independence, and Afghanistan was one of the first states to recognize the Soviet Union (with a treaty of friendship). That "special relationship" lasted until the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Editors, "Anglo-Afghan Wars," Encyclopedia Britannica.
Russia (Soviet Union) was involved militarily in Afghanistan from 1955 to 1989. "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. Response, 1978–1980," Department of State, Office of the Historian, Milestones: 1977-1980 ("Since 1955 Moscow had provided military training and materiel to Afghanistan; by 1973, a third of active [Afghan] troops had trained on Soviet soil.")
The results for the Russians were little better than for the British. "The War" lasted from December 1979 to February 1989. "Soviet-Afghan War," Wikipedia.
And with what results?
"In the brutal nine-year conflict, an estimated one million civilians were killed, as well as 90,000 Mujahideen fighters, 18,000 Afghan troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers. Civil war raged after the withdrawal, setting the stage for the Taliban's takeover of the country in 1996."
Absent Prerequisites for War. Might there be some common themes in why Great Britain, Russia, and the United States have been so unsuccessful over the past 200 years in trying to conduct "wars" in Afghanistan? Let's see.
In addition to our refusal to study history, and our hubris in believing we have a level of smarts and military might denied all other countries, it's as if we don't recognize that war1 is not war2 -- all wars are not the same. You can't expect to win wars you launch willy-nilly, wherever, whenever, with whomever you choose. There are conditions and characteristics that make for wars' successful, and unsuccessful, likely outcomes.
It's best if your military effort is a response to your country being attacked (e.g., Revolutionary War; World War II). Next best is coming to the defense of another country that has been invaded (Kuwait in Gulf War I). Worst are unnecessary, "pre-emptive" attacks on other nations that have not attacked us (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).
Why? Think about it. If Iowa had a 200-year-history of Canadian military invasions from time to time, and Canadian tanks and military were now moving, uninvited, through Minnesota, toward Iowa -- regardless of their pretense for doing so -- even I would be picking up a gun. The Canadians would have a hard time "winning Iowans' hearts and minds." Similarly, when we create a war inside a country with a centuries-old history of foreign invaders, it's not unreasonable for those whose home it is to think of us as just the latest in that history, and respond as Iowans would to Canadians.
Obviously, supporting one side in another country's civil war is even worse. There's no way it can be universally popular ("a British shipyard [built] two warships for the Confederacy . . . over vehement protests from the US." "United Kingdom and the American Civil War" Wikipedia.org.)
Fighting in countries where most Americans know little or nothing about that country's language, culture, economy, history, politics, literature, religion, social structure, and geography -- such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- is bristling with unintended consequences that make "winning" somewhere between extraordinarily difficult and impossible (as distinguished from the European Theatre of WWII).
"War on Terror" is Oxymoron." Whatever "terror" may be, it is not a country, or even a tightly coordinated group of individuals. Of course, every country seeks to minimize the death and damage to its citizens and property from acts of violence. But were the deliberate human and property damage in Oklahoma City, Boston, and Charlottesville really part of a "war"? The literary license in labeling anti-violence efforts a "war" is questionable at best; but strategies and tactics premised on the assumption that it really is "a war" are self-defeating and dangerous.
Wars are best when fought on behalf of, or against, countries rather than failed states; countries with some semblance of an organized central government -- more like Germany in WWII, rather than 21st Century Afghanistan, which is still largely a collection of tribal war lords' fiefdoms.
Wars are best when both sides wear uniforms that distinguish them from each other -- and the surrounding civilian population. The Taliban and ISIS often don't wear uniforms. Without uniforms it's very difficult to tell your enemy from your allies, and civilian casualties mount and further erode support for U.S. forces -- who are easy to identify.
Wars are best when there is a "front line" (as in Europe in WWII). (1) Fighting individuals without uniforms, (2) who can easily blend in with the population, (3) over constantly shifting parcels of land, (4) individuals who can easily shift from one place to another, (5) resulting in our gaining, losing, and regaining once again the same "battlegrounds," is a recipe for our seemingly endless wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, with their ever-increasing death tolls and financial burdens.
