Top Menu

Mitt’s Middle East Muddle


“Syria is Iran’s route to the sea.” – Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney, evidently, never heard of the Persia Gulf.

This is what happens when you let a conservative off the mat.

Those of you who remember this moment four years ago, when Obama won the 2008 election, we all said is this the end of the right?

Barack Obama has never understood partisan battles. He waged his 2008 campaign against Hillary based on those silly battles of the past, from the ’60s to the ’90s. His inability to appreciate what happens when you don’t drive the stake into an ideology that is anathema to Democratic values is why we’re all here today.

Syria is Iran’s route to the sea, from the man who now has a 50-50 chance of being commander in chief.

If this happens, the only person to blame is Barack Obama.

Maybe the auto bailout will save the President, giving him Ohio. But “hope and change” and the advantage Barack Obama once had when he came into office should never have come down to this.

graphic via Moderate Voice

, , , , , , , , , , ,

36 Responses to Mitt’s Middle East Muddle

  1. casualobserver October 23, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    Sure, if one’s intellectual ability to comprehend is limited to only literally correct messaging, give yourself a gotcha point. Although, you would be wise to not get into a conversation with people who can also comprehend connotation at the same time.

    (CNN) — Two Iranian warships sailed through Egypt’s Suez Canal into the Mediterranean Sea, Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency reported Saturday, amid heightened tensions in the region. It was not clear from the report where the two vessels, a destroyer and a supply ship, were headed. However, another semi-official Iranian news agency, ISNA, said the ships were on their way to Syria.

    Under the terms of the deal, which was concluded after a high-level Syrian delegation visited Tehran, Iran is to assist with the development of a new military compound at Latakia airport which will be completed by the end of next year.

    • Cujo359 October 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

      Good grief, that’s silly. Are you seriously suggesting that an overland route over mountains (or flying over Iraq, a long time adversary) to a NATO-controlled lake is any better a route to water than the Persian Gulf?

    • secularhumanizinevoluter October 23, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

      “Sure, if one’s intellectual ability to comprehend is limited to only literally correct messaging, give yourself a gotcha point. Although, you would be wise to not get into a conversation with people who can also comprehend connotation at the same time.”

      MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! I was wrong….a couple of days ago I commented that two of your co wingnuts had made the dumbest comments ever posted here….Ms. Marsh said I was a little early on that….you just proved her correct!!!
      Really…you should be doing standup!

  2. Taylor Marsh October 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    a gotcha point

    Seriously, geography as a “gotcha”? Geography now seen as “only literally correct” by Republicans?

    In a day when I clearly have been fair to Romney, this argument is nakedly desperate, as well as unnecessary. Though it does show the weakness at the heart of Mitt Romney’s campaign.

    Mind you, I’m just officiating this laughable debacle, but you going out of your way to make excuses on this really does say more about you & your candidate than I could ever offer.

    • casualobserver October 23, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

      I say no harm, no foul…….if you truly believe there is no justification for the statement… context……I have no desperation to convince you otherwise.

  3. PWT October 23, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    I see that you, along with angels81, have been cruising the DUmp for stories. There’s a reason that they’re referred to as DUmmies.

    • Taylor Marsh October 23, 2012 at 2:40 pm #


      You all are really something.

    • angels81 October 23, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

      PWT, man up, your guy got his head handed to him. He was way out of his league and showed it by agreeing with Obama’s policies more often then not. Romney has changed his stance more on the issues then a hooker changes her clothes. The man couldn’t remember were Iran and Syria were, and that Iran has a coastline on the Persian Gulf. He has said our biggest threat is Russia, he’s pissed off the English, he thinks the number of ships the Navy has means strength. The man is a empty suit.

      • PWT October 23, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

        Gary Johnson is my guy.

        I guess we’ll see what happens in November. My prediction, you’ll be one sad old clown when Mr. Obama loses. Now, back to DU, DUmmie.

