Getty Images
Romney thinks this mob would respect his presidency more. That's nuts.
I've never worked on a presidential campaign, but I can imagine how insular it can become. If a campaign team isn't careful, epistemic closure can take over -- a candidate thinks he or she is great, aides only look at polls and news stories that reinforce their preferred beliefs, and those who question the agreed-upon narratives are held suspect.
But if Mitt Romney's campaign actually believes its own rhetoric about foreign policy, the Republican and his aides aren't just embracing bravado; they're also slipping into delusions.
Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.
"There's a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you'd be in a different situation," Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview.... Williamson added, "In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations -- the respect for America has gone down, there's not a sense of American resolve and we can't even protect sovereign American property."
Again, I don't know Williamson personally, and his comments to the Post may be little more than partisan chest-thumping.
I'm more concerned, however, with the notion that Williamson might actually believe his own nonsense.
In Team Romney's mind, the protests in the Middle East, and the deadly raid on the consulate in Libya, are President Obama's fault. Why? Because Muslim protestors don't "respect American resolve."
If Romney were in office, the argument goes, there wouldn't be protests -- angry Muslims simply wouldn't take to the streets because they respected America too much.
The Obama campaign responded to this rhetoric by continuing to criticize the Romney campaign for shamelessly politicizing a foreign security crisis, and that's certainly a legitimate point of debate. The fact that the inexperienced Republican with no working understanding of foreign affairs is pursuing such an ugly and divisive strategy while Americans abroad are in danger is a dynamic Americans should take seriously.
But I'm inclined to think the larger problem is with the perspective itself. It's simply impossible to take such transparent nonsense seriously.
For one thing, "American resolve" looks pretty secure in the Obama era. Romney and his team may not realize this, but this president ordered the strike that killed bin Laden, decimated al Qaeda, helped topple the Gadhafi regime, and has maintained a strong, steady hand in negotiations with foreign leaders around the globe. To blame Obama for these protests is, on its face, ridiculous.
For another, Romney and his team may not remember recent history, but angry protests in the streets of countries in the Middle East and North Africa sometimes occurred before January 2009. It's shocking, I know, but it's true. What's more, there were plenty of attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad before Obama took office -- many took place during Ronald Reagan's and George W. Bush's presidencies.
By the Romney campaign's reasoning, Americans should have blamed Reagan and Bush for those incidents -- they didn't command enough respect or show enough resolve.
And finally, I honestly want to know if, in the minds of Romney and his advisors, they see the angry mobs protesting in the region this week and think Romney's mere presence would make the unrest disappear. "Well, I was going to express my rage today in the streets of Cairo," the young Egyptian would say, "but since President Mitt Romney is in office and I respect his resolve, I guess I'll do something else."
I mean, really. Just how far has the Romney campaign gone? Is there no one in the entire operation who can stand up and say, "Guys, maybe we should rethink this line of attack"?
Leave a Comment:
When you're in the middle of jumping the shark, the only thing you can do is flap your arms and pray you can fly.
Don't forget to zip up your leather jacket! -Kevo
Except that there are a frightening number of people ... some of whom I actually know, egads ... that either don't recognize the absurdity or simply don't care. Romney is their guy because he's not Obama. Frightening.
Too many movies with John Wayne, Ahnald, Dirty Harry, etc. where the Dude in the White Hat kicks ass without getting his buckskins scuffed up [1]. "Tough" now means too big to be in any danger while you kick in the faces of those much weaker than you are.
[1] Yojimbo and the spaghetti knockoff For a Fistful of Dollars were better movies -- Yojimbo gets the stuffing beat out of him and shows that he's genuinely tough by dragging himself back into the action.
You know, regarding those in Egypt who believe the US government was behind the videos on You Tube- Really, how different are they from the 30% of the electorate that believe the birther stories?
You know we have this kind of smug attitude- well- those protesters simply aren't informed- its a young democracy, they don't understand concepts of free speech and so on. Oh? Then explain the birthers. Does this country not have a strong concept of free speech? Do these US citizens not have robust information resources to separate fact from fiction?
Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Rachel did a much much better job than the Secretary of State talking to, rather than at the protester's point of view. (That is, the logical extrapolation from their experience with governments- that if a media item exists in a country it is with the tacit approval of the government.) But look at the Birther situation. If Rachel were Secretary of State, we'd have a much better explainer because she understands deep communication is about getting into the headspace of the "Other". But ask yourself. Is that enough? If lack of excellent Explainers in Chief is the problem, then why is the birther perspective persisting? If it can persist here with so many excellent explanations why the theory is a silly hoax, then is it reasonable to be optimistic about the solution of providing good explanations to a more educated electorate in the Muslim world? It doesn't work here, so why should we think it will where the gulf is unimaginably greater between typical American styles of thinking and those in other countries who view us as the Other.
Isn't this the common animal behavior driving both the birthers and the violent protests in Egypt, Pakistan, and Yemen? In their eyes, we are the Other. We are foreign to their body politic, and we are mutually engaged in a reflexive antibody reaction.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. We are ants of the same species with the wrong pherome. We are attacked immediately by ants of the Other nest as interlopers.
Isn't this the common animal behavior driving both the birthers and the violent protests in Egypt, Pakistan, and Yemen?
John,
Usually I agree with you comments/opinions or at least understand your angle, but the behaviors of the birthers and the protesters and militants in the Middle East are not equivalent. Yes, the birthers may be ignorant and a little wacky, but they do not burn government facilities and murder people. It is one thing to voice a conspiracy theory on a billboard or a blog site and file petitions, but that does not come even near flames and violence.
Skip,
If you mean they are not equivalent from a legal or moral standpoint, yes of course there is a qualitative difference between word and act. No question about that.
This was an analysis of behavior. My perspective is that if you want to defeat a phenomenon, you must defeat what makes it tick. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels. Wasn't the Iraq/Afghanistan decade long "adventure" expending trillions and thousands of lives sufficient evidence of our spinning wheels? Let's be practical and not be so bone headed.
Anyway, I see a commonality in the behaviors, you do not. You have made the point that there is a distinction in kind between the two because of the degree of violation of social norms. Well, the far right has violating a large number of norms of governance in the US to achieve their ends. And if you listen to AM radio, they are already advocating mass murder- Michael Doyle for example was advocating B-52 carpet bombing of Muslims on September 12. If you claim these were just words, well those weren't "just words" killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. What do we say to them? Honest mistake? You didn't have WMD? Ooops? 100K people dead due to the dynamic of the Other. That's what it was.
Secondly, you established a false equivalency between the Egyptian protestors and the two vehicles of well armed men of a particular tribal faction who attacked the Benghazi consulate. You might want to rethink that aggregation. Aren't you lumping all "those protestors" into the Other?
At what point does violation of social norms become sufficient to establish this difference in kind you assert? If it is murder and violence, then was organized murder of blacks in the South during the 60s equivalent in kind to Libyan group? If invading government grounds and burning the US flag is difference in kind, then were anti-war protestors who engaged in such tactics different in kind from the Egyptian protesters?
Explain what measure you are using for asserting that the
oops, truncated the end.
"Explain what measure you are using for asserting that there is a difference in kind between the perspective of the Egyptian protestors and the Birthers.
Skip. if we did not have the laws we do and the robust enforcement of them, I can see the birthers doing *exactly* what the rioters in the ME are doing. It's just inconvenient for the average birther to be arrested.
Skip, if we had the same heritage in America of mobs taking to the streets with weaponry, you can rest assured the tea baggers would be out there shooting their guns in the air (or directly at people.) Hell, they already go to their own gatherings armed to the hilt, seemingly looking for trouble (they will one day, undoubtedly, find.) So I think John's commentary is dead on target (no pun intended.)
