Shared publicly  - 
 
Every veteran is the greatest of his or her generation. Today, and every day, we thank you for your sacrifices http://mi.tt/Kt6Ztd
115
10
Irvin Morales's profile photoEleanor Finn's profile photoJohn Ramirez's profile photoAlexis Sanders's profile photo
103 comments
 
fuck you Mitt, would you send your children into a war ?
 
+Cassius Wright yeah, but during the war you can make higher profits, so ... no, he would not...
 
Obama bought two wars. With your money. And he's working on a civil war.
 
wow this is NOT how +Mitt Romney needs his social media managed. immediate bashing times ten and support times.... well, less than ten.

To the people running the "mittens G+ extravaganza"
I can help you. try harder, you're failing at this and it sort of runs itself. its easy, if you try.
 
+Cassius Wright If you think this is full of #fail you should see Obama's twitter. :-) What a mealy-mouthed left-wing phony, and the people know it.
 
+Linda Nissen you let use yourself and your feelings for a warmonger and hypocrite...
 
+Margaret Leber if you use real math, not knew GOP math, you'll see the economic downturn was because your good friend GWB DIDNT buy his two wars, he put them on layaway. check's due now ma'am. pesky things using actual non-partisan facts instead of conservative new soundbites isn't it? i'm as likely to vote conservative as liberal as a real independent, so i'm refreshingly unfettered by things like lies and partisan distortions. i look at the real deal, beyond the end of my tv remote. HIGHLY recommended to anybody that actually cares about what the candidates stand for.
 
+Margaret Leber So you want to vote for a Republican because you are anti war? Mitt Romney criticized Obama for vowing to draw the wars down and bring our boys back home.

And working on a civil war? What sort of talk is that? I don't know anyone who wants to kill other Americans because of the small areas where we disagree - do you know any?
 
of course not. hyper partisan rhetoric doesnt convince swing votes either. in fact, historically, it drives them away in DROVES. hence Obama defeating McCain- which was strictly due to the polarizing effects of Palin. people on the fence dont want vitriol, they want solutions. people not on the fence it doesnt matter to either way.
 
+Cassius Wright If you want to help manage Romney's G+ communications, you don't need his permission. Just provide reasonable supportive comments and rebut his opponents in a reasonable way.

Of course, if you don't actually support Romney, it would be fairly stupid for him to seek your advice in managing his G+ stream, wouldn't it?
 
+Cassius Wright "knew math" snicker Wow, illiterate much?

Go research the actual composition of the debt. And the causes for it.

All we got from Obama was chin dancing right off the teleprompter, a neo-Keynesian "stimulus" payoff to his union patrons, a free pass for his Goldman Sachs sponsors, gems like Holder and Geithner, and Obamacare jammed down our throats. Assuming SCOTUS lets that stand, which is highly doubtful.

The "economic downturn" (nice circumlocution for "depression") should be long over by now, but Obama's doing his best to hold the economy's underwater until the bubbles stop.

Should have blocked your sorry "independent" butt on the first go-round. Oversight corrected.
 
i support the best candidate, which i'm not sure if its mitt romney or not. i know plenty of what he wouldn't do.
i know NOTHING of what he would, except the stupid "day-one" attention getting BS. i care more about years 1-4 than day one. he's targeting the wrong things with his messages. he's playing defense and is too easily distracted. i know that i'm disinclined to vote for person that refuses steadfastly to follow history and the rest of civilization by standing up for the rights of his fellow Americans, gay or otherwise. i think its gross how often religion is injected into his speeches. if he wasnt pandering to his base he'd have a much better chance.
its not like his base will EVER vote for Obama. grow a pair +Mitt Romney and tell us what YOU are all about.
 
+John Sullivan Mitt Romney's stated policy is peace through strength, which worked for Reagan. Whether Romney will be able to pull it off equally well obviously can't be known before he is president, but he strikes me as too thoughtful to charge into new wars without thinking.
 