  4. jjamele October 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    I doubt that even ten percent of the people living in the 57 states could care less about what was an obvious slip of the tongue. Those who do care are probably too busy bitterly clinging to their guns and religion to pay much attention to this silliness.

  5. angels81 October 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    Slip of the tongue? I watched the debate, how can you call that a slip of the tongue? If it was a slip of the tongue, you would think Romney would have corrected himself and said he misspoke. Romney doesn’t have a clue, all he was doing was trying to remember what his staff told him to say, and he even screwed that up. He’s nothing but a empty suit and empty headed.

    • jjamele October 23, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

      Wow, you REALLY like that “empty suit” phrase. You also have a strange insight concerning Romney and his staff which suggests that you actually work within his inner circle or, more likely, you are just pulling nonsense out of your butt.

      • angels81 October 23, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

        Hey. if the shoe fits wear it. Nobody can seriously tell us where he stands on any issue because every other week he changes his line. The only thing anyone can say about Romney is, he’s white and not Obama. To me that’s a empty suit.

        • jjamele October 23, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

          Angels uses “empty suit” for roughly the 12th post today. DRINK!

  6. PeggySue October 23, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    Spot on, TM. There’s no way this election should be as close as it presumably is. And Obama has no one to blame but himself. 70% of the electorate in 2008 wanted Health Care reform. By the time Obama stopped twisting in the wind making deals with Pharma and the Insurance Companies, basically giving us a revision of the Heritage Foundation’s alternative to Hillary’s plan, he had a full out civil war on his hand. No explanation to the public either, so ignorance ran wild [Keep your hands off my Medicare was classic].

    The Kill List, drone warfare, expanded executive powers, failure to rein in the financial industry, the foreclosure debacle–the list goes on and on.

    Would the Republicans with Romney as POTUS be any better? Hell, no! But Truman said it [I think] that if you want a Republican at the helm, you might as well vote for the real deal.

    Obama did this to himself and the Obamacrats encouraged it by refusing to criticize bad decisions, lack of vision and failure to implement Democratic principles. Without that, what do you have but talk, talk, talk and empty promises?

    I personally shudder at the thought of someone like Bolton taking over State. If the GOP wins we’re likely to be at war before a first term is out. I’m not so sure we can survive another reckless misadventure.

    It is what it is.

    • Taylor Marsh October 23, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

      Yep, your first paragraph is dead on.

      I personally shudder at the thought of someone like Bolton taking over State.

      Everyone should, including Republicans

      • newdealdem1 October 23, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

        Second what Taylor said, Peggy Sue. Well said.

        Between the thought of Bolton taking over State and Robert Bork being nominated for the Supreme Court (although Bork has to get through the Senate and I don’t think he’ll make it through unless the Dems lose the Senate) is enough to make every thinking person with a pulse, shudder.

        • jjamele October 23, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

          Um….Robert Bork is Eighty Five Years Old. So you are actually going to cast a vote for President based on the theory that Romney might want to make an impact by picking an EIGHTY FIVE YEAR OLD MAN to take a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT to the Supreme Court?

          I’m a thinking person with a pulse. That’s why I was able to do a quick search to satisfy my strong suspicion that Robert Bork is freaking old. Seriously, what are you drinking?

          Oh BTW, the Democrats are all but certain to hold the Senate. So Bolton can’t be confirmed as Sec of State either, as long as the Democrats have some backbone….wait, maybe we ARE in trouble after all.

          But SCJ Robert Bork? Come on.

          • newdealdem1 October 23, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

            How many people are you going to attack on this board? I’m getting fed up with your holier than everyone else attitude. You protest loudly against others on this board when you imagine they are telling you . whom to vote for but yet I continue to see you doing just that. Day after day.

            I get it, you don’t like Obama and the current Dems, you made that crystal clear. You’re record is cracked and broken and boring. Move on already!

        • jjamele October 23, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

          Instead of lashing out at me like an angry child for pointing out your foolishness, you might just admit that you went a bridge too far with your Robert Bork boogeyman. And I’ve never told anyone here who they should vote for.

