Who's a Democratic Party apologist? I'm backing Ron Paul. If you read the piece I wrote, you'll see I actually gave a lot of evidence concerning why people should be specifically concerned about Romney.
Every assertion in the following paragraph is linked to documentation in the original. "Here are some things we know about Mitt Romney. He has promised a more confrontational military policy towards Iran. His advisers include people who have been cheerleaders for war with Iran, and were cheerleaders for the Iraq war. He has pledged to increase the military budget. His advisers include people directly affiliated with military contractors who stand to profit if there were a new war and the military budget were increased. Furthermore, he opposes withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, and he opposes the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, although the Iraq withdrawal is supported by eight in ten Americans, including the majority of Republicans." On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Michael Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:28:45 -0500 > Robert Naiman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Shouldn't the fact that the Iraq war was a consequence of George W. >> Bush becoming president, although that consequence was not apparent in >> 2000, inform how we judge the likely consequences of Mitt Romney >> becoming president? > > This is a museum-quality example of how Democratic Party apologists > assume they know the answers to hypothetical questions. Apparently > it goes without saying that Gore 'would not have' attacked Iraq, and > it goes without saying that Obie, if re-elected, 'would not' attack > Iran. > > I wish I was as certain as this about many things less involved in > obscurity. Faith is a great thing, but the Democratic Party seems a > somewhat undeserving object for it. > > It doesn't seem terribly likely to me that either Romney or Obie > will attack Iran, for what that's worth. But it's far from clear > that either is less likely to do it than the other. > > And what's with this 'barbarians at the gates' metaphor? The > barbarians are not at the gates. The barbarians run the city. > Every Senator is a barbarian, every Praetorian is a barbarian, > every proconsul and curule aedile and prothonotary is a barbarian. > It's barbarians all the way down. Even before the barbarians > decisively won, the anti-barbarians were barbarians themselves. > > -- > -- > > Michael J. Smith > [email protected] > > http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org > http://www.cars-suck.org > http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com > > Any proposition that seems self-evident > is almost certainly false. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