John,
I am using the measure of the protesters actions. There are riots in a few different countries today (and yesterday) that were just protests - nothing to do with the attack in Libya. Some say that these protests were the result of that low quality film on YouTube. I believe it may be the trigger but not the whole reason, but even if it were I do not think an action like a YouTube video would cause as much destructive protests here.
And velkyn and r1nl8,
We DO have laws and robust enforcement of such which natually prevents such intense mob action. And you are correct - they (birther) probably do not want the "inconvenience" of being arrested because they are aware of said laws. They know the consequences of any action they take and stay within the law with their protests/bizarre opinions. The unfotunate reality is that in many of the countries with the unrest, the enforcement of laws is lax or the authorities are not equipped to handle the fracas or are sympathetic. In many ways we are worlds apart in that respect. Yes we may have had mob action as bad in the near past, I would think that we have progressed in this country. And IF the riots are ONLY because of a crappy, low quality film barely seen by anyone, I do not think the same type of thing would trigger this type of response here.
@D. C. Sessions
Or John McClane in the Die Hard movies. That guy pretty much gets the living daylights beaten out of him in each movie, but keeps going because of his resolve to do what needs doing.
Personally, I'd rather keep a POTUS who tries to negotiate and use diplomacy before force rather than elect one who supports an arrogant, jingoistic, self-centered, deluded perspective of the world.
(But that's just me...)
I think Richard Engel's analysis on TRMS yesterday was very instructive. He said that these protesters have been under dictators so long they had their perspective skewed. He said it's not just Muslims in the Middle East you see the same mindset in North Korea. They think ever American is out to get them. That kind of brainwashing doesn't disappear over night. It will take years for what these dictators did to their people to be cleansed away.
But isn't the skewing self perpetuating?
The birthers don't leave their bubble, so why should radicals in Egypt leave theirs?
Really, I think the way out of the Other trap is to show you aren't Other. Like when Michelle Obama spoke. She spoke to values voters and saw she was not so other from them after all.
this nonsense, coming from someone who said he'd never have gone after Bin Laden if it were inconvenient, is amusing and as always hypocritical. Sometimes, I'd swear that the Romney campaign is intentionally throwing the race.
No, he didn't say that. That's your fabricated strawman spin. Try again.
April 2007 Romney quote on bin Laden, in which he told the Associated Press “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”
PR value for Obama? Priceless.
Heh.
@ shooter242:
I know you support Romney but you shouldn't adopt his policy of sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating demonstrable falsehoods.
shooter forgot his rule about always being civil..
of course, when you can't get it up (and the weekend's coming) I guess you lash out...
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
Velkyn, I must admit that in these absurd moments, the thought of Mitt throwing the race has also crossed my mind.
The Republicans have it very easy right now, they toss out their negative criticisms without needing to provide solutions, their obstruction means they don't really have to work on much, and Obama is lifting the country back up by inches against their dead weight and pretend ideas (like the Ryan budget).
But the actually of Mitt, that he just isn't sophisticated enough to play that deep a game, and the votes he garnered by the public who's never let in on the machinations of their higher leadership, have led me to believe we simply live in interesting times.
Technically you're right Shooter; the quote was "There's a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you'd be in a different situation,".
I couldn't agree more. In a Romney administration the attacks likely would have been on our own shores. Remember, the new Republicism is to do the opposite of Democratic actions - just as George W. Bush ignored the Bin Laden warnings that the CIA and previous Clinton intelligence advisors were pleading with the Bush administration to take seriously. Romney appears to be following that same path. George W. Bush did NOT keep America safe.
Any guesses as to when the last US ambassador was killed? That's right, Obama is the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.
Yep. One US ambassador each under Democratic presidents. 3,000 plus American dead on our soil with your last Republican president. Checkmate.
