Does Romney need a dressing-down on patriotism tomorrow night? Remember "There is no Red America or

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Remember "There is no Red America or Blue America--There is just the United States of America", from President Obama's electrifying keynote convention speech as a Senate candidate in Y2K?

IMO a reprise of that speech could bracket 12 years of the President's forign policy pronouncements nicely, precipitate a Romney meltdown tomorrow evening and ensure the President's re-election. I find it incredible that no one in the media is vilifying Romney for the disunity he and his Conressional allies have inspired over violent deaths of 4 US diplomats in dangerous post-Khaddafi Libya. There is a long tradition in this country of coming together, regardless of party, whenever America is attacked. "Politics stops at the water's edge".

But the Americans' bodies hadn't even been returned from Libya for burial when Mitt Romney started to build his electoral mountain out of a molehill. What if on 9/12/2001 a Democrat had called a news conference to denounce George W, Bush for his idiotic security lapses that led directly to thousands of American deaths in NYC, Pennsylvania, and Virginia the previous day? What would the media have said?

And this time, attacks on Americans occurred overseas, not even on American soil. Diplamats working in turbulent countries well know the risks they are taking. They can't accomplish their delicate missions in armored personnel carriers wiyh air support.

How are Mitt Romney, Darryl Issa, and the other reckless Republican disuniters getting away with this? They are playing games over what they think the President should have said and when. He said "act of terrorism" the next day, but now he should have said, "act of war"? Because of a tiny violent minority in an Arab country now friendly because of brilliant marshalling of international forces by the President?

I think Mitt Romney and his Congressional allies need to be dressed down severely tomorrow night for this recklessness, trying to weaken American national unity in order negate President Obama's bin-Laden take-out and other foreign policy victories in the Middle East over a very minor incident in the grand scheme of things.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[Buddaman]

1. I'm a little short on words

Fuck Mitt....that is all

[bemildred]

2. I will leave tactical issues to Obama. That's my opinion.

He seemed to know what he was doing last time.

[jody]

3. "There is no Red America or Blue America"! Don't you realize that DU represents the best of

Blue America and that other site represents the worst of Red America?

[ProudProgressiveNow]

4. PBO will be ready! nt

[Firebirds01]

5. Im a foreign policy guy

I wanted him to go after the republicans like you noted. Foreign policy is both delicate and complex. To paint it as a simple us v. them or that 'a few extra marines is the cure' is foolish and wholly without merit.

Now, most Americans are not interested in the ins and outs of foreign affairs. They dont care about the strategic gains from trade deals or know what Obama's policy with the Pacific Fleet has been. They want a President who is confident and serious, one who stands there and says 'the buck stops with me.'

That is what Americans expect from a President. The State Department, et al, can deal with the muddy details. Obama did a masterful job of conveying that confidence at the last debate. Romney was whiny in an overly childish fashion. He blamed the President for everything instead of acting like a head of state.


Obama has this. He knows exactly how to handle himself, what to say and how to say it. Romney does not.

[Fozzledick]

6. I want to know why Romney is giving aid and comfort to al-Qaida?

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaida, has announced his intention to undermine President Obama's reelection chances by launching terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomats abroad. Why is Romney supporting and cooperating with his effort?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. Bingo! Romney's mission seems to be to prove that al-Qaida is in control

of the Middle East, when they did not even take credit for the Benghazi killings.

And many Congressional Rs, including especially the "moderates" Graham and McCain are arguing against the President's semantics strenuously. According to them, the President's failure to acknowledge al Qaida's purported remarkable power in the world somehow proves that his foreign policy is an abject failure!?*

[OldDem2012]

7. Why bother? Romney wouldn't understand what the President is telling him. nt.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. Rep Gregory Meeks (D-NY) agrees with me that "we should be

coming together" following a long American tradition when the country is under attack. On Monday's Andrea Mitchell MSNBC show, the House Foreign Affairs committee member denounced Mitt Romney;s immediate attempt to turn a tragic attack on American diplomats into a divisive political issue.

But Mitchell put Rep Peter King (R-NY) on right after him. Obviously Meek's invitation was a transparent "fairness" ploy for the main event, giving the House Homeland Security pol a big microphone ahead of tonight's debate on foreign policy. Evidently, Andrea Mitchell is a big part of Romney's advance team.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

10. I think Obama needs to depant Romney and smack his ass over his knee like a child

for the reasons raised in the OP and for the threat to our national security posed by those like Romney who don't care about the American worker and supporting manufacturing and education that will keep us competitive in the world. Romney is a traitor who doesn't care about the United States but only about the small international elite that knows no loyalty to any country but only to their multinational corporation.