• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

In His Book, Romney Attacked Obama’s Foreign Policy For Appeasing Qaddafi

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
:lamo What a horses ass Mitt Romney is, I can't wait until Obama destroys Mitt Romney in the debates.


Earlier this year, Mitt Romney was criticized for omitting a passage from the paperback edition of his book, No Apology. The passage about health care reform suggested that Massachusetts’ reforms could be replicated nationwide.
Now that Col. Muammar Qaddafi has been killed by his own people, Romney may want to consider redacting another section of his book which claimed that Obama was trying to coddle Qaddafi:

SP32-20111020-1158422.gif


FLASHBACK: In His Book, Romney Attacked Obama's Foreign Policy For Appeasing Qaddafi | ThinkProgress
 
so.... your argument is..... that Obama is as much of a flip flopper on policy as Romney is?

well, hey, he flipped in the right direction this time - i'll give him two stars.
 
I have never understand what the right wingers problem is with Obama's defense policy is. He has increased defense spending every year, which they like. He has increased our military commitment in Afghanistan, which they like. He has doubled down on many Bush Administration terrorism policies, which the like. If anyone should have a problem with Obama's defense / foreign policy, it should be liberals. Its just typical partisan politics for Republicans to attack Obama's defense policies, but its hypocritical for liberals to support them when they were against them when Bush was in office.
 
so.... your argument is..... that Obama is as much of a flip flopper on policy as Romney is?

well, hey, he flipped in the right direction this time - i'll give him two stars.
My point is that Romney engaged in stupid rhetoric and publish it, now it biting him in the ass.:mrgreen:
 
Looks like maybe Romney forgot which President re-established diplomatic ties with Libya...I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Obama.

I'm not saying it was a bad move, just saying that it wasn't Obama. And given Gadhaffi's secret "Condi stash," he had an unhealthy fascination with black Americans in positions of power.
 
Obama has been nothing, if not rudderless.
 
Romney's criticism of Obama wasn't based on anything Obama did vis-a-vis Ghaddafi, but rather on BS statements made by Ghaddafi himself. Thus Romney made the classic mistake of taking despots and terrorists at their word -- seemingly a common failing among Republicans.

I suspect Ghaddafi was singing a different tune when he was was trying to stuff his fat a$$ up that drainage pipe. :lol:
 
Obama has been nothing, if not rudderless.

I'd pretty much agree.

Though if that's the case he's just continuing Bush's foreign policy since he wouldn't have steered it one direction or another. I doubt Romney would be attacking Obama's foreign policy if he thought of it like that.
 
Seeing them both promise stuff, lying out their teeth just to get elected. Then bend over to take it in the ass from big banks/corps for a "you scratch my back, i'll scratch your back" deal for money. I don't think either one have any sort of principals other then to screw us for someone else gain.

Blah...
 
Last edited:
Obama is the third Bush administration, but since Bush is gone, Obama is the problem at hand
 
Obama is the third Bush administration, but since Bush is gone, Obama is the problem at hand

Obama's on a roll. He campaign's to close Gitmo; it's still open. He says he will negotiate with terrorists without preconditions and wants them to lawyer up. Recently he assassinates two terrorists and provides military support that leads to Qaddafi's assassination. So when will Obama go after Iran?
:popcorn2:
 
I have never understand what the right wingers problem is with Obama's defense policy is.

Because he's a Democrat.

Partisan hackjobs have never placed the country first. How many times have we seen hacks here search for anything to attack Obama on even when they know he did the right thing? If anything, they hate America enough to want it to burn so Obama doesn't win reelection.

If anyone should have a problem with Obama's defense / foreign policy, it should be liberals. Its just typical partisan politics for Republicans to attack Obama's defense policies, but its hypocritical for liberals to support them when they were against them when Bush was in office.

Pretty much. Obama is largely a Bush clone in that aspect. It's really pathetic to see diehard Bush backers hammer Obama on the same things Bush did and Obama drones refuse to criticize Obama for doing Bush acts.

Hypocrisy is rampant.
 
My point is that Romney engaged in stupid rhetoric and publish it, now it biting him in the ass.:mrgreen:

well then your point is stupid, because as much as I don't like him, Romney was accurate.

Southern Democrat said:
I have never understand what the right wingers problem is with Obama's defense policy is. He has increased defense spending every year, which they like.

this is not true - he folded the cost of the wars into the DOD budget, and then increased it less than it's scheduled rate of advancement.

So it would be like your boss saying he's not going to give you your 5% annual raise... he's going to give you a 3% annual raise. Oh, and he's increasing your share of paying for your health insurance by 10% of your income. Enjoy your raise.

He has increased our military commitment in Afghanistan, which they like.

it is true that he was wise enough to eventually agree to a Surge in Afghanistan, and I give him credit for that. where I hit him on it is the establishment of an artificial timeline that is there to benefit him politically rather than our troops in the field or the effort in general. It's like letting that kid that really wants to play out onto the field, but cutting his achilles before he goes.

He has doubled down on many Bush Administration terrorism policies, which the like

that is true and we do. you won't hear many complaints from conservatives (outside of your occasional ron paul type) that we kill bad guys with predator drones.
 
Back
Top Bottom