As I wrote in the piece, and as I wrote in response to Shane, it's
impossible to say, of course, exactly what the difference would be.
Romney has said a lot of warmongery things about Iran. He is backed by
people who have advocated war with Iran. On the other hand, Bush said
a lot of warmongery things about Iran, and did not attack. On the
other other hand, there were specific reasons why Bush did not attack,
and some of those things - like, for example, 100,000 US troops in
Iraq - won't be true in January 2013 and thereafter.

Most of the specific things I cited about Romney are not true in
general about Obama. He has not promoted a more confrontational
military policy towards Iran - in fact, recently, he has advocated a
less confrontational policy towards Iran than all 100 members of the
Senate. His advisers - with the exception of Hillary during the
Presidential campaign - do not include people who have been
cheerleaders for war with Iran. He is not advocating for an increase
in the military budget. He supports withdrawing U.S. troops from
Afghanistan, and he supports the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Anyway, the point of my piece was not to promote Obama - as I said, I
am backing Ron Paul - but to publicize the the evidence against Romney
- the main threat to Ron Paul at the moment. :)

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Michael Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:15:54 -0500
> Robert Naiman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Who's a Democratic Party apologist? I'm backing Ron Paul.
>
> In that case, all is forgiven!
>
>> 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.
>
> I did read it, and I saw that paragraph, and I don't doubt
> its accuracy. But how different is (for example)
> Obie from the picture you draw?
>
> Electoral demonology seems kinda pointless to me, since
> everybody in the field has horns and a barbed tail. Except Ron
> Paul of course. Let's hear it for isolationism, and believe
> you me, I don't intend the slightest grain of irony
> in saying that.
>
> --
> --
>
> 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

Reply via email to