Because it's hard to imagine that much money, how could we translate $4.2 trillion into its opportunity cost -- the other things we could have bought with it (but weren't able to)? What else could that $4.2 trillion have paid for? Here are some possibilities: a 35-year program of tuition-free college at public universities, or health insurance premiums for every American for 12 years, or wiping out all student loan and credit card debt while leaving an additional $2 trillion for rebuilding infrastructure, or a fund to pay for rebuilding after the damage from the next 41 major tropical storms. Ethan Wolff-Mann, "7 Amazing Things America Could Have Bought Instead of a $1.45 Trillion Jet," Money, May 2, 2016 (if you care, and can't follow my math, email me for an explanation).
While I believe the Brown University and Money magazine numbers do not distort the reality, even with the best of intentions precision in these matters is impossible. For starters, what do you count? The numbers do not seem to include the post-war costs of such things as rebuilding the infrastructure we've destroyed in war (such as the post-WWII Marshall Plan), lifetime healthcare for wounded combat veterans, the consequences from the opportunity costs mentioned above. If you include the costs in the war torn countries (as I think we should), although worse than economic numbers convey, what tort law calls the "pain and suffering" of the population, the survivors who have lost their primary income provider, not to mention their homes, the wounded, dying and dead, the children denied food, shelter, and education -- not to mention parents -- would be enormous. [Photo credit: U.S. Department of Defense.]
Even if we could agree on what costs to include, determining what they were is virtually impossible with a Defense Department that is so sloppy in its accounting that it is impossible to audit. "The Department of Defense . . . once again finds itself under intense scrutiny . . . because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes." Tom Abate, "Military Waste Under Fire / $1 Trillion Missing -- Bush Plan Targets Pentagon Accounting," SFGATE, San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2003.
The Powell Doctrine. There are some basic questions to ask about any rational undertaking -- starting a business, choosing a college and major, planning a vacation trip, building a new home or office building.
The consequences of failing to do so can lead to physical injury, financial disaster or bankruptcy, or merely great disappointment.
In the case of war, the consequences can be much more serious, as the discussion above suggests. This is not to say that there are never acceptable reasons for going to war, or maintaining overwhelming military might as a strategy for avoiding the need to go to war. It is only to say that, if you prepare and use a checklist before packing the car and going on a family vacation, you might also want to have and use a checklist before going to war.
Here is a variation of the ways I've summarized that checklist of questions in the past -- sort of my version of the Powell Doctrine:
Is the national security of our homeland seriously threatened?
What, specifically, is the goal you’re trying to accomplish?
What nonviolent means might accomplish the goal, and have they all been tried and failed?
Why do you think a military operation will contribute to (rather than impede) the accomplishment of the goal?
In a benefit-cost analysis, what are the risks, what are the costs (including opportunity costs), what will a military mission require in troops, materiel, lives and treasure to achieve that goal, and what will be the benefits for the United States?
What is a reasonble projection of how long the military mission will take to achieve the goal?
Are the American people, their representatives, and the international community prepared to take those risks, provide those resources and pay those costs for as long as it takes?
What are the probabilities that a military intervention will make matters worse?
What are the metrics or other means to inform us whether we’ve ever been “successful”?
What, then, will be the exit strategy?
What will happen when we leave?
Will that be consistent with our original mission?
Conclusion. I could go on with this -- indeed the list below suggests I already have. Why? Because President Trump -- after opposing our war in Afghanistan for years -- has recently announced that it will be perpetuated by his Administration. In fact, he wants to send even more troops and taxpayer money into the hopeless pit.
A "war" in Afghanistan was a mistake from the very beginning. If we were trying to punish the state most involved in 9/11 it was Saudi Arabia -- the country that supplied both the financing and the participants. But the U.S. didn't want to declare war on Saudi Arabia after 9/11 any more than it wanted to bomb Idaho after Oklahoma City. So we chose Afghanistan instead.