+Margaret Leber um, to each there own, but you're proving my point. you need to provide sources for your claims, and non-partisan ones. clearly there are lots of people that want to be on the "winning Team" and prefer that to whats best for their country. you're call if thats you're method of voting, as you wish. if you cant handle an independent asking questions i fear for you when actual debates come around. maybe you can block them too lol.

and knew math is correct. its "knew" because you start with the answer you want and work backwords to get the formula that works. this phrase has been around forever. its a play on "new math" but of course, you "knew" that and just prefer to snipe instead of articulate your position.
 
has anybody of you read George Orwells "1984" ?
 
Mitt, It's a nice movie, a wonderful call to action for our vets--but today is MEMORIAL DAY--Not VETERAN'S DAY! Today is about those that have died...your little movie and words are for our living veterans on Veteran's day and that's in November (or any other day BUT today!) I can't understand how an educated man, with a talented staff who is seeking our nations highest office might make such a blunder...
 
+Warren Dew The black panthers don't have the capacity to start a civil war any more than the neo nazis and the klan do. Both are small groups of extremists. There are also small secessionist movements, anarchists movements, etc that wouldn't mind it. But combined, these groups don't account for one thousandth of America. Obama has spoken ill of hate groups since day one.
 
+John Harty Mitt is simply using the sacrifice of this soldiers for his own interests...
 
+John Sullivan Right wing extremism may also be an issue but I didn't immediately find a link about explicitly advocating violence.

And to be honest, I'm skeptical of pronouncements by the department of homeland security because I see that department as being as much part of the problem as part of the solution. Invading your own citizens' privacy, as for example in TSA searches, is not what the defense of freedom is about.
 
John, cut the man some slack. At least he remembered today which is more than I can say for someone else who is also supposedly educated. I can think of worse things that are actual blunders.
 
interesting that only the die-hard GOP fans have gotten so upset about anybody even thinking to pose questions about "their candidate" . the purity litmus demanded by the current GOP is one +Mitt Romney would have failed (and actually still fails, currently) if any of them bothered to look past what they're told to believe. when i lived i Massachusetts he was one of the most liberal political figures in history. lol, i know you all think he's "your conservative candidate" but you'll all be going bat-shit if he gets elected. he's amazingly centric. i think the real reason the die-hard GOP base is in a tizzy is because for the first time ever, they have a choice to pick the president, and its between both of the only two men in HISTORY to enact social health programs in this country.
 
+Jonathan Harchick Correct that Romney is not a billionaire. However, his $0.2 billion he earned at Bain; he didn't inherit it.

Then once that he was financially secure, he went on to serve in positions where he could benefit others rather than himself, as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics and then as governor of Massachusetts.
 
i will respectfully decline to agree that he "benefited others" as gov of Mass. i was there. he wrecked the joint.
 
+Cassius Wright I was and still am in Massachusetts. Romney did a heck of a lot better job than his successor is doing. Not that I didn't like Weld and Celucci even more.
 
agreed. you seem reasonable +Warren Dew whats your take on the fact that both of these guys did the social healthcare bit? does Romney actually feel the opposite now, or is this demographic pandering at its best?
 
+Cassius Wright I don't suspect that she was here for a spirited conversation. I believe she just wanted to be mean, call people names, and reinforce her preexisting ideas.
 
+Miki Pedia and Obummer uses Osama and blacks and gays to his advantage, but they are smarter than that. Too bad you're not.
 
thats ok i guess. i just prefer we act like Americans towards each other. when we cant have legitimate discourse without instantly starting to bash one another or make fun at perceived flaws we're no better than the people we stand up against that shout down political opposition all around the globe.

frankly i seem to be expecting a great deal too much from the fringe elements of both parties.

staying awesome and simultaneously proving my point, +Mark Tice
 
+Miki Pedia George Orwell's "1984" is almost prophecy of the Obama administration. Any one with ANY sense can see that. Get a clue, Obama lines the pockets of his supporters, panders to the UN, support lazies
 
Robert Is harboring a little anger. Spew all the hate you want, feel free, but not while honoring others. Just a thought. 
 