If Romney were to be elected, it would be very, very bad. Romney has no heart or soul. He sees only $$ in his eyes. He will do anything for a buck, regardless of the effects it will have on American families. War is $$$. Romney is incapable of having compassion or concern toward American families. In Romney's eyes, he sees American families as chattel. Romney does not know you and he never will. Chances are he has never "walked in your shoes" before. He never will. He has no clue what it is like in the real world. He knows only $$$. He cares nothing for your family. He never will. He and Paul Ryan want to set women back into the 1920's. Why? They want power. The oligarchy, which Romney is one of the oligarch, are so saturated with money, they need something more. There is nothing left that the American people have except our power. This oligarchy will hijack our voice, voter rights, etc. Romney will destroy America. Perhaps worse than George Bush. With Obama, justice has been served and justice will be served again. Obama understands that our country needs to have military security but Romney only sees the $$$ of how much he can profit off a war. The $$$ will block his vision of the casket that could be holding your son or daughter. Romney will shrug and tell us know that its just a casualty of war. He won't care. He never will. He only cares about $$$.
Romney + Ryan and the rest of the oligarchy = anti-christ.
The saddest part is they don't care how they're making the country look on the international stage in the mean time.
poor shoots, can't admit that he's a liar when shown repeatedly. Romney did say that he would not go after Bin Laden for rather bemusing reasons, that it would cost too much and be too inconvenient, e.g. moving heaven and earth. Bush made the same excuses when he failed to do anything.
And awww, poor shoots has to blame anyone and everyone except those responisible for the deaths of ambassadors. Alfred Dubs was kidnapped by Maoist terrorists in Pakistan. He was killed in a firefight between the terrorists and Russian and Afghani agents. Please do show how Carter had anything to do with this, dear shooter. Keep up your lies so we know just how "good" you are. :) I'm glad you're here doing such a bang up job of representing your GOP "values".
as for whether Romney is smart enough to play a deep game, I don't think that it might be him doing it, but his handlers. They allow him to be the idiot.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, NO AMBASSADOR WAS KILLED.
williamson ought to mention what bin laden and al-qaida think of american resolve. i suspect their "respect" for it has gone up by orders of magnitude since the last inauguration day. but then, that'd be like arguing with a fool (he who does so is a bigger one).
And look how that Shock and Awe commanded respect in Iraq... I do recall they were laying down rose petals as Americans entered Baghdad.
I think Obama gets a lot of credit for this by virtue of endless endzone victory dances around killing Bin Laden. He speaks loudly and carries a small twig.
In other news apologizing for anything is apparently an act of submission in the Middle East. Romney was right.
He gets credit for it by being, you know, the PRESIDENT. The guy who actually made the call? That guy.
Romney hasn't been right in ... ever. Did you miss the statements from the GOP saying Romney should've kept his trap shut? No? Or yes, but they don't support your lunacy so it's cool to pretend everyone is so proud of the smirking idiot Mittens?
I thought it was Valerie Jarret that made the call.
Shooter probably thinks Romney would fly to Egypt and b*tch slap all them thar protester's into submission.
Re: #3.4
"I thought...."
My question, "Do you?"
So Shooter when Bush 43 apologized for the sniper shooting the Quaran. Or when he apologized for a comic strip that offended Islam, or when he apologized for that nut preacher in Florida. Was that also a sign of 'submission', or was he just being Presidential?
Well Calvin, how was the Iraq war going after those statements? As I recall, those statements didn't keep him from having a shoe thrown at his head.
As an aside, it's Clinton's fault for the Iraq war. Did you know that 2 days after 9/11 80% of people polled by the Washington Post though Saddam did it? Probably because Clinton declared war on Iraq first...
Shooter displays his thinking skills. What an awe-inspiring sight! Neanderthals everywhere take heart. Someday you too may reach his level of incipience!!
The Iraq war wasn't going good, not because of what Bush did. But because it was planned with crayons, and executed with the foresight of a 5 year old.
Secondly most people assumed that Iraq planned 9/11. Because frankly at the time the American people had no clue who the heck Al Qaeda was, or where they were stationed as a base of op. And Bush 43 saying that Saddam had WMD's didn't make things any clearer for them. But nice try to put it on Clinton. Because I guess you forgot that Bush 41 is the one who declared war on Iraq, with the "liberation" of Kuwait. Only difference was Iraq wasn't willing to go to war then.
Calvin:Apparently shooter does'nt remember Bush saying "why do'nt they like us"refering to the middle east.Just before hiring a PR firm to broadcatst on Al-Jazeera to improve the image of the U.S.
If Mitt's audience was not screened, there would be protesters all over. He had to wait for his supporters to shout down a lone protester at a recent speech. Ann may respect him, but if his sons had an ounce of decency they would consider him venal and cowardly.
No, Obama accusing Romney of killing someone's wife via his super-pac is venal and cowardly.
Except, of course, that that never happened. He's barred by law from coordinating with superPacs, but even so, after Obama's displeasure about the ad was known, the ad was never run.
Actually the ad was run in Cleveland, and if you believe Obama gives a rat's patootie about the law, I have a bridge for sale.
Still irredeemably malicious after all these years.
I rather assumed that this claim of the Romney campaign was based on the idea that this would have happened in Libya under their watch because Gadhafi would still have been in power...
Actually, Romney was for intervention in Libya before he was against it, before he was for it... then... then... wait, I forget where he is now.
ARodney,
Basically, he is against whatever the President is doing.
... or says he is. Even he gets himself all tied up in knots trying to keep up with his positions. It's the most common problem for all types of liars.
Old Vermontah,
It's not that he can't remember what position he has, it's that he can't remember what lie he's been telling. And now we have another liar for VP doing the same thing.
If Romney think his resolve alone will prevent these protests then by all means send him over there now! I will pay the plan fare!
Pass the hat!
In RomneyLand respect=fear, as in Trump's "Your fired!"
Quite possibly that's as closest approximation he's ever known. Pretty common for narcissists and sociopaths.
Yeah, a hypothetical coming from a man who works for Mitt who says he doesn't like to work in hypotheticals!
Romney, McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Trump, Koch Bros, Phyllis Schafeley, Anton Scalia, Tea Partyiers, oh, and Ryan are so intensely involved in their faulty efforts to wash and rinse America from this President, they now find themselves in a perpetual spin cycle with no fabric or honest fortitude in the machine. Just them, their asses, and their stupid! -Kevo
*Applause*
the respect for America has gone down, there's not a sense of American resolve and we can't even protect sovereign American property
I think instead of using the word respect they seem to mean the word fear. I can picture a lot more troops confronting protesters with Romney as president. Hillary Clinton recently made some good points about protesters and free speech.
Romney doesn't understand the culture of the average American so how could he possible understand what's going on in the middle east?
This gets my vote for all time dumbest comment ever.
Tom given that Romney's foreign policy staff is all neocons, I am thinking more along the lines of a Fallujah response once we we find out where the hideout of the responsible gang.
Re: #9.1
And that gets my vote for all time dumbest reply ever.
Tom, that was high praise from Bull.
My, shooter, that wasn't very civil...
Impotence?
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
OK Slappy we get it! NOW can you stop putting up that same post about shooter? And BTW, who cares if he is a troll - which is a made up term in this internet/blog world and carries no significant meaning or weight. It makes the bantering here a little more interesting than just reading pretty much similar mindsets on the topics. Actually your continual post above (9.5) is a good example of reading the same exact thing from everyone here - different words, maybe, but the same side of the debate. Boring.
Oops, skippy gets a wrong again. Too bad for skippy. No points for skippy.
Who does Romney-Resolve think he is? Chuck Norris?
I would think he would be happy to have Mr. 1000 Years of Darkness on his team.
He presents a very reasoned and well thought out argument for Mr. Romney .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/chuck-norris-obama-reelection-1000-years-of-darkness-mitt-romney_n_1854309.html
Not Chuck, Rambo.
