The Politics of "Bring it On!"

[Tom Rinaldo]

That notorious quote from President George W. Bush continues to echo in today's Republican Party. The same macho posture, the same "our troops can handle anything the enemy throws at us, so let them try" invitation to even greater carnage. It was easy for George W. Bush to say, he sat 7,000 miles away from the action surrounded by the Secret Service

The last time I looked Mitt Romney wasn't stationed in the Middle East either. Nor does he have children stationed there. Nor does he work for an airline that flies there, or even an Oil Company that works there. For all of his devotion to the Mormon Church, Mitt Romney doesn't toil for Christ as a missionary in Africa, and he isn't an aid worker there either, feeding and caring for families at risk of dying from malnutrition.

No, Mitt Romney is safe here inside America, running for President of the United States. He isn't in physical danger when passions surge over religious issues in Africa or the Mideast. He can afford to act tough and try to score political points against the President while American lives are at risk. Because his isn't. It's only those who find themselves in harms way who have anything to worry about. The troops Romney so conspicuously failed to mention during his acceptance speech, for example, and our diplomatic personnel who risk their lives daily serving American interests in the four corners of the world. Yes Republicans love the military. It’s just the soldiers they can't bring themselves to support.

Does Mitt Romney condone hate speech against other religions? Does he favor sticking it to people of a faith that is not his own? That might explain his defiant rejection of any attempt to calm the waters as mere "sympathy for terrorists". Perhaps that is it. It's more likely though that Romney is just a politician trolling for votes during an election campaign, indifferent to the fate of innocent lives that his crass bravado puts at greater risk.

[annabanana]

1. pandering cypher.. That's all he is, a front man for the neo-cons and corporatists. . . .n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Sometimes I think he's just an egotist

He's a man who wnts to be President, everything else is secondary. He has no noble cause, not even serving his own class interests. People in his position usually find lackies to run for office for them. He knows how to game the current system just fine, he didn't need to enter politics to secure his future wealth.

He wants the title, he wants the prestige. Maybe he wants to avenge his father who had his Presidential ambitions snuffed out by one poorly articulated comment when he had been the front runner for the Republican nomination. Maybe he wants to do it for Mormonism. Who knows? But he is willing to say or do whatever he needs to in order to win elections.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. When our Egyptian embassy issued it's statement...

...no one had been killed by protests yet. It was absolutely the right statement to release at exactly the right time. THAT is diplomacy at work, finding alternatives to conflict and loss of life. It sickens me that Romney attacked that statement.

Now the focus understandably has shifted to the actual loss of lives. But does Romney even grasp why we need to oppose religion bashing in a world where religious tensions are running high? Does he even understand why it was in the interests of Americans overseas to oppose insulting others religion?

What is Un-American about that? That is an expressiion of a core American value, not pandering to anyone. What instructions would Mitt Romney give to our embessasies about the statements they should or should not release when tensions run high? It angers me to even have to be talking about Romney when American lives were just lost in Libya, but he inserted himself into this. I would not trust that man as President if I needed to be abroad for any reason.