Romney, Obama Offer Competing Interventionist Visions

BOTH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SEE AMERICA AS A “GLOBAL FORCE FOR GOOD” Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. President Barack Obama engaged in a lengthy, often laborious exchange on foreign policy during their third and final presidential debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida this week. In fact their…


Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. President Barack Obama engaged in a lengthy, often laborious exchange on foreign policy during their third and final presidential debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida this week.

In fact their extended discussion of numerous nations that most Americans don’t really care about – and probably couldn’t find on a map (Mali?) – quickly became so tedious that the candidates strayed from the intended topic of the night and moved onto talking points about the economy and (briefly) education.

(To read our always entertaining live blog of the proceedings, click here).

When they did stick to the subject at hand, both Romney and Obama actually offered similar visions for the world around them – interventionist agendas that revolve around America continuing to play the role of the world’s preeminent defender of democracy (a.k.a. policeman).

“America is the hope of the earth,” Romney said.

“America is the indispensable nation,” Obama concurred.

Sheesh … somebody cue up that U.S. Navy “Global Force for Good” commercials, because that’s precisely the brand of neocon nonsense that both of these candidates were peddling.

On the basis of this shared principle, #Obamney (a.k.a. Willard Hussein) proposed a veritable smorgasbord of geopolitical and military meddling all around the globe – in Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Syria and, of course, Mali.  Some of this meddling both candidates supported, other meddling one candidate supported and the other opposed … while still other meddling yielded subtle differences as to the time, place and manner of the “meddle.”

For example … when should “crippling sanctions” against Iran have been implemented?

High popalorum, low popahiram if you ask us …

Here’s the question that needs to be asked of both candidates: Is any of the “meddling” worth trillions of tax dollars that we don’t have – and that future generations simply cannot afford?

Of course not …

And despite the best efforts of the candidates to invoke sympathy for the plight of those “yearning to breath free” abroad – that simply isn’t America’s problem (or at least it shouldn’t be).

Too many people are yearning to breathe free here at home.

Don’t believe us?  Just ask the American people … who, for once, actually have their wits about them when it comes to the level of importance they place on these issues.

Prior to the two candidates taking the debate stage this week, a Reuters poll underscored just how little attention Americans are paying to foreign policy.  According to that survey, only two percent of likely voters viewed “war/ foreign conflicts” as the most important issue facing our nation – while only two percent viewed “terrorism/ terrorist attacks” as the most important issue.

By contrast, the poll found that a whopping 43 percent of Americans  indicated the economy as the most pressing issue – with another 25 percent listing “unemployment/lack of jobs” as their top concern.

Given the relatively low attention likely to be paid to the substance of this debate, then … how did the candidates do on style?

Well, neither Obama nor Romney scored a knockout punch on our scorecard, although the mainstream media rushed to declare Obama the victor.

“Obama controlled the third presidential debate in a way not all that dissimilar from the way Romney controlled the first one,” wrote Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post.  “Obama clearly came loaded for bear, attacking Romney from the jump for a lack of clarity when it came to his vision (or lack thereof) on foreign policy.”

That’s overstating it – Obama did turn in strong performance (particularly his quote about Romney having a 1980s foreign policy, a 1950s social policy and a 1920s economic policy), but his effort was nowhere near as commanding as the performance Romney gave in the first debate.  Meanwhile Romney was nowhere near as terrible in the third debate as Obama was in the first.

A much better assessment of the politics of the third debate came from Rick Manning at Net Right Daily, who concluded that Romney’s ability to avoid any major gaffes made him the winner.

“Obama desperately needed Romney to stumble in this debate to change the momentum that has sent his campaign into full scramble mode,” Manning noted in his analysis. “What Obama got instead was the equivalent of a Romney prevent defense.  A Romney determined not to make news in the debate.”

Romney accomplished that mission – which wasn’t hard to do given the tedious subject matter and the fact that a great number of Americans were tuned into Monday Night Football or the seventh game of the National League Championship Series (NLCS).

Frankly, this debate needed a Ron Paul – or Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson – to provide a true counterpoint to the bipartisan doctrine of American interventionism abroad.


