Clueless, Dangerous Mitt Romney

October 26, 2007 at 9:20 am | Posted in conservatives, corruption, Foreign Policy, Iran, Military, Mit Romney, Mitt Romney, secret combinations, War | 10 Comments

What does it take to raise the level of discourse of these Republican candidates for president? Here we have Mitt Romney responding on the new sanctions placed on Iran that he is in favor of “a military blockade or “bombardment of some kind” to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.”

A bombardment of some kind? A military blockade? Just what in the hell will those do? Are Republicans really this far unhinged? This shows a real poor understanding of foreign policy on Mitt Romney. It shows that he would rather pander to an out of touch political Right than state things as they are. Com’on Mr. Romney, you were a stake president for Pete’s sake!


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Wweeeell, I’d have to say that I seriously doubt diplomacy is going to work. Iran doesn’t need the U.S. to keep their economy afloat, so sanctions aren’t going to do it either. We can certainly try those things, but in the end when nuclear missles are pointed at Israel, I’m not going to begrudge them a little tactical self defense.

  2. cew-smoke,

    The Iranians want to talk to us. The Iranians have been helpful to us in the past. They are NOT our enemies. Why are we becoming theirs? Iran may say what it wants about Israel, but it is not going to launch nuclear weapons at them. Not only that, but Iran’s only incentive to GET nuclear weapons in the first place is as a deterrent against an attack by US! IF we didn’t threaten them with utter annihilation all the time, they wouldn’t be feeling the need to get some nuclear weapons to ward off an attack by us.

  3. So, what does being a Stake President have to do with knowing what to do in a middle eastern foreign policy situation?

  4. I guess nothing.

  5. Just checking. I was trying to think of the duties of a stake president and how they would relate to foreign policy. I’ve got nothing. 😉

    Oh, and I guess you didn’t delete my comment. There it is. 😉

  6. Well, the reason I brought up the stake president thing is that generally speaking a stake president is supposed to be an honest reasonable man, at least that’s the standard I have for stake presidents. So when Romney says something this stupid, well, I just wonder.

  7. Dan, you don’t have to explain your post to me. I knew what you were trying to infer in the original post.



  10. YOUR BLOG ISN’T RESTRICTED. ITS FAIR GAME BECAUSE ITS OUT THERE FOR ANYONE TO READ. Besides, you’re the one who gave yourself a ban. I’m just giving you a gentle reminder about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: