I, for one, remember who Romney chose for foreign policy advisors
McCain too, for that matter.
They were dominated by the same gaggle of chickenhawk neocons who:
1) were caught flatfooted by the collapse of the Soviets
2) dismissed bin Laden as a guy in a tent
3) had an ongoing pet project to clear out all the old Soviet allies in the MidEast (plus Iran) and replace them with... something else
4) seized (with gusto) the opportunity to use the aftermath of 911 to launch Pet Project Item Number 1: removing Saddam Hussein, and cooked up false pretenses for doing so
5) "Planned" the invasion and occupation of Iraq with an entire string of assumptions, any one of which would derail their vision of how smoothly it would go -- and didn't have a "plan B" when for the infinity-minus-oneth time in military history things didn't work out quite as planned.
6) suffered absolutely no consequences for botching the entire operation, costing thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands injured and maimed.
7) When making said "plans" they joked "Anyone can go to Baghdad, Real Men go to Tehran!", and they've been hankering to start Pet Project Item Number 3 or 4 (depending on how you count overthrowing Ghaddafi and Assad), attacking Iran.
They're big on tough talk, but as to their actual track record, they're long on blood but very, very short on results, and batting zero on seeing problems or major developments before they arrive.
So, when conservatives ask when will Obama be apologizing to Romney for dismissing Mitt's "Cold War" thinking, I have to ask: You wanted to put the "on to Tehran!" crowd back in the driver's seat. How "tough" do you think President Romney (or McCain) would be able to be about Ukraine since by now our forces would be tied up in Iran?
= new reply since forum marked as read