          It’s not “holier than thou” to point out a stupid comment when I see it. You are just being peevish here. And oh BTW, I’ll continue to feel free to express my opinion (though Robert Bork’s age isn’t an opinion) until Ms Marsh tells me I’ve crossed a line, without asking your permission.

          • newdealdem1 October 24, 2012 at 6:49 am #

            You are not here to have a conversation as is clear from your first comment to me. As is clear from most of your comments to other posters on this board, You need to learn how to communicate. No one is going to respect what you say because of the nasty, pointy finger way you have of saying it.

            I would engage in conversation with you or anyone on this board as I have for a long time as long as you or whoever tries to engage me does so with respect and comes across treating people here as they wish to be treated. But that’s not you, jjamele.

            You and a couple of others do nothing but infight, calling each other names and then hijack an entire thread. It’s a turn off and I know I’m not alone in feeling that way.

            You are no better than Solo. In fact, you each occupy one side of the same penny.

            And, I have to wonder about someone like you who criticizes one side of the isle exclusively.

            Oh, and btw, I seem to recall a short while ago, you threatening never to post here ever again, taking all your milk and cookies with you like a “real adult” because of something Solo said to you that hurt your feelings. Be careful of the words you chose to call someone or the attitude you project because it will always come back to bite you in the end.

            No further response from me to you is necessary in this regard. Further, hijacking a thread is anathema to me.

  7. LiberalJoe October 23, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Agree TM,

    The Pres does not want to, like, or engage in bare knuckle knockout politics.he should have knocked out Romney months ago.

    His infuriating kumbaya Simpson Bowles bipartisanship mentality is maddening.

    You would think after 4 years he would have learned how to fight the Repubs and carry the day?

    I read a piece today by John Ellis where he projects Romney winning the national vote but Pres Obama winning the electoral college. If that happens can you imagine the hysteria on the right and the escalation of Pres Obama not being the legitimate President by the right. We’d be mired in political war for for the next 4 years with Romney and the Repubs running a rump shadow government. It would be a brutal 4 years for the country.

    Your right The Pres should have never been in this position, but I believe he wins the popular vote and electoral college anyway.

    • Taylor Marsh October 23, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

      Hey, LJ.

      Ohio remains Obama’s firewall, as is his superior ground game, which we know Romney can’t match.

      The media is whipping the momentum up for Romney, but his “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed is fueling Ohioans.

      Interesting that the one thing that could save Obama is a progressive economic move to bail out the auto industry. Imagine what might have happened if progressive economics would have steered his first term?

      It’s why Simpson-Bowles is such a slap in the face to Democrats and also why voting for Obama in 2012 is another hold you nose experience for any liberal.

  8. October 23, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    He meant the MEDITERANEAN sea. And Syria does border the that sea, so yes, it is Iran’s route to that sea.

    • Cujo359 October 23, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

      That would make some sense, but for at least a couple of unfortunate issues:

      - Iran shares no border with Syria. The nearest border is with Iraq and/or Lower Kurdistan, depending how you look at things. Neither is an ally of Iran.

      - The Mediteranean Sea is a NATO-controlled lake. If you’re Iran and looking to take your naval act on the road, those are the wrong waters to be swimming in. So to speak.

      I think most of us are aware of where Syria is.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter October 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

      MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Thanks….you always come through with the comic relief whenever it threatens to get serious around here…in a literal context of course!!

  9. October 23, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    True, they don’t share a border, I understand that, but, neither did we,,with Italy and Germany, yet we used a body of water and another country (France) to reach Germany. France,as you know was no ally of Germany, so Allies having to have borders really isn’t an issue.

    Yes, the Med is Nato controlled, good thing, but, you never know what Achdiminjad (sorry, don’t know how to spell it.) might do. and it does give him access to that sea, for whatever reason.