Since i haven't seen pictures of Romney smoking, i can only assume he is mainlining whatever drugs he is on. This man has no clue of what is going on in this country let alone the rest of the world. Empires that depend on their military all fall sooner than later. Countrys that build their manufacturing base will also build the wealth of their country
Seriously, I meant it yesterday: in Romney's world, everyone outside of the USA is terrified that one of their neighbors will draw the attention of the Unblinking Eye of Washington to an act of disrespect, because the next thing that happens is a nuclear strike that takes out the whole province.
Pour encourager les autres.
"Pour encourager les autres."
A little something Willard picked up during his mission work in France?
There is no more pompous ass than Richard Williamson. He has made the tv machine rounds, chastising reporters on their 'facts'. His assertion is 'anybody could have gotten Bin Laden' (really? then why DIDN'T they?) and that the Middle East respects REPUBLICANS more. Clearly, the man is suffering from memory loss. It was the President that brought respect for America BACK. Even with these recent international incidents, we are seeing the PEOPLE of these countries respecting America while the thugs attack. To give credence to terrorists as 'all these people think' is the Republican way. The little people don't need a voice. 'WE KNOW'...yes, you and Bibi will have the Middle East burning...
There is a difference between "velvet glove" diplomacy and the use of covert operatives/military personnel to defend the USA. Mr. Romney's advisors are making the mistaking of assuming they are the same thing.
President Barrak Obama had a conversation with the President of Egypt Morsi and then made a statement about our status with Egypt in a public forum. Only a fool would think that the message the President was sending was not intended communicate our resolve - get in line if you want our future assistance.
Make no mistake that we have nuclear-powered war ships that can be deployed against Egypt's pitiful forces in a matter of hours and within days we can neutralize their defenses.
In 2009, the U.S. provided $1.3 billion to the Egyptian military ($1.41 billion in 2012).
We can and will take actions to isolate Egypt from a protected ally status if the situation merits and the President sent a not-so-subtle message via his interview.
Again, diplomacy acts with gracious statement intend to woo, but we still have a massive iron fist when if we choose to use it, and the force of the US is unquestioned in the Mediterranean theater.
For those who doubt the resolve of the CIC to take action, don't.
I think so many people can't see the nuances and maneuvering in diplomacy. I think these same people also suck at chess. Only rookies always rely on table-pounding and direct frontal assaults.
Chest thumping by American presidents has NEVER quelled unrest abroad. Look at Reagan. Look at Dubya. They thumped their chests so hard you'd think they were trying to resuscitate themselves after a heart attack, and I don't recall that ever keeping problems in check overseas. To the contrary, in fact.
The louder they talk, the faster they run.
If Romney were President what would he do that would let the Salafists know that attacking an American Embassy or Consulate will not be tolerated? One of his surrogates made it pretty clear. Speaking on Fox, Ralph Peters made it clear how Romney would deal with Salafists in Egypt or Libya or anywhere else: If they kill 4 of ours, we kill 400 of theirs.
Joyce do share with us your extensive understanding of how our covert operations work.
We just confirmed on Sept 11 that we had killed al-Libi, who was Libyan by birth, was the biggest setback to al-Qaida since the death of Osama bin Laden.
Do you think the hundreds of people killed by drones was a sign of weakness?
Of course, they all look alike so we'll just kill 400 people at random. This will get huge chants of USA! USA! USA! in domestic rallies. Who cares what the ragheads think?
Speaking on Fox, Ralph Peters made it clear how Romney would deal with Salafists in Egypt or Libya or anywhere else: If they kill 4 of ours, we kill 400 of theirs.
Haven't we fight several wars in the past AGAINST countries that committed acts like that?
Isn't this the tactics that the Taliban use in Afghanistan?
Are these the "American values" that Mitt Romney was referring to the other day?
I abhor what the Republican said. I merely reported it. If Mitt Romney, as President, were to order the apprehension of 400 random Muslim men identified by wearing a mandress, cap, and full beard and then order their public execution as Peters called for the right wing would love him. They are a really sick bunch.