Related posts


Guest Column: Joe Biden’s Plan To Devastate Local Economies


Soft Coup Status Check: Biden Clings To Power

Mark Powell

Prioleau Alexander: The Supreme Court Is Doing Its Job

E Prioleau Alexander


CUvinny October 23, 2012 at 2:10 am

Aside from the bayonets and horses comment from Obama, my favorite part was Romney saying that Iran didn’t have a coast line and relied on Syria from shipping lanes.

Hunh? October 23, 2012 at 10:52 am

What he was referring to was the simplicity of closing the Straits of Hormuez to Iranian oil and Iran’s use of Syria as a proxy to get around the snctions.

sid October 23, 2012 at 10:59 am

Bayonets are still pretty widely used. Part of Marine Corps training, in fact. Perhaps Barry could have referred to muskets, but that would imply he has a working knowledge of military operations.

OhNoNotAgain October 23, 2012 at 11:52 am

We use as many bayonets as we did in, say, Vietnam. He said FEWER. I know folks are trying to make this the horse and buggy whip of the military analogy, but that is not what he was saying. You know , we use fewer PT boats. Had a lot of those lifting up the numbers of ships in the navy in WWII.

sid October 23, 2012 at 12:24 pm

No, his point was horses AND bayonets. Horses are considerably fewer, bayonets, not so considerably. One of his political wonks who knows little of the military thought it would be a funny response, so they went with it. It was kinda funny, but also kinda inaccurate. Somebody with a stronger grasp of the military might have suggested another example that would have made the point stronger, but Barry relies on his knowledge and that of his wonks, which is not very solid when it comes to nuts-and-bolts military knowledge.

Barry might have suggested PT boats, but someone probably would have had to explain to him what one is.

SCBlues October 23, 2012 at 12:47 pm

And sid, you served in the military when and where? I see you fancy yourself the expert on the military and weaponry now.

I think that “Barry” – and that would be President Obama to you, dipshit – has an adequate “grasp of the military” per his kicking of the butt of The Great Mormon last night.

Apparently your “tremendous brain power” that you brag about on here is basically flatulence.

Joe Bar October 23, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Vintage Sid: being an arrogant asshole and missing the point.

sid October 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm

Letting your religious intolerance shine through, SCB. Barry, or The-One-And-Done-One, has absolutely no grasp of the military. That’s why he blew the opportunity to offer a good line. He was trying to present the image of a military from bygone days, where cavalry and bayonet charges were commonplace, juxtaposed with a more modern military. The problem was that the modern military regularly uses bayonets, including training in their use. Again, he would have been better served had he used an item that is actually rather archaic. But that would have required knowledge he does not possess.

As for my being a military expert, I never claimed to be one. I have never served, much like Barry, but have done quite a bit of studying, unlike Barry. Also unlike Barry, I have a true respect for members of our Armed Forces.

He regurgitated what he was fed as a line. Not necessarily his fault, as he probably relied on his wonks to do the research. Nonetheless, he was inaccurate, and would have made a better impression had he used a more appropriate example.

SCBlues October 23, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Joe Bar – yes our sid is always the arrogant asshole and always misses the point – but don’t dare tell him as then he’ll start telling you about his “tremendous brain power”! LOL

sid – I knew you had never served in the military – your posts show that – and that you are just a bozo and a clown that gets on the internet and spews BS. All you’ve done sid is stay glued to FOX and The Obese Drug Addict Limbaugh and you come on here and parrot back what they’ve taught you. Where did you contract such a severe case of Obama Derangement Syndrome, sid? Over on WorldNetDaily?

Saying “The Great Mormon” hardly infers any religious intolerance – sounds to me like saying someone is great and a Mormon is a compliment? No?

sid October 23, 2012 at 3:17 pm

Yes, you meant “The Great Mormon” with the highest of praise, SCB. You may not have the mental capacity to understand what sarcasm means, but that does not mean you cannot stumble upon it.

As for service in the military, you are quite the savant. Posting factual information about the military tells you someone has never served? Impressive, indeed (note, that’s sarcasm).