    • Cujo359 October 23, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

      start quote:

      neither did we,,with Italy and Germany,

      end quote

      If we had been only a regional power with no navy to speak of, that might be somewhat relevant. As it is, though, it makes no sense. The only reason anyone with a lick of sense would talk about a country’s “route to the sea” being a problem is if they could actually project military power there. The Iranians can’t. Since we’re supposed to be talkiing about context (according to the first commenter), then that’s the context. I have a route to the sea, too (via Puget Sound, or US 101). That doesn’t make me a threat to anyone but myself.

      • secularhumanizinevoluter October 23, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

        Are you seriously trying to logically, factually engage with this individual?!!!!! Better luck catching flatulence in a wind storm in a jar with no lid. In theory possible….but not very probable.

        • Cujo359 October 23, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

          I mostly do it for people who have functioning minds, but don’t see what’s wrong with this argument. It does require at least a little knowledge of history, geography, and how modern militaries work.

          As for my chances of persuading cjoblak, I’d say you’re about right.

      • casualobserver October 23, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

        “being a problem is if they could actually project military power there. The Iranians can’t.”

        Ironically enough given the basis for the thread, you don’t provide enough “context” for your rebuttal to be understood.

        As the CNN article states, Iran is already cruising your NATO lake….NATO is obviously not preventing that occurrence. So, when Iran docks more of their Navy in Syria and completes the expansion of the military airfield in Syria, you are expecting Israel and Turkey to be just fine with that “no threat to anyone”?

        • Cujo359 October 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm #

          Turkey and Israel can deal with it, assuming they want to, and NATO doesn’t feel the need. Turkey already shares a border with Iran. I think that speaks for why Iran isn’t going to cause them any trouble.

          In any case, none of that is a threat to us, or to Europe, and it’s no real threat to the other regional powers in the area. They need Egypt’s cooperation to use the Suez Canal, and Egypt seems to value its relations both with Israel and us (although that’s subject to change). They need Turkey’s to get through the Dardenelles.

          In short, it’s not a path to the sea for Iran. If they can’t use the one they already have, it’s not any more of a route. The best you can say is that they have some assets far away from some potential conflicts, which looks to me as a division of forces as much as any possible advantage.

  10. spincitysd October 24, 2012 at 4:15 am #

    Oh Sweet Baby Jesus On A Pogo Stick, this is getting ridiculous. It is called the “Persian Gulf for a reason. Look at the bloody map people. See that coast line, or litoral as us salty dogs are want to call it?

    OK lets get into the nitty gritty here because some of us here have not the faintest clue of what Sea Lanes Of Communication might mean. Shall we begin?

    Iran’s natural lines of communication are via the Persian Gulf. That is were the open waters are. From there ships can sail to consumers in Japan and the east by a direct line.

    A secondary communication would be via the Caspian. This would the main sea route to Russia and the Caucuses. Petroleum and other goods could flow south from the Caucus with out going through the bottle neck of Asia Minor. As a trade route the north route dose have issues as trekking across the barren wastes of the Iranian plateau is no ones idea of a fun time.

    The tertiary route via Iraq and then to Syria is even more problematic. First there is the daunting geography. Goods would have to ship through a whole bunch of desert just to get to the Med. Then there is the political issues. Both Iraq and Syria are suffering serious instability, not a good thing for trade. Finally there is the Med itself and the people who own it. That would be NATO in spades. That would specifically be the US Sixth Fleet, not a very Iran friendly organization. With the Fifth Fleet backing up the Sixth, the Med is not a sea the Iranians want to be swimming in any time soon.

    You do not have to be a student of Alfred Thayer Mahan to understand how wrong Mitt is on the very basics of Sea Power. Again just look at a freaking map. The easiest sea-ward direction for Iran’s sea effort is south. That is where the biggest stretch of coast line is. That is where the biggest patch of blue is. That is the easiest way to smuggle goods if the need arises. Iran’s SLOC run south not west. This is not even strategy 101 people, this is strategy for dummies.


  1. » Mitt's Middle East Muddle | Taylor Marsh - October 24, 2012

    [...] Mitt's Middle East Muddle | Taylor Marsh Go to this article [...]

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong