And there he goes again, making stuff up, attacking the imaginary Obama while countering that straw man with meaningless platitudes. They say god never gives us more than we can handle (tell that to cancer victims, among others). But I'm not sure I can take much more:
"This president has done something I find very hard to understand. Ever since FDR we've had the capacity to be engaged in two conflicts at once. And he's saying, 'no we're going to cut that back to only one conflict,'" Romney said, hitting Obama again on the congressionally-backed military cuts (for which his running mate voted, adds your blogger) set to kick in this January.
Romney said as president he would "restore our military commitment."...
..."And I intend to be a President that provides the leadership that America respects and will keep us admired throughout the world."
Is he hinting that as long as he's president we will be fighting two wars at a time? Unless we're out of Afghanistan, guess we will, since he seems all ready to invade
And what about "keeping us admired...?" Now I doubt even Mitt thinks we were much admired by the time Bush was done with his geopolitical horror show; so by "keep" I guess he acknowledges what most foreign policy people have said: Barack Obama has succeeded in improving our image around the world. In which case, what changes is he contemplating?
Well, we've seen pretty clearly that words don't mean much to Mitt. They roll out of his head like nickels from a slot machine: someone pulls a lever and out they come, if he's lucky. So there's no reason to give any more credence to these than any other of his silly claims. But this one is a little unique: a lie, as expected, and hollow vagueness, but also an unintended but implicit admission that he's full of crap. What a piece of .... work he is!
[Wrote this one a while back, so it's not entirely timely; but, as usual, it's accurate.]