It was argued that Afghanistan was "harboring terrorists." But any near-failed state can and does do that. To totally eliminate terrorist training in Afghanistan (1) would require more like 200,000 to 300,000 American troops (as I, and others, suggested at the time; clearly President Obama's 100,000 weren't enough) -- if even that would do it. (2) Our efforts to do that turn out to be counterproductive: our mere presence in the Middle East only intensifies anti-American feelings and terrorist recruiting. (3) Terrorists can, and do, easily move from one part of the world to another. If we drove them all out of Afghanistan they would not disappear, they would merely relocate -- as they now have in at least 70 countries.
"Michael Evans" "Al-Qaeda finds three safe havens for terror training" The Times (of London), July 2, 2008 ("Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organisation, driven out of Afghanistan and defeated in Iraq, is re-emerging in strength in three alternative safe havens for training, operational planning and recruiting – Pakistan, Somalia and Algeria – according to Western intelligence and defence sources").
To the best of my recollection, no American official has declared that our real motive for staying in Afghanistan is to plunder it's resources. I raised this possibility in "Why Afghanistan? Think Oil & Gas," September 25, 2009. Rachel Maddow recently suggested it might be our search for a source of the rare earth element Lanthanum (LA); transcript not yet posted. (If we were in Afghanistan for rare earth elements, however, we've been a little late. While we were sending troops the Chinese were sending negotiators, and have by now pretty much cornered all the supplies in Afghanistan's rare earth market.)
In summary, the politicians pursuit of our Afghanistan War has ignored virtually all of the Powell Doctrine checklist. We never should have entered Afghanistan in the first place. As soon as that was obvious we should have left. Having failed to do so for 16 years, it is a very expensive tragedy (in lost lives and opportunities to fund what America really does need) that our current president has gone against his earlier instincts and is sending more troops to keep it going.
# # #
Nicholas Johnson's Additional Writing on War and Terrorism
"General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006; also as Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know, ch. 6 "You As Citizen II: Terrorism and War," p. 61
Mitt Romney got about as positive a review from me as he would have a reasonable right to expect from anyone identified as an Obama-supporting Democrat. "Why Mitt Romney," March 26, 2012 ("My wife sees in some politicians a quality she calls 'Elvis.' Bill Clinton had 'Elvis.' Romney clearly does not. What I see in Romney is a bright, well informed, analytical, hard working, focused, pragmatic, problem-solving manager. A little touch of 'Elvis' would be comforting, but it doesn't trump the other qualities. . . . Some reports of his relationships as governor with the Massachusetts legislators are a little troublesome. [Michael Barbaro, "Legislators Recall Governor Who Didn't Mingle,"New York Times, March 10, 2012, p. A1 (". . . Mr. Romney was an unfamiliar breed: a data-driven chief executive used to delivering unquestioned orders, . . . an emotionally remote figure who tended not to socialize . . .")]. . . . A president can probably get by with no 'Elvis,' but they all need a little 'LBJ.'").
Why do I care who the Republicans nominate? For the same reason I care who the vice presidential candidates are: because they could be president. It matters to America who lives in the White House. If it can't be the best man or woman America has to offer, second best is "the least worst."
Of course I disagree with a great many of his positions on the issues. And having watched what that Republican-controlled House of Representatives did with a Democrat in the White House, I shudder to think of what would happen with a Republican president (regardless of how meritorious his positions on the issues).
But after some of my prior choices either never got into, or got in and then dropped out of, the Republican primary, it still seems to me that Romney was clearly the best of those left standing.
And so my position on Romney remained for the four months since that March blog entry -- until this past week.
To explain my concern it's necessary to go back to the last presidential campaign in 2008. "Experience" -- as a qualification for a presidential candidate -- became an issue, especially after Hillary Clinton made it such a big issue. It provided an occasion for me to reflect upon just what experience would be helpful for a president to have had. Nicholas Johnson, "Politics: Assessing Candidates' 'Experience,'", The Gazette, March 30, 2012, p. A9.
I wrote:
There’s little significant difference between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as lawyers who are well educated, thoughtful, widely informed and fully capable of formulating proposals on numerous topics. Both are articulate, though Obama has the charisma advantage.
But the experience qualifying someone to be president requires a lot more than having been married to one, proposing good ideas or world travel.
As someone who has served during the administrations of three presidents, I believe the presidency is one of the most complex administrative jobs imaginable.
There’s no perfect, qualifying “experience.” But two things can help.
One is experience at administering large institutions: a federal cabinet-level department, a state government, military branch, major university or corporation.
The other is the understanding and rapport earned by having worked in institutions with which a president must relate: city, county and state government; the federal executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches; international organizations and embassies; labor unions and Wall Street, among others.
By these standards both Democrats and Sen. John McCain are unimpressive.
None has served as mayor or governor; none has headed a cabinet department; none has helped administer the Pentagon or CIA; none has worked for international organizations, been ambassador to the United Nations or a foreign country; none has been a union officer or corporate CEO. None has headed delegations negotiating with foreign governments over trade agreements, release of hostages or treaties.
It didn't occur to me earlier to subject Romney to the same checklist as I did the three leaders in 2008. Now having done so, he comes off pretty well. He's had experience at management and administration (Governor of Massachusetts, the Salt Lake Olympics, Bain, and his current campaign). He's knowledgeable regarding state government and Wall Street. Where he's shy on my list are (1) his lack of experience as a member of Congress, the Senate, a Cabinet-level position, administrative agency, city or county government, Pentagon or CIA -- primarily Washington institutions.
(2) He's short on foreign relations experience, what I listed in describing candidates Clinton, McCain and Obama, above, as individuals, "none [of whom] has worked for international organizations, been ambassador to the United Nations or a foreign country; none has . . . headed delegations negotiating with foreign governments over trade agreements, release of hostages or treaties."
What concerns me after the events of this past week is more than his lack of experience in foreign affairs.
We have no training program for potential presidents. And almost no individual will have had the opportunity to amass experience in each of the areas I think useful. (However, in 2008 Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico came close, having been a governor, member of Congress, cabinet officer, a U.N. ambassador, and successful negotiator for the return of hostages. President George H.W. Bush had somewhat comparable prior experience.) Nor do I think having had all that experience is a necessary prerequisite to a successful presidency -- as illustrated by Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, all of whom had service in the U.S. Senate as their primary training.
So "on the job training" regarding something will probably be necessary for almost anyone serving as president -- including Romney. No problem there. But there is a difference between an absence of experience, a clean slate, along with an ability to learn, on the one hand, and Romney's gaffes and demonstrations of an instinct for insensitivity to foreign relations on the other.
London
"Mr. Romney’s choreographed visit here caused a diplomatic stir after his comments on the British Olympics preparations and whether Londoners would turn out to support the Games prompted a rebuke from Prime Minister David Cameron and grabbed the attention of the news media.
“'There are a few things that were disconcerting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging,' Mr. Romney said in an interview with NBC on Wednesday.
[Photo credit: Stephen Crowley, New York Times.]
"That brought a tart rejoinder from Mr. Cameron: 'We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.' The allusion was to Salt Lake City, which hosted the Games that Mr. Romney oversaw in 2002. . . .
"News of Mr. Romney’s remarks led The Times of London’s Web site at one point under the headline 'PM rebuffs Romney over readiness for Olympics,' and The Guardian’s Web site offered up a story titled 'Romney’s Olympics blunder stuns No. 10 and hands gift to Obama.'
"Mayor Boris Johnson even used the candidate’s words to rally thousands of Londoners at the end of the 69-day Olympic torch relay in Hyde Park, saying, 'There’s a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we’re ready.' . . .
"He [Romney] also mentioned that he had met with the head of the MI6 foreign intelligence agency to discuss Syria and 'the hope for a more peaceful future for that country' — another comment the British press seized on as a gaffe because, they wrote, visiting dignitaries typically do not discuss their private meetings with the MI6 chief.
