Romney puts foot in mouth again!

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
Wow, Mitt sure does have a lot to learn about foreign policy and when you consider that developing and administering our nations foreign policy is a Presidents most important function, it sure does raise alarm bells. First he popped off at the mouth about the attacks on our Embassies in Egypt and Libya without knowing all the facts. He condemned Obama of appeasement and being an apologist for the statements made by the personnel at the Embassy before the attacks had even occurred in an attempt to diffuse the situation.

Not even his fellow Republicans are defending his comments. They know that as the loyal opposition the smart political move is to rally around the flag. But Mitt didn't. He opened his big mouth and now he looks the fool. So much for politics stopping at the waters edge. So far Mitts recent foreign forrays have resulted in offending the Brits over their handling of the Olympics (which turned out spectacularly), getting roundly boo'd in Poland (demonstrating succinctly how unpopular US conservative politics are abroad) then undermining current US efforts opposing Iran's nuclear aspirations by siding with Israeli Likook...errr Likud extremist who are hell bent on another ME war. Then this foot in mouth moment.

Now he has Paul Ryan spreading the message of "Peace through Strength" and getting his foreign policy advice from a Bushco Neocon...who, correct me if I'm wrong, implemented the most incompetent and disastrous foreign policy in US history. Maybe someone needs to explain it very, very slowly to Paul Ryan that it is this arrogant attitude that produces hatred for Americans around the world and jeapordizes our safety and our interests abroad.

The Presidents criticism of Mitt Romney, on foreign policy, is spot on. Romney shoots first and aims later.
 
My mind is boggled by the fact that Mitt is the best candidate the republicans could come up with.
 
For Rmoney to "put his foot in his mouth", he would have to take it out sometime...

Righties may not like him much, but they can always say "at least he's white", can't they?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Wow, Mitt sure does have a lot to learn about foreign policy and when you consider that developing and administering our nations foreign policy is a Presidents most important function, it sure does raise alarm bells. First he popped off at the mouth about the attacks on our Embassies in Egypt and Libya without knowing all the facts. He condemned Obama of appeasement and being an apologist for the statements made by the personnel at the Embassy before the attacks had even occurred in an attempt to diffuse the situation.

Not even his fellow Republicans are defending his comments. They know that as the loyal opposition the smart political move is to rally around the flag. But Mitt didn't. He opened his big mouth and now he looks the fool. So much for politics stopping at the waters edge. So far Mitts recent foreign forrays have resulted in offending the Brits over their handling of the Olympics (which turned out spectacularly), getting roundly boo'd in Poland (demonstrating succinctly how unpopular US conservative politics are abroad) then undermining current US efforts opposing Iran's nuclear aspirations by siding with Israeli Likook...errr Likud extremist who are hell bent on another ME war. Then this foot in mouth moment.

Now he has Paul Ryan spreading the message of "Peace through Strength" and getting his foreign policy advice from a Bushco Neocon...who, correct me if I'm wrong, implemented the most incompetent and disastrous foreign policy in US history. Maybe someone needs to explain it very, very slowly to Paul Ryan that it is this arrogant attitude that produces hatred for Americans around the world and jeapordizes our safety and our interests abroad.

The Presidents criticism of Mitt Romney, on foreign policy, is spot on. Romney shoots first and aims later.
Click to expand...

mittens has done his campaign a lot of damage with his me comment

i wonder what the next set of polls will say, although he is probably ok with his base, the independents will not like his comment
 
It seems to me comparable to the time when McCain suspended his campaign due to the financial crisis.
 
Jarod said:
It seems to me comparable to the time when McCain suspended his campaign due to the financial crisis.
Click to expand...
Not even close. Though it's certainly a foot in mouth moment for Romney this is not even remotely a game changer. Where as the financial crises was. McCain was actually leading Obama in the electoral count when the crises occurred and it doomed his election chances.

Romney will either have to hope that a crises occurs which hurts Obama or Democrats badly, as the Financial Crises did for McCain and Republicans or he will have to hope Obama blows it in the debates.

Now considering that most executive business men, like Romney, tend to be autocrats who give marching orders and expect them to be carried out are not used to the give and take of politics meaning it's highly unlikely that Obama will blow it in the debates. So it's more likely that it would take some sort of crises to occur to unseat President Obama.
 
The crash its self doomed the republicans last time arround.


This time robmoney has done it to himself by proving he is unfit emotionally and morally for the office
 
Every day I am more convensed that President Obama will win. THis is good for America, I hope in four years we can get a more liberal canidate.
 
I hope it has coat tails in congress too.

A blow out with a filibuster proof majority would be very good for our country.
 
evince said:
I hope it has coat tails in congress too.

A blow out with a filibuster proof majority would be very good for our country.
Click to expand...

He already had that. Didn't work out so well did it? Remember 2010?

How do liberals get so fucking stupid?

bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha
 
You do realize that Peace through Strength was not a Bush policy, right? That was a Reagan policy. Bush's contribution was the idea that we should preemptively strike people, which is a stupid policy.
 
Damocles said:
You do realize that Peace through Strength was not a Bush policy, right? That was a Reagan policy. Bush's contribution was the idea that we should preemptively strike people, which is a stupid policy.
Click to expand...

Bush's policy was that we should preventively (not preemptively) strike other countries. There is a difference, although most people conflate the two ideas. Preemptive attacks are actually legitimate in the face of imminent hostilities against you. Preventive war, however, is designed to prevent an enemy from achieving the ability to strike against you.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Bush's policy was that we should preventively (not preemptively) strike other countries. There is a difference, although most people conflate the two ideas. Preemptive attacks are actually legitimate in the face of imminent hostilities against you. Preventive war, however, is designed to prevent an enemy from achieving the ability to strike against you.
Click to expand...

True, I should have been more careful in word usage. The idea of preventive war is stupid. They "may" give stuff to somebody, therefore we "must" do this...
 
Damocles said:
You do realize that Peace through Strength was not a Bush policy, right? That was a Reagan policy.
Click to expand...
And you do realize that this "Peace Through Strength" is a direct corrolary to the Monroe Doctrine and has little, if anything, to do with the point I made that this sort of diplomatic and political arrogance makes the US very unpopular abroad that this makes Americans and their interest abroad targets?

A little humility can go a long way Damo. You can often get much more accomplished diplomatically than you can by throwing teenaged temper tantrums and threats of violence.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Why is it stupid?
Click to expand...
Well GED'sRStupid, it goes like this. Preemption is an open ended policy where anyone or anything can be percieved as a millitary threat justifying the use of violence as an instrument of national policy. For the thugish and weak minded that might sound cool but it's a stupid assed way of doing business which third rate morons just can't seem to get their head around.

The only justification for the use of violence is to defend our nation from a clear and present danger. That has been long standing US policy for over 200 years and has worked extremelly well for us and we saw first hand in Iraq what an unmittigated and immoral disaster pre-emption was. Get it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top