Romney Tries to Return to War in Iraq and Torture
* What Romney would have done as president depends on whether one takes him at his word during the campaign, or argues he only said these remarks to pander to pro-war conservatives who looked at him with suspicion. Romney is certainly a religious conservative, though of a church some Protestants hold suspect, especially in the south. But in terms of his actions, his elected political career shows a moderate who successfully won the support of both left and right, who often called himself both “moderate” and even “progressive.”
* Romney, for example, balanced the budget as Massachusetts Governor by ending corporate loopholes over the opposition of business. He passed Romney care, the precedent and model for Obama care, the first state government directed healthcare for the poor. He was pro-choice and even favored benefits for gay couples, but not gay marriage itself.
* All that dramatically changed with his run for president, with the exception of his switch from pro-choice to pro-life which happened earlier. Every other major candidate for the Republican primary was more conservative than he was. He turned sharply to the right to win over conservatives. It did not work. Right up to the election itself many conservatives remained convinced he was not one of them, contributing to his defeat.
* Imagining his winning the election itself takes some doing. Some mistakes are obvious, his “47%” remark, castigating almost half the country as lazy leeches. (Ironically, his vote count in the election was 47%.) He did poorly in the debates. He chose as his running mate an intellectual lightweight, Paul Ryan. Photos and stories of his past, growing up very privileged, cemented his image as an unlikable rich kid, the kind of boss most people hated.
* The election was, electorally, a landslide, with the polls almost never changing. But if he had avoided every single mistake and narrowly won, what type of president would he have been? Quite clearly, a disastrous one viewed solely in terms of loss of human life and not political partisanship. For to hold onto his base he would have to carry out what they wished.*
* That likely means the US bombing of Iran. Romney spoke of bombing Iran and blockades. As pointed out before, that means almost certain retaliation by terrorists against US servicemen in Iraq and US installations worldwide. That leaves open the possibility of an invasion of Iran as public outcry and neo conservative cynicism would push for retaliation. That means a war even greater and more disastrous than in Iraq. Romney went one step further and said he would not need the approval of Congress to go to war.
* Romney even issued nuclear threats against Iran during the campaign, saying “You don't take options off the table,” when questioned about it. Still, it is hard to imagine him actually carrying them out. As noted before, there is no clear evidence of Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons, just the opposite. Romney issued his threat only as a possibility if Iran did appear to be building an A-bomb. But if US bombings lead to terrorism which leads to a US invasion, there is the daunting possibility of nuclear threats or even use to try and end that war. For Romney said openly his goal would be to overthrow the Iranian government.
* Romney also favored arming “moderate” Syrian rebels. The problem is, there are not any, only Al Qaeda allies. As pointed out before, arming groups that hate the US likely would backfire as much as the CIA's association with Bin Laden.*
* Romney during the campaign actually went further than most of his own party. He spoke of seeking to return US troops to war in Iraq. The death toll of returning to a continuing war in Iraq might have stayed as high as tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans a year. But luckily such a proposal had almost no chance of success. Even most of his own party thought the war in Iraq was a mistake. The Iraqi government would never allow any more US troops to return either. Recall they kicked US troops out, over Obama's objections.
* Romney also supports “enhanced interrogation techniques” while claiming to oppose torture. This is double speak, playing with words to hide your intentions, trying to appeal to the large number of Republicans who do in fact favor torture, but using a euphemism to avoid bad public relations. Likely there would be a return to torture under Romney, to water boarding, sexual abuse, sensory deprivation, and threatening prisoners with dogs. “Enhanced” techniques are torture under another name. To pretend otherwise is, to borrow George Orwell's phrase, “to make lies sound truthful, murder sound respectable, and give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
* What about laws inside the US? Would Romney have been guilty of ideological blindness, leading to American deaths? For national healthcare, he has been very contradictory, passing a statewide version, but calling for the repeal of the national version. What he would replace it with is unclear. It is certain his base would push for it. But a repeal would not pass unless the Democratic majority in the Senate ended.
* One way we know he would be ideologically blind is on Medicare. His running mate Paul Ryan proposed turning all of Medicare, part of Medicaid, and part of Social Security over to private business. Wealthy elites get their taxes cut in half while most others see their taxes rise from a national consumption (sales) tax. Government vouchers pay for private insurance.
* Essentially this would partly loot the treasury for private companies to make money off the elderly while raising taxes for nearly everyone but the wealthy. This is both reverse Robin Hood and corporate welfare at its worst. Romney described Ryan's plan as “almost identical” to what he supported. *
* Most critics argue this would actually end Medicare and weaken the other two programs, the three most successful anti poverty programs the US has ever had. That is precisely why many libertarians and conservatives hate these programs, because they show how much better government saves and improves lives than capitalism.
* Looked at from the point of view of lives saved or lost, this would lead to many more lives lost. One study after another shows Medicare saves lives of the elderly far better than private insurance. It is simple common sense, better access to healthcare means longer lives. A government handout of corporate welfare to private insurance is less efficient than government-run healthcare, leading to loss of lives. That has been shown in one nation after another.
* Thus the death toll from a Romney presidency includes terrorism from both Syrian rebels and Iran, bombing and possibly war against Iran, deaths by torture much like under GW Bush, and his ideological blindness leading to many more deaths of the elderly.