"Other rumored contenders for Romney's NSA are technocratic officials who have served in top policy positions in GOP administrations before, including former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, former NSC Middle East staffer Elliott Abrams, or former State Department Policy Planning director Mitchell Reiss. Campaign aide Dan Senor, who has been closely advising Romney on all thing Middle East, could be in line for a deputy NSA slot, the kind of role Denis McDonoughplays in the current administration, some advisors say.
At the sub-cabinet level, even speculation is difficult because so much depends on who gets the cabinet level slots above. Senior advisor Rich Williamson seems like a natural choice for U.N. ambassador. But the roster of advisors jostling for other positions like deputy secretary of state, deputy defense secretary, under secretary of defense for policy, and others includes several Romney foreign-policy advisors, including former deputy NSA for Iraq and Afghanistan Meghan O'Sullivan, former under secretary of state Robert Joseph, former State Department counselor Eliot Cohen, former assistant secretary of state Stephen Rademaker, former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, and many, many more." FP
--------------------------------
The president (Mr. covert action) is apparently ahead in nation wide polling. That doesn't mean a lot but if things go that way we would be spared this horror.
With the exception of Eric Edelman (sorry Eric) I believe that this crew will merrily take the US back to war in one or more places. That ought to finish off our economy. So many countries, so few divisions... Oh. we can fix that! pl
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/09/who_will_get_top_jobs_in_a_romney_administration
May be they will fund all these wars-to-come by setting up kool-aid stands in neighborhoods around the United States.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 10 August 2012 at 12:19 PM
Like Kennedy descendants, the Repbublican talent pool thins with each new generation. George H. W. Bush had Jim Baker. Goerge W. Bush had Condi Rice. And Romney will have Dan Senior? By 2016, Louie Gohmert will be our Secretary of State, John Hagee will run HHS, and Alan West will run Defense.
Posted by: Matthew | 10 August 2012 at 12:28 PM
The government may or may not change but the regime will remain.
It won't make much difference either way. We will still have endless wars to feed the military/industrial/security complex and serve the Israeli lobby.
Posted by: John Adamson | 10 August 2012 at 12:41 PM
Not so sure that Eric "Cakewalk" Edelman would not be one to take the U.S. back to war as well. He was one of those who helped push the Iraq adventure....
Posted by: oofda | 10 August 2012 at 01:31 PM
Nah!
Sheldon Adelson will provide the $$$$ and in return he will demand the release of Pollard :-)
Posted by: The beaver | 10 August 2012 at 02:09 PM
Hopefully before the election, Obama would name his prospective " if re-elected" cabinet members and challenge
Romney to do the same.
I was thinking of voting for Romney to protect my Social Security from Obama's "Nixon-goes-to-China" plots to destroy it. But if this is the sort of lineup Romney brings with him, I can't vote for that. Better to risk giving Obama his desperately-sought chance to destroy my Social Security than to give Romney his chance to destroy the whole country.
Posted by: different clue | 10 August 2012 at 03:12 PM
And who says Republicans do not believe in recycling?
Posted by: Tigershark | 10 August 2012 at 03:22 PM
Wasn't that Kenneth Adelman, oofda? Cronin.
Posted by: Novangliate | 10 August 2012 at 03:29 PM
As I recall, the neocon war cry was: "Real men go to Tehran." What's to worry about? We practice COIN. Maybe spice it up with a tactical nuke or two.
Posted by: E L | 10 August 2012 at 03:39 PM
If the Democrats don't hit hard on Mitt's apparent love of war as long as it does not include him or his sons serving then they deserve to lose.I live in NC and there is a lot of military serving and retired in this state and this might be a good state to try it out in. While others were serving in Viet Nam, Mitt was in Paris, not Paris Texas, but Paris France. Oh no he probably even speaks French. Not that I think there is anything wrong with speaking French, but many Republicans seemed upset that Kerry's wife could speak French.