+Cassius Wright I think Romney genuinely believes that the details of health care are better handled at a state level than at a federal level. A relatively affluent state with low unemployment, like Massachusetts under Romney, may be able to afford a health care policy that wouldn't be appropriate for a less affluent state like Texas or a high unemployment state like California.

There are also key differences between Obamacare and Romneycare, and especially Romneycare as proposed. For example, Romneycare did not restrict doctor owned hospitals from expanding. Romneycare left abortion coverage for individuals and small businesses up to the customer, instead of prohibiting it as Obamacare does through the Stupak amendment. I believe Romneycare permitted small businesses to band together into larger bargaining units, putting them on an even footing with large businesses; Obamacare prohibits that. Romneycare as proposed allowed employees to use employer health care benefits with whatever health care insurer the employee preferred, though that part didn't make it into Massachusetts law.

It's also to be noted that while Romney advocates repeal of Obamacare, he does also advocate replacing it with federal laws that would facilitate good state level programs like that in Massachusetts. In particular, he advocates the following at the federal level:

- giving health insurance premiums paid by individuals the same tax treatment provided to those paid by employers, important to allow individual choice about health care

- restricting insurers from dropping people from preexisting conditions if they keep continuous coverage

- block granting medicaid to states, allowing states to adopt systems like Massachusetts' without having to get special waivers for states for which that is appropriate

- restricting punitive medical malpractice damages, which distort the financial incentives on doctors away from providing the best possible care for their patients on a day to day basis

Romney lays out these positions here, if you're interested:

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/03/why-id-repeal-obamacare
 
If romney really cared about our troops he would listen to them and not support these unnecessary wars . Ron Paul gets more military support than every other candidate combined (yes including Obama). RESTORE AMERICA NOW! RON PAUL 2012!
 
dude. epic. +Warren Dew thanks for this. I just knew there were a few people out there capable of speaking their position and providing sources. this will take me a few to go through, but i'm glad you provided it. i WILL read it all. i appreciate you being an informed consumer :)
 
+Cassius Wright You're more than welcome. It took me months to ferret out the positions of various candidates; I'm more than happy to share what I found.
 
im "mid-ferret" as we speak, lol. I voted Obama before, but was a McCain vote until Palin was chosen to be the VP. I just can't get behind all the hatred and distortion. i understand that in the political process to a point, but i felt like McCain should have picked +Mitt Romney or Jim Huntsman as his running mate, and then we'd be in a totally different world right now. honestly, either Obama or Romney will make a fine president for another 4 years, and all this "america will end" BS is just for the airtime. I am a big fan of some Obama policies. I am vehemently against some Obama policies. I just.dont.know enough about Romney to make a real decision, and thats concerning to me. I already know why I wouldnt vote Obama, but not why Romney is the better choice. i view that as a massive hole in the Romney Campaign. i'm sure his positions will clarify and strengthen in time, but the VP pick is crucial.
 
+Jack Smith that is what democrats do, democratic party is the party of hate under the guise of fairness...fox is more news than NBC or CBS, they won't report any of the truth of Obama, his bad things, FOX will report good and bad about ALL,
 
again, +Mark Tice , +Jack Smith i feel like those braod over-generalizations just fuel anger and distract from legitimate debate. there is no way that the entire democratic party is the "party of hate under the guise of fairness" any more than the entire GOP is that way. there are rank crazies in equal numbers on both sides.
 
none of them are even close to fair. they take demographic based advertising money.

freedom of the press needs to be re-written as "freedom of the press if they aren't skewing the news for marketing and advertising $$"
 
to be fair, +Warren Dew just did above. now we're all free to agree or disagree with it, but it is there.
 
Yes, Mitt you avoided military service in Vietnam and your kids are safely tucked away with 100 million dollar trust fund, yet your kids won't serve in the Military. Hopefully, if you get elected you won't forget them for budget cuts in benefits or job programs.'
You think your kids could cut your grass for that 100 million dollar trust fund?
 
this is the issue with typing comments. i think people get in a hurry and read far too much into what people say, while at the same time feeling justified in their defense to the point they lose logical argumentation tactic and spiral into doing something silly, like for example, calling me "illiterate", as though thats funny or useful or warranted. My mom teaches 5th grade and gives kids detention for "putting down" others, which is seemingly enshrined as the mecca of political argument.

