Romney is in.....

If you weren't a brain dead fuck you would remember I didn't vote for Obie dumb ass. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I never said you voted for him, emotigirl. I said you were an apologist for him. That's a polite way of saying you suck down too much of Odumbo's Koolaid tinctured goofy juice. Get it now, dick breath?

He has the temperment of old Man Bush (41), and would be tested early on by the "forces of evil" around the world. His directness and determination might surprise some of them, who have bought into the U.S. media assessment, that was slapped on the "the old Man" (the "wimp factor"). I would also expect him to seek and follow the "counsel" of his advisors more consistently than does the current farce in office......particularly when it has to do with foreign policy and military affairs ...... I think the "be nice and get nice" chorus has run its course. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Good assessment. Here is what he had to say about the Agonizer-In-Chief's foreign policy (if you can call it that) last May:



Romney: The Price of Failed Leadership

The President's failure to act when action was possible has diminished respect for the U.S. and made troubles worse.

By Mitt Romney

March 17, 2014 7:17 p.m. ET


Why are there no good choices? From Crimea to North Korea, from Syria to Egypt, and from Iraq to Afghanistan, America apparently has no good options. If possession is nine-tenths of the law, Russia owns Crimea and all we can do is sanction and disinvite—and wring our hands.

Iran is following North Korea's nuclear path, but it seems that we can only entreat Iran to sign the same kind of agreement North Korea once signed, undoubtedly with the same result.

Our tough talk about a red line in Syria prompted Vladimir Putin's sleight of hand, leaving the chemicals and killings much as they were. We say Bashar Assad must go, but aligning with his al Qaeda-backed opposition is an unacceptable option.

And how can it be that Iraq and Afghanistan each refused to sign the status-of-forces agreement with us—with the very nation that shed the blood of thousands of our bravest for them?

Why, across the world, are America's hands so tied?

A large part of the answer is our leader's terrible timing. In virtually every foreign-affairs crisis we have faced these past five years, there was a point when America had good choices and good options. There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

When protests in Ukraine grew and violence ensued, it was surely evident to people in the intelligence community—and to the White House—that President Putin might try to take advantage of the situation to capture Crimea, or more. That was the time to talk with our global allies about punishments and sanctions, to secure their solidarity, and to communicate these to the Russian president. These steps, plus assurances that we would not exclude Russia from its base in Sevastopol or threaten its influence in Kiev, might have dissuaded him from invasion.

Months before the rebellion began in Syria in 2011, a foreign leader I met with predicted that Assad would soon fall from power. Surely the White House saw what this observer saw. As the rebellion erupted, the time was ripe for us to bring together moderate leaders who would have been easy enough for us to identify, to assure the Alawites that they would have a future post-Assad, and to see that the rebels were well armed.

The advent of the Arab Spring may or may not have been foreseen by our intelligence community, but after Tunisia, it was predictable that Egypt might also become engulfed. At that point, pushing our friend Hosni Mubarak to take rapid and bold steps toward reform, as did Jordan's king, might well have saved lives and preserved the U.S.-Egypt alliance.

The time for securing the status-of-forces signatures from leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan was before we announced in 2011 our troop-withdrawal timeline, not after it. In negotiations, you get something when the person across the table wants something from you, not after you have already given it away.

Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed.

A chastened president and Secretary of State Kerry, a year into his job, can yet succeed, and for the country's sake, must succeed. Timing is of the essence.

.

That might be clever, little eva, except that LexusLover was merely responding to the original thread hijackers (flighty and tampon) and he already quoted my post directly in his reply #19 - where he explains why hopeless and desperate Obaminable apologists like you always try to hijack threads by changing the topic to Bush43.

Keep us laughing, you brain-dead emoticon freak!! Originally Posted by lustylad

I never said you voted for him, emotigirl. I said you were an apologist for him. That's a polite way of saying you suck down too much of Odumbo's Koolaid tinctured goofy juice. Get it now, dick breath? Originally Posted by lustylad

See if this jars your peanut sized brain fool. Wipe the shit off your shoe fucktard. Was my bad to post something that would require you ass wipes to think.

Spit it out, emotigirl. You're trying hard to say - what?

Or are you too much of a swallower to spit out anything intelligible?

Spit it out, emotigirl. You're trying hard to say - what?

Or are you too much of a swallower to spit out anything intelligible? Originally Posted by lustylad

Stay on the porch dick breath you can't run with the pack. Thinking is not your strong suite.

Thinking is not your strong suite. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

My suite? You mean here?





I heard you do your best thinking here:





Nice suite, little eva... who's your decorator?

.

My suite? You mean here?





I heard you do your best thinking here:

When you can't think at alll I must be one up LOL.




Nice suite, little eva... who's your decorator?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

LMAO even you are admitting you are in the shitter...

I think he would be a very good President. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

But then again....I thought BO would be one too

But then again....I thought BO would be one too Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

You did? Because he said he would be?

I pursued 3-4 items on a list ..... his "community organizing" ... "teaching" experience ... legislation he wrote and/or sponsored ..... and experience in businesses he owned or operated. The research took a long time. Almost up to the time to vote.

This thread is about Romney, you dickhead, not Bush43... if Romney was POTUS, the USA would have a coherent foreign policy, not a JV team reporting to Valerie Jarrett under the marching orders "don't do stupid shit"... Originally Posted by lustylad

Dickhead, Romney made a joke about being better off than we were 4 weeks ago regarding movement with the DJIA in the video. I just added on to that. Bush43 was POTUS at the time so its relevant. Only a Bush worshiper would think that it was coherent foreign policy to spend 2 trillion dollars for 8 years and have 4,500 people die to look for corroded weapons from 1980's that no longer work.

Mitt would have been a repeat of Bush43 and Bush43 was a DISASTER.

Only a Bush worshiper would think that it was coherent foreign policy to spend 2 trillion dollars for 8 years and have 4,500 people die to look for corroded weapons from 1980's that no longer work. Originally Posted by flghtr65

There is no FACTUAL reason to believe THAT ANY PRESIDENT (except LBJ) WOULD have agreed to "spend 2 trillion dollars for 8 years and have 4,500 people die to look for corroded weapons from 1980's that no longer work" ....

.....if the President KNEW IN ADVANCE there were ONLY ..

...."corroded weapons from 1980's that no longer work."

And at least one wouldn't "spend 2 trillion dollars for 8 years and have 4,500 people die to look for" ... "weapons" ...that "work."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

[SIZE="2"]"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." [/B]

This country paid the price for INACTION:



France just paid (and is paying) a price for INACTION today.

If you don't like Bush and didn't vote for him, fine. But don't rewrite history to justify it.

Reread your own post LLIdiot and YOU point out the fallacies.

IF YOU ONLY KNEW how fucking stupid you sound, maybe you wouldn't have wasted everybody's time and sensibilities by redundantly posting the shot of 9/11.

Reread your own post ... and YOU point out the fallacies.

IF YOU ONLY KNEW how fucking stupid you sound, maybe you wouldn't have wasted everybody's time and sensibilities by redundantly posting the shot of 9/11. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Based on your comprehension and "superior knowledge" in RETROSPECT.

You can't even read a fucking city approved plat map. What the fuck do you know?

No wonder you continue to support that goofball in the White House aka Mr. Veto.

If you don't like Bush and didn't vote for him, fine. But don't rewrite history to justify it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Or rewrite their own participation.

Or rewrite their own participation. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

You mean like......." I was "against it" before I was "for it" "?

Or like ....... "before the invasion I just wanted more time for the inspectors to look for WMDs, but now that nothing was found IMMEDIATELY I am against it"?