Romney pisses of the UK on his first international visit.

First Adam makes a point

Originally Posted by AdamT
70% of Romney's foreign policy team are former Bush advisors. The overall makeup is even more knuckle-dragging neocon than Bush's team. If you like nonsensical foreign wars, Mitt's your boy.

Click to expand...

and the response is mind-boggling

cpwill said:

well, I do have to admit, that does make me feel better about voting for him.

Click to expand...

It is difficult to find any rationality in supporting the team that destroyed American influence globally while supporting some of the most regressive economic policies since the 1920s. Maybe the comment was meant to be a joke

Somerville said:

First Adam makes a point


and the response is mind-boggling


It is difficult to find any rationality in supporting the team that destroyed American influence globally while supporting some of the most regressive economic policies since the 1920s. Maybe the comment was meant to be a joke

Click to expand...

What is more mind-boggling is that you fail to see the point. Considering those available for advisor would you think Romney to be a more legitimate candidate if he had employed advisors from the 'Clinton team'? or the 'Obama team'...lamo)

And as to 'destroyed American influence globally', if this was why does this administration continue the previous administrations playbook?

Dickieboy said:

What is more mind-boggling is that you fail to see the point. Considering those available for advisor would you think Romney to be a more legitimate candidate if he had employed advisors from the 'Clinton team'? or the 'Obama team'...lamo)

And as to 'destroyed American influence globally', if this was why does this administration continue the previous administrations playbook?

Click to expand...

A fine example of an all too common trait found on the right - 'either/or' - there are hundreds if not thousands of well-qualified persons who could act as foreign policy advisers to Mr Romney, none of whom have worked for either Bush or Clinton.

Yes, the Bush Administration "destroyed American influence" and Obama has restored much of it, the numbers are available, take the time and do a bit of reading. Despite the 'either/or', bilateral way of thinking found on the right, American governments can not change direction or alter policies on the first day in office. Obama has continued some of the policies instigated under GWB, has changed some and has ended some. The present Administration has reduced the level of involvement in Iraq, mostly following a timetable set up during the Bush years and has been quite a bit more successful in attacking those elements which have attacked the US. Has he succeeded at every thing - of course not. Has Obama done what a lot on the left wish he had done - no, he has not. But at this point, outside of the rather insular world of the Obama haters, he is seen as a more effective President in matters dealing with national security and foreign relations.

Somerville said:

A fine example of an all too common trait found on the right - 'either/or' - there are hundreds if not thousands of well-qualified persons who could act as foreign policy advisers to Mr Romney, none of whom have worked for either Bush or Clinton.

Click to expand...

If this were true why did the current administration 're-tread' many of the 'Clinton team'? Would seem this 'either/or' trait is common on the left as well...

Yes, the Bush Administration "destroyed American influence" and Obama has restored much of it, the numbers are available, take the time and do a bit of reading.

Click to expand...

What exactly should I use as the metric for the level of 'destroyed influence' in my search for reading material?