SAD is what it is.

Frankly, i hope for better engagement from the population of the country with so much at stake. it re-enforces to me how important is that we as an entire nation examine the fallacy that is our election process, which is peaceful and democratic, sure- but is based entirely on money. this does a great disservice to the common man who has none. in a world in constant upheaval from all sorts of things, it's disheartening to see people hate each other for expressing their opinions. in other words, it pains me to see Americans hating other Americans for exercising the very rights we have ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICANS.
why hate on each other for doing what we're allowed to do and makes our country great? we're getting so polorized we lose track of what it means to be us.

seems kind of self defeating when you look at it like that, right, +Margaret Leber ?
(who i'll continue to tag until she plays nice lol )
 
+Cassius Wright I'll admit that I held my nose and voted for McCain in 2008, though I'm not sure I could have done that had I lived in an swing state where my vote might actually have made a difference. My problem was with McCain rather than with Palin, though; Biden's apparent belief that nothing has changed since the 1960s makes him as poorly informed as Palin, in my opinion.

I didn't feel like I had a good choice in the 2008 campaign. Both McCain and Obama were for what I view as excessively big government; both McCain and Obama were for what I view as unwise escalation in Afghanistan. I would have preferred a difference in the presidential slot, not just in the vice presidential slot.
 
+Wily Geist It's not like Obama served, either. As for Romney's sons, only a small percentage of their generation served. At least Romney is respectful of us veterans, as with this post.
 
well put. i voted obama for a number of reasons i suppose, but it all started b/c Palin really ticked me off. i'm all for spirited offense and defense, but the disrespect with which she regularly conducts herself is unbecoming of the white house.

and i dont mean political stuff at all.

i mean stupid stuff like making fun of John Kerry for having a long face lol. or the "pals around with terrorists" bit. please. show some basic respect for at least the office you seek if you cant show it for you're opponent.

i generally vote for the least rhetoric-induced and least cringe-worthy (which speaks volume in and of itself), and my issue with Romney thus far is i ONLY get rhetoric. I only get Obama is bad b/c xyz. I generally know why Obama is bad. i need more information, (about mitt!!) not the same information drummed home.
 
+Cassius Wright Romney's G+ stream is an automatic mirror of his Facebook stream. Maybe I'm being unfair, but it seems to me that the superficial stuff works better on Facebook than here. It's also true that +Newt Gingrich's stream was full of facts and explanations, and while that sold well on G+, it appears not to have done him much good overall.

Romney keeps the details of his positions on his web site and in various op-eds and such, where they are hard to find. Sadly, that may even be the correct approach given how politics works in the U.S., even though it makes things difficult for voters who want to be informed like you and me.

Thanks for the insight on Palin. I guess I just tend to ignore that stuff, but it is a valid complaint and it's good to understand better why she rubs people the wrong way so much.
 
Imagine a small government for America. Now you are back in time to the 1920's. Bankers run free, people invest in worthless stocks. Greed is in the air. Crash Bam Boom. Now the government doesn't have unemployment insurance, old people no social security. You and your family are on your own. Currently. government spending is flat,taxes have not been raised. The problem lies in the fact that Corporations even though are people don't invest with patriot beliefs. Think about 58,000 dead Vietnam Vets and Korean Vets who fought to stop the spread of Communists now buy goods produced by a Commie China, who they were supposed to stop.
 
+Wily Geist Only a minority of the unemployed are actually eligible for unemployment insurance; we have an 8% unemployment rate, yet only 2% of Americans get unemployment benefits. I guess big government hasn't actually fixed that problem - or most of the others you've mentioned.
 
No doubt...the true unemployed numbers are far greater than what is being calculated by those on UEI.
 