As for FOX and Limbaugh, I’ll watch Red Eye, but that’s about it for FOX. I’ve never listened to Limbaugh, although I have heard excerpts from his broadcasts when he says something that makes the news. I’m not really a fan, and I wouldn’t even know where on the dial to find him.

I guess to an Obamabot like you, anyone questioning The-One-And-Done-One would qualify as having ODS. You must diagnose quite a few people with your pretend malady.

Oh, and the term you were looking for was “imply,” not “infer.” When you write something, you may “imply” something not clearly stated. When I read what you write, I may “infer” you meant something not clearly stated.

You are welcome for this little lesson. I hope this breaks your streak of probably several years without learning anything.

SCBlues October 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm

sid – As I said, Joe Bar summed it up best – you are simply an arrogant asshole who always misses the point – and you obviously are not bright enough to even figure that out.

You did not post factual info about the military – you posted the usual hogwash that you post on here – anything to attempt to discredit President Obama.

Your posts lead me to believe you’ve never been a success at anything in life – and you are bitter and resentful and a sad little person.

wavettore October 23, 2012 at 2:30 am

Once again, the next US presidential election will be fixed. Mitt Romney will be elected even though Barack Obama would have received more votes in the 2012 election. The political assassination will be perpetrated by Bush hiding behind Crossroads GPS, the most influential group of Neocons.
The Neocons will have Mitt Romney elected to first use him and then let him fall easy prey. All blames and responsibilities will fall on the new Mormon president for the events already planned.
Driven by the idea of being “chosen people” these few Zionist have already planned the next World War behind the backs of all people which will be forced to fight for their own Countries in their obligation as citizens.
In the next World War it will be like fighting against a phantom. The invisible enemy is also one marked feature of every Human being: Ego, personified in our days like never before by a few people dictating their will from the top of one virtual pyramid.
This War manipulated by these Zionists will be geographically split on two
Russia, China and Arab States on one side
Israel, USA and England on the other.
Through one strategy of Terror and Deception the Zionists will continue to
monitor and to separate all people. They hope to face many weak and divided
oppositions rather than one strong and united.
No weapons or protests in the streets could ever oppose such Plan.
In this “carousel” orchestrated by the CIA on behalf of these Zionists, the
greatest danger to Humankind is not the CIA or the Zionists but the lack of one
evolutionary change needed for us to step away from that same Direction marked
in all history and to become one race distinguished from the Animal kingdom.
If this new manipulated War were to begin, the people should be distinguished from their Religions and cultures.
The conflict should be defined only pro or against Equality.
This distinction is there also not to fall back in a past that never knew how to refrain from pointing the finger always at the Jews, before and after every major War.
The hope resides in one new Reason.
…… even if it is not so simple.
How to find those magic words? How to confront the perception of the people
to see why one newly discovered transformation, from waves to atoms called Wavevolution, also relates to their life and survival? A concept like this could be introduced using a thousand words or maybe in a hundred ways, but only ten words and one way will put in perspective such vital perception:
The conflict should be defined only pro or against Equality.
“To the rich and to the poor”
To the countless crying lambs and to the many blinded deer but also for those few laughing pigs while these 3 are still in great number and surrounded by wolves, one bird from above would say: “look all around and together press for one exit before the trap is closed”.

Smirks October 23, 2012 at 5:14 am

Romney will buy more ships, Obama will buy more drones. What makes Romney worse, though, is his wanting to increase military spending by $2 trillion over the next decade.

Ron Paul cannot and will not change the GOP, just like no Democrat will change their party. Americans may not love war, but America does.

BigT October 23, 2012 at 5:22 am

Like FITS is doing here…I noticed that MSNBC squabbled a lot, trying to parse words to tear down Romney..

We have seen what Obama will do…and no matter how much he lies about it…It Ain’T Workin’…

What Ron Paul suggests is NOTHING…(Achmajenadad, Sharia Law and Jihad just LOVES Ron-Paul to death)….,

What Romney is proposing is LEADERSHIP….

Like it or not SOMEBODY WILL police the World.

Do you want it to be Hitler or Freedom???

Every Free Person that the US has given that freedom will tell you it BETTER be the U.S.

FITS was given leadership in 2002. What did he do with it???

Nuff said.