Posted by: Nancy K | 10 August 2012 at 04:06 PM
Col: A fiction writer couldn't come up with a better Israel-Firster quote than this:
"And therein lies the irony of Obama forcing Israel to put its citizens and soldiers at risk to do something that he should be authorizing the U.S. military to do."
See http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/will_israel_help_re-elect_obama.html#ixzz239Y0hNtj?tw_p=twt
Everything that is wrong with American politics and punditry is contained in that quote.
Posted by: Matthew | 10 August 2012 at 05:20 PM
And we were told that if Ron Paul ran as the nominee, he would be rejected as 'crazy' for thinking we shouldn't be going to war all the time.
Posted by: Tyler | 10 August 2012 at 05:40 PM
No politician in US, Canada, Australia, European Union has the courage to go to Tehran in the manner that the late Mr. Nixon went to China.
That is now beyond their capacity.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 10 August 2012 at 06:03 PM
Or, we could always do bake-sales.
Since it's one way of funding expensive medical care, why not?
Posted by: steve | 10 August 2012 at 06:07 PM
Not to worry. The man without a spine does not have a chance he has blown his opportunity. Of course who knows what will happen in the next eighty days he may grow one.
Looking at the potential list of NSA candidates if Richie Rich wins the one that concerns me most is Dan Señor as I have always thought he was speaking for a foreign country.
Posted by: Bobo | 10 August 2012 at 07:01 PM
I cannot find agreement in the statement. Certainly Ron Paul appears to have the courage to do so. Its impossible to know for sure. The late Mr. Cook is another. The process of normalization with Tehran will not mirror the US-China relationship and so a similar 'Nixon goes to China moment' isn't to be anticipated. In that sense, its a different world. American politics has changed enormously since the late 1960s. Maybe for this reason the much sought after 'grand bargain' has not materialized. Or, as you put it, maybe it is beyond their capacity.
If so, perhaps the road to normalization is one of small, baby steps, with no history changing photograph of an American official being met at Imam Khomeini International Airport. Irony alert...If it were up to me, I'd instead request the plane be admitted at Mehrabad. After all, every square inch of that airport was probably designed and built on American know-how. Re-start the relationship on the right foot by a nod to the some of the good of the past. Until quite recently, it was true to say much of Iran was built by the Americans and I think to the average Iranian that is recognized and appreciated.
Posted by: mac n. | 10 August 2012 at 07:51 PM
An excellent observation, I agree with you.
Posted by: Walrus | 10 August 2012 at 08:00 PM
Is it possible that Romney is a closet quiche eating surrender monkey?
Posted by: Walrus | 10 August 2012 at 08:03 PM
If Romney wins, does anyone remember who Oceana is supposed to be fighting next?
Posted by: WP | 10 August 2012 at 08:35 PM
You think Obama is more likely than Romney to gut social security? If Romney is elected he will most likely have both houses of Congress as well. The tea partiers led by Paul Ryan will try to pass their agenda and kill what's left of the New Deal.
Posted by: Will Reks | 10 August 2012 at 09:01 PM
Yep. Apparently having some sense of perspective about the use of US power makes you an isolationist.
Posted by: Medicine Man | 10 August 2012 at 09:30 PM
If Romney were to become President, I would feel better if went to the National Zoo, shave all the inhabitants of the primate house, put suits on them, and declare them to be his national security team. It would be a much better choice than any combination of those NeoCon all-stars.
They really creep me out... the neocons, not the shaved and suited primates.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 10 August 2012 at 10:15 PM
What you suggest or envision is no longer possible, perhaps a few decades from now.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 10 August 2012 at 10:33 PM
All:
Mr. Romney, in my opinion, based on his area of focus in Foreign policy, is not the man to be US President.
The most improtant country\ies to US are Russia (she can annihilate US), China ( she has a symbiotic economic relationship with US) and Mexico (there is a drug war).
Israel, Iran, EU, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc. are indulegences - in my opinion.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 10 August 2012 at 10:38 PM
Republicans would prefer you use "secret" instead of "closet."
Posted by: E L | 10 August 2012 at 11:35 PM