+Jack Smith It takes a lot more time to write a thoughtful response than to write a flippant one; people are unlikely to invest that effort unless they are responding to someone who seems genuinely undecided and open to explanations. For comments like those from Miki Pedia, +Margaret Leber's responses are if anything more than what's deserved.
 
games with statistics is one of the princiapl things that makes me hate politics. its MATH. there is one correct answer until we start dealing with trig/calc. this is basic addition subraction, mult, and division.
 
+Warren Dew keep being reasonable brother, i'm outta here for the day :) thanks for the debate and quality information!

+Margaret Leber have an awesome time belittling people (lol, or at least thinking you are!) we could have been beautiful!

The rest of you, most of all.
READ. THINK. LEARN.
for yourself.
 
almost forgot! +Mitt Romney

all joking and stuff aside. run on your platform, not against Obama's. I'd love to learn more about you.
 
Half the homeless are war vets, troubled in mind, broken in body. They don't get any special help, except harassment by police since we despise the homeless. "Honoring" vets with just lips is pure Bulls**t and lies, spoken by politicians for votes, but never acted upon. I'm sick of hearing them mouth their crap on Veterans and Memorial day. Let those liars go fight their wars of choice next time, or draft Their kids.

Screw you, Mitt.Neither you nor anyone in your wealthy family has ever had to risk war, nor ever will, you privileged brat, talking out your rear.
 
Yes, so true Mr.. Mooney. Maybe if Mitt didn't hide some of his money in the Cayman Islands his dollars could be spent on health care for the Vets. If he can afford a elevator for his cars maybe he could build a center for Vets who need help recovering.
 
+Jim Mooney And why are those war vets homeless? Could it be that Obama's foolish escalation of war in Afghanistan, with an unwinnable strategy and no exit plan, had something to do with it?
 
not at all. the troops are coming home from iraq, which is GWB's screw up. had GWB done his job at tora bora, we would not have gone to either of those theaters. further, had he PAID for the wars, or even just financed like he did, but one at a time, we would not be where we are today. Iraq was a waste of time, and clearly resources. had that effort been in afghanistand and PAKISTAN originally where it should have been, it would have been the easy, short week war he envisioned Iraq being.
 
If Bush hadn't sent them there in the first place..............................
 
+Cassius Wright If that's addressed to me, I'll point out that the fact that we're still engaged in Afghanistan does not mean there aren't troops coming home from it. Troops are discharged or refrain from reenlisting all the time, and troops from hopeless wars like Vietnam and the recent Afghanistan nation building have more difficulty reintegrating.

Romney is not Bush. I'm not going to defend GWBush's foreign policy here, except maybe to note that our entanglement in Iraq goes back to his father's mistakes. Check out the link in my first post in this thread and you'll hear a prescient warning from Reagan about how "the Persian Gulf beckons" us into a Vietnam like morass.
 
+Paul Leach Bush's initial intervention in Afghanistan was a limited antiterror mission, which I consider justifiable. I would have liked to see him disengage after a few years once Al Qaeda was largely broken, but it was nonetheless Obama who approved the tripling of troop strength - and casualty rates - to support a change to a misguided nation building mission.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-levels-and-fatalities-in-afghanistan-20110621

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-17/politics/obama.troops_1_afghanistan-troop-increase-troop-levels?_s=PM:POLITICS
 
understood, i just dont think we can heap that on Obama carte Blanche without examining the circumstances that put them all there to begin with. i'm at the moment unable to find a real figure about the % from iraq vs. a-stan, which of course impacts this debate lol, although i'd presume the vast majority return from Iraq. again, my presumption though
 
how would rummy know about anything military.bush went awol for 1 year and daddy bailed him.dan rather reported it and bush got him fired for telling the truth. rummy and bush belong together they r of the same mold.vote repukian if u want this country in a civil unrest state.
 
+RAY FRISTROM If by "rummy" you mean Donald Rumsfeld, he served in the U.S. Navy and did two stints as Secretary of Defense, under Ford and Bush (son). If you mean Romney, perhaps his respect for veterans means he'll learn from people like Rummy.
 
Mr Romney, as a veteran I thank you, but My day is Veterans day, Memorial day is for service men and women who have died in battle. Get your ideals straight.
 
+Robert Hill It was Obama that tripled our numbers and casualties in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure Obama's a Democrat, not a Republican.
 
+Robert Hill U.S. casualties in Afghanistan through 2008: 630; through the present: 1,985. Even allowing for a few under Bush in the first few days of 2009, Obama still managed to triple our casualties there.

http://icasualties.org/oef/

Your generation needs to look up more facts, instead of listening to the propaganda that you are fed.
 
+Warren Dew And you need to stop cherry picking and avoiding inconvenient facts. Obama changed the focus of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to focus on the reason the US got involved in the first place. This meant increased troop counts in Afghanistan and decreased troop counts in Iraq.

Iraq casualties through 2008 - 4,222
Iraq casualties since 2008 - 264

See what I did there? How about mentioning that Obama reduced troop deaths in Iraq almost 20 fold? No, that would be inconvenient. In reality Obama got out of a war the US shouldn't have been involved in to begin with (Iraq) and refocused efforts in Afghanistan. Pull your head out of the sand.
 
+James T'Seleie The casualties in Iraq had already dropped to a fraction of their former levels in 2008 under Bush, so Obama gets little credit for that. He could have left the casualties low, but not, he had to have a pointless escalation in Afghanistan so that we could lose more soldiers' lives there once Iraq had quieted down.

As for the purpose of the wars, I'm not going to defend Iraq here - Bush isn't running this year - but the original and valid purpose of Afghanistan was counterterrorism, and that purpose had been largely accomplised by 2004 or so. Bush should probably have pulled out then, but at least he kept our involvement - and casualties - there low.

Obama's escalation and change in mission in Afghanistan from counterterrorism to nation building was giving the troops an impossible and ill conceived task. All he did was increase the number of targets for the Taliban to shoot at.
 
add all kia s not just 1 campaign but both iraq and afgan dummy
 
Half the homeless are war vets, troubled in mind, broken in body. They don't get any special help, except harassment by police since we despise the homeless. "Honoring" vets with just lips is pure Bulls**t and lies, spoken by politicians for votes, but never acted upon. I'm sick of hearing them mouth their crap on Veterans and Memorial day. Let those liars go fight their wars of choice next time, or draft Their kids. Or take care of the stricken when they return home - which they Don't. Damaged vets are littering the streets - pushing shopping carts and harassed by the police for being what they are - homeless, broken men.

Rich boys like Mitt and all his kids never have to go to war - they just send others. Load of crap.
 
Iraq? Iraq was based on total lies. There was No Al Quada involvement in Iraq, and No WMDs. It was just a pet peeve of that idiot Bush, who ignored the real source - the Saudis, since the Bush family made a lot of money with the Saudis. Now, the Iraquis are selling their oil to China, buddying up with Iran, becoming a tyranny, and hate us. That was sure "mission accomplished" after three trillion economy-destroying dollars, and thousands of lost lives. Bush is one of the worst criminals in history for his false war.
 
Every veteran that is willing to carry around a notarized copy of his birth certificate and show it to any nutter who asks, that is.
 
+Jim Mooney I'm pretty sure it's Obama who is sending our boys overseas to a hopeless war in Afghanistan, not Romney.
 
+Warren Dew Hey Warren hope your day and week are super. Just wanted to clarify this. Now If I am not mistaken historically, the Afghanistan war was going on before The President Obama even ran for office. I don't know, maybe I was asleep, but I am certain it was Bush that started that war. Question is, did you complain at that time? or did you back Bush? If you supported Bush then, who do you balk now? thanks for your response. Have a great week
 
+Michael Dennis Bush's initial intervention in Afghanistan was a limited antiterror mission, which I consider justifiable. I would have liked to see him disengage earlier when Al Qaeda was neutralized. However, it was Obama who approved the tripling of troop strength - and casualties - to support a change to a misguided and failing nation building mission. That's what I blame Obama for.