Smirks October 23, 2012 at 8:21 am

Do you want it to be Hitler or Freedom???

If breaking Godwin’s Law was a crime, you would have been sentenced to life in prison by now.

sid October 23, 2012 at 10:51 am

Technically, he’s not “breaking Godwin’s Law,” he’s merely expediting it. Godwin’s Law states that, the longer a discussion goes, the more likely someone will bring it around to talking about Hitler or Nazis.

Thebeachisback October 23, 2012 at 11:02 am

Don’t want it be you, you asshole!

sid October 23, 2012 at 11:12 am

How quickly we devolve from Godwin’s Law to flaming. Tell your mom the test came back negative, so everything’s OK.

gasman October 23, 2012 at 5:37 am

Thank God no more debates. Obama lost the first debate and won the last two. Who cares about who won or lost a debate. The more important issue is the question Do we wants four more years of this???? Two weeks from tomorrow we will be asking why this election wasn’t as close as we thought.The answer lies in the answer to the above question.

Robert October 23, 2012 at 6:07 am

This debate did nothing good or bad to either candidate because it probably put most viewers to sleep.

By this time next week, the polls should be finalized enough to know who will win.

Right now, it looks like it is up to Ohio. This race is just that close.

Crooner October 23, 2012 at 8:19 am

Romney brilliantly co-opted Obama’s foreign policy, giving voters one less thing to worry about a Romney presidency.

At the rate he’s moving left he’ll be more liberal than Obama by January.

It’s hard to disagree with Romney’s positions on the issues. If you don’t like them, as in the weather, just wait and they’ll change.

BigT October 23, 2012 at 8:45 am

Crooner: I’ll say Obama won all day long..as long as he keeps losing the election like he is…

For Liberals Talk is reality…For me, Nov. 6 is Reality…

sid October 23, 2012 at 10:54 am

Sooo, Romney changes his positions, while Barry’s positions evolve, Crooner? What’s the difference?

SenseLikeChaps October 23, 2012 at 11:28 am

That is the troubling problem with his position. If Romney were smart he would have picked up more of the “left” issues that Obama has long since left to the wayside. Instead he has just said that he would take those same problems that Obama had dodged to the middle on and promised to ride them harder.

I don’t know of too many people who were ever happy with the Patriot Act or the lack of elegance with the TSA or a lack any concrete stance on how we can better (ethically speaking) deal with drone attacks (if you wanted to paint Obama as a murderous tyrant, all you have to say is that you 100% guarantee that drones will under no circumstance ever be used on US soil, it is a non-promise on a non-issue that genuinely drives the point home that there are lots of unanswered questions in our brave new world, not “Oh, sure I’ll use them, but I’ll use them harder”). He has left all of this stuff alone and just said that he will out Obama, Obama with all of the “I can do what you do, but I can do it better” talk.

While I’m in rant mode, what about those 14 million jobs Mitt said we wouldn’t have if Obama were re-elected. Those same 14 million jobs the Congressional Budget Office says we’ll have 4 years from election day no matter who is elected? So if Mitt can’t drive the bus we won’t get to Obviousland? This is the cynical, condescending weaseling that will either cause me to sit home on election day or drive me to vote for his opposition. If I have a choice between Coke and New Coke, I’ll take a Coke, because New Coke probably tastes like crap; too bad I wanted water.

vicupstate October 23, 2012 at 9:10 am

A CNN instant poll of registered voters found President Obama won, 48% to 40%. A CBS News poll of undecided voters favored Obama, 53% to 23%. A Public Policy Polling survey of swing state voters also came out in favor of the president, 53% to 42%.

Obama won. Anyone that watched it with even an ounce of objectivity saw that. If Romney agrees with Obama on so much involving Foreign Affairs, why shouldn’t Obama be re-elected, at least in that regard.

BradWarthenSucks October 23, 2012 at 9:21 am

Vicupstate – Why? Do you plan on voting solely on the debate on foreign affairs? How are domestic affairs? You know the ones that actually affect you and your family?

BTW – CNN – Liberal, CBS – Ultra Liberal, can’t comment on the PPP survey, who did they poll? New England housewives and Section 8 residents?

vicupstate October 23, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Read the last sentence again, paying special attention to the last five words.