2Manchu,
If you stop to think about it, that's exactly what Bush did. We attacked two countries and killed thousands in repayment for 9/11 and those countries we attacked actually had nothing to do with it.
Phenner i made the comment initially because of the outrage I felt. I saw no pushback from either side. Maybe that Peters guy is considered a kook like Louie Gohmert. I will admit, however that such retribution would definitely send a message. When Hitler ordered the burning and destruction of the Village of Lidice in WW2 after Heydrich got killed, I would guess that the resistance went into hiding. I thought of what an appropriate response that would satisfy the Neocons would be? They should go on record and say it.
I hope the US will not let the Right Wing take over our foreign policy.
Joyce D,
I come from an area full of republicans. For over 40 years, other than state and federal elections, there weren't any dems on the ballots. My family were all hard-nosed republicans and some even served in Congress. The republicans we have in this country today scare me to death. Not only in foreign policy, but in our own government policies.
Romney and the GOP could only think of political advantage and bashing the president at a time of great danger for the men and women so bravely serving this nation. Romney is a joke, a man with no clue how to properly act in sober and serious times. He is not qualified for the job. Mitt Romney hates his country. Mitt Romney must hate America if he would willingly and gleefully release statement after statement denouncing our president and questioning our military and state department professionals bravely serving in the line of fire at a time of great danger and unrest. - principled progressive
I don't think Mitt Romney hates this country -- I just think he's unfit to lead it.
He loves the country of his dreams. Unfortunately, there's no place for people like us in it.
I guess by this train of (non thought), it was George W's fault that 9/11 happened, right? They just didn't respect our resolve enough.
He's determined to get some @!$%# started, and then blame it on Obama when the @!$%# hits the fan.
I'm having trouble getting past the idea of Mitt Romney showing "resolve". On anything.
Romery's solution with Cheney and his gang is:
WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR
face reality is that what you really want.
Chest thumping can be provocation. It escalates emotion & behavior. Being a teacher of middle school boys with behavioral issues, I know that when "chest thumping" begins, you had better be ready to deescalate & defuse or things can turn ugly very quickly.
This wouldn't be the same Romney who couldn't stand up for his newly-hired staffer against the rants of a fairly obscure right-wing preacher, would it? Or the same one who couldn't find the gumption to rebuke Rush Limbaugh for Limbaugh's cowardly attacks on Sandra Fluke? Or the same one who just had to have his wife come along as a "minder" for his MTP interview? Or the Romney who couldn't come up with a single action he would have taken with regard to Libya when questioned during his pretender press conference? Or the Romney who won't release his tax returns because he's scared of what his opponents may find in them? Have Republicans ever put forth a more weasely ticket than Romney/Ryan?
Reminds me a lot of the "resolve" shown by GW Bush when he needed Dick Cheney to hold his hand as they "testified"... in secret... about 9-11.
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
I'd forgotten about that! Thanks for the memories.
The resolve Willard showed by hiding in France so he wouldn't have to defend this country he "loves" so much that sends job overseas and hides his money in offshore accounts. And I had forgotten about that Bush/Cheney fiasco about 9/11. Please. We don't need anymore of that in office. Go away Willard and take liar Ryan with you.
"Romney and his team may not remember recent history..."
Nor even ancient history...Jesus on a dinosaur?? No...wait, that's current... He's riding that Republican T.Rex right into oblivion!! (Their version of Him anyway...the one that probably never fed the poor and showered the blessings of tax cuts for all.)
Romney's like Forrest Gump-for the presidency, he just felt like running. Only, he's not as good as Gump.
Nor as smart.
That's an insult to Forrest Gump, who served in Vietnam. Romney just wants to go back in time to the Bush era and convince the World that he is a Madman just like Bush was.
.
The more I see of Romney the more I know Romney is out of his depth.
Romney strikes me as the type of person who has to hold all the cards including the Nuclear Option.
Take over a company and if it doesn't work out Nuke it.
And that mentality scares the hell out of me.
.