Read my earlier comments if you want more detail.
 
veterans rock! dad, grandpa, other grandpa all veterans.
 
+Warren Dew, I'm actually fairly certain that the main goal of the initial Afghanistan invasion was to oust the Taliban from power. This was because they harbored and sponsored terrorists, not to mention repressing women and committing human rights violations. I agree; the initial invasion was completely justifiable.
 
The last mention from Mr. Dew doesn't state what is Mitt's policy on Afghanistan is. Is Mitt going to get the troops out earlier then Obama?
Is Mitt going to invade Syria?
Mitt's War advisers are leftovers from the Bush administration who have a neo-con bent to them which would indicate that would be headed down that dark alley of hubris and plunders.
As far as Rumsfled record he was flight instructor in the Navy and never saw combat up front and personal. I prefer Colin Powell's record and service to Rummy, as person and conservative whom I can admire.
I am not sure that Mitt as a businessman is going to do a better job than Obama. The last MBA we had in office was named George W. Bush and that was not very impressive.
 
+Tommy Fair I agree. I consider ousting the Taliban as an antiterror mission because of the ties to terrorists that you mention.

+Wily Geist As best I can tell the main difference between Romney and Obama on Afghanistan is that Romney, wisely in my opinion, doesn't think we should advertise deadlines for pullouts. However, I would also agree that this issue is not a big differentiator between the two candidates - it was Ron Paul who had the truly different position.

I'm not thrilled with Colin Powell's record. While he was a good soldier, he also made some key policy mistakes that unfortunately ended up having major consequences, in particular refusing to enforce the no fly zone against Saddam Hussein during the Shiite uprising after the Gulf War, thus permitting Saddam Hussein to cement his rule during the decade of sanctions, and pushing the WMD excuse for invading Iraq in his presentation to the UN Security Council.

I think Rumsfeld, along with others like Rice, make better policy decisions. However, the only military influence on Romney that I can currently discern is McCain, who while more experienced than Obama is, like Obama, a little too anxious to use military intervention. Hopefully Romney's tendency to spend a lot of time looking at things from every angle before making a decision will help him avoid premature entanglements.
 
Some very good points Mr. Drew. Ironically the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and previous backing the Dictator seems to indicate that America has a history of backing horrible tyrants if they serve our purpose and then we pay for it later. I believe, Ron Paul is right on stop funding and fighting all over the world as in the long run it doesn't really spread freedom but ends up in a boondoggle.
I am hoping that Mitt moderates his views when he gets elected. He seems to have it in the bag to be elected, but sadly a billion dollars is now the price to get elected.

The whole system seems to be modeled on Al Capone's bribery system. Each party now has to pay back the donors, while the rest of us hope they accidentally do good.

A third party candidate is looking better. Buddy Roehmer seems almost pristine. but impossible not to be invincible in this day and age.
 
the Taliban aren't done, this gives us a chants to set back and see, who's helping them and were they are, if they think were done they wont be expecting use to be watching.
 
Thanks to all Vets!

Mitt stay on obummers Ass.
 
or, you know, dont. mitt romney has about as much depth as the potted meat sticks wading pool.
 
I am a Desert Storm Veteran who has a son and a daughter serving. My son has completed a tour in Iraq and now is in Afghanistan. I wouldn't like for Mitt Romney to be the commander in chief. He is a coward and his family line is full of cowards.
 
well im right there with you kevin the man flip flops all over the place he wont get my vote
 
you say mitt flip flops! president obama will say something on an interveiw then go back to try and correct himself because america didnt like what he said....you people critisize mitt with something you heard said on cnn.
 
Mitt will get my vote and my 2 girls vote and my husbands vote my moms vote my cats vote if they could vote my dogs vote if she could vote and the parrot's vote if she could vote! lol
 
one day you might want those votes back, but once cast you cannot take them back.  "The Hunger Games" Is Romney's vision of America
 
Thank you Mitt and the Obama voters should be asked to read
the Constitution.
Add a comment...