Of course domestic issues matter, but the debate was on Foreign Affairs, and Romney agreed with 85% of Obama has done/is doing. Given that, why would you vote for Romeny on the basis of foreign affairs? If Obama is doing the right things and has shown he has the ability to do them, why change? Romney has no experience, unless you count his disasterous trip last summer.

CNN had commentors from both sides last night, when will you see that on Fox News?

sid October 23, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, vic, but Barry had no experience with foreign affairs when he became President. Unless you want to count his three years as a US Senator, probably half of which he spent running for President rather than serving as a Senator. Romney has done a great deal of working with foreign governments. He has done so as a businessman, a governor, and working for the Olympics. I would argue he has more foreign affairs experience right now than Barry, and certainly more than Barry did when he was elected President.

Mike October 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Barry bows to foreign leaders. Enough said.

Recovering Lobbyist October 23, 2012 at 9:50 am

Debates are not about winning or losing the debate itself, but accomplishing your goals. Because the President had to look more aggressive, the result of his poor showing in debate one, he accomplished his goal.

The Governor, on the other hand, simply needs to turn out his base and persuade undecideds. To do that, he needs to look credible. He did. In fact Gov. Romney looked more presidential most of the night than President Obama.

My opinion, it was a draw, which means advantage to the guy who has the momentum. I think Gov. Romney helped those on the right, who were not sure about him, that they should vote for him. Gov. Romney also convinced most of the majority of the undecideds, who already have made the choice that they do not favor the incumbent, that he is a viable alternative.

I think Gov. Romney won all three debates in the first debate. Since that night he just had to defend his advantage, which he did.

vicupstate October 23, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Romney did NOT look more presidential. Obama looked like the experienced, knowledgeable ‘been there’ guy versus a wannabe that says what some neocon chickenhawk advisor told him to say.

The polls prove that was the impression. Conservatives NEVER admit when their guy gets bested.

sid October 23, 2012 at 12:36 pm

So, now you are going to tell someone their personal opinion regarding how they perceived something is wrong, vic? My, aren’t you special?

Yes, Barry looked oh so presidential every time he interrupted Romney, and every time he made his lame little quips. Romney let Barry speak, and waited for his chance to rebut. Barry did not on several occasions. If being rude is your idea of being presidential, then we have a different idea of what presidential means.

PattiAnne October 23, 2012 at 12:36 pm

‘Defend his advantage’? Really? The only thing he defended last night was all of Obama’s foreign policies. Romney was way, way out of his league. Every time he was pressed for what he would do differently, he squirmed and eventually admitted that the current adminstration was doing what he would do. The best he could come up is he’s going after the ‘bad guys’. That’s what pre-schoolers say when they play ninjas; not adult men hoping to be president of the US. Thank goodness Romney has no possible path to win this election !!!

sid October 23, 2012 at 12:45 pm Reply
BradWarthenSucks October 23, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Sid – Vic is special all right, it even says so on that funny little helmet they make him wear.

sid October 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm

“Thank goodness Romney has no possible path to win this election !!!”

You keep telling yourself that, PA.


Common Sense October 23, 2012 at 3:57 pm

But does he walk around literally holding hands with Saudi royalty like two little kids in love? Enough said.

sid October 23, 2012 at 11:08 am

I’d call it a draw, or maybe a slight win for Barry. The biggest cringe of the night, for me, came with Barry trying to be funny. When he said the 80’s called and wanted their foreign policy back, all I could think was the phone must be ringing from the 90s, wanting its lame joke back.

Mumbo Jumbo October 23, 2012 at 11:43 am

67,925 That’s the capacity of the Houston Astrodome. I’ve heard that the election may well be (a) decided by a fraction / number of voters that could fit in the Houston Astrodome, and (b) “split” with the electoral college votes exceeding the popular vote. Another good reason to get rid of the electoral college.

Jan October 23, 2012 at 12:59 pm

After late night, if you want to know what Mitt Romney’s foreign policy is, make it up in your own mind, and you will be right for as long as he’s talkng to you.

BradWarthenSucks October 23, 2012 at