"In his original remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Romney also seemed to question the enthusiasm of the British public for the Games . . .."
"Mitt Romney offended Palestinian leaders on Monday by suggesting that cultural differences explain why the Israelis are so much more economically successful than Palestinians, thrusting himself again into a volatile issue while on his high-profile overseas trip.
"His remarks drew a pointed rebuke from the Palestinian leadership, which angrily noted that Mr. Romney had failed to mention the years of trade restrictions imposed by Israel. . . .
"[H]is remarks put him in the choppy crosscurrents of Israel-Palestinian affairs where American presidents have often served as mediators. . . .
"He added, 'As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel, which is about $21,000, and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality.' [The correct figures: "Israel, in 2009, had a per capita gross domestic product of roughly $29,800, while, in 2008, the West Bank and Gaza had a per capita gross domestic product of $2,900, according to the Central Intelligence Agency." Editorial, "Mitt Romney Stumps in Israel,"New York Times, July 31, 2012, p. A20.] . . .
"The remarks, which vastly understated the disparities between the societies, drew a swift rejoinder from Palestinian leaders. In an interview with The Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks racist.
“'It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,' Mr. Erekat said. 'It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people.'
Mr. Romney did not speak to the deleterious impact of deep Israeli trade restrictions on the Palestinian economy, an effect widely described by international organizations including the World Bank, which recently reported that 'the government of Israel’s security restrictions continue to stymie investment.'”
"'Solidarnosc' [the trade union Solidarity] is in no way involved in the . . . initiative to invite Mitt Romney to Poland,' the 700,000-member union announced Monday.
"'Regretfully,' added Solidarnosc international department head Andrzej Adamczyk, 'we have learned . . . about Mitt Romney's support for the attacks against trade unions and labor rights.'" John Nichols, "Polish Labor Isn't Happy To See Romney," National Public Radio, July 31, 2012.
The accompanying press representatives, irritated that there had been only one opportunity to question Romney during the three country tour, at which he had only addressed three questions, pressed with shouted questions at one point in Poland. Romney's aide responded, "Kiss my a**" and to one reporter, "Shove it." Not surprisingly, this did not mollify the press, thereby ending the tour on a similar note to that with which it had begun.
Romney has shown a form of insensitivity, or disconnectedness, from Americans on occasion. As I wrote in "Why Mitt Romney," March 26, 2012, "Nor do I find his seeming inability to speak the language of ordinary Americans disqualifying -- that his tie to NASCAR fans is that he knows a number of folks who own race teams, his appeal to UAW members is that his wife has two Cadillac cars, that his income from lecture fees is only a modest $300,000-plus. I find such unscripted comments almost charming in an odd sort of way. For more from this perspective, see Ashley Parker and Michael Barbaro, "The Retooled, Loose Romney, Guessing Voters’ Age and Ethnicity,"New York Times, December 28, 2011, p. A1."
You may find Romney's insensitivity something between off-putting to disqualifying. Or you may see something almost charming in his efforts to reach out to others notwithstanding his occasional inability to do so -- owning a dancing horse, traveling with a dog strapped to the top of one of his cars, or outfitting his La Jolla garage with an elevator to stack the other cars.
But that's at home. When a president, or presidential candidate, is in another country he or she is America, and what might have been laughed off at home can become an international incident abroad. Or, as with Romney's comments about Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moving the U.S. Embassy there, and what was taken as criticism of the Palestinians, something that may eliminate that president's ability to continue to play the role of peacemaker.
None of this changes my thought that Romney remains the best of the Republican candidates this year. And I am willing to cut him some slack for his inexperience in the nuances and sensitivity of foreign relations. But even for someone as inexperienced as Romney, my confidence in him was shaken by this series of unfortunate performances. That his instincts would have revealed him to be so lacking in sensitivity and just plain old common sense, I must say I do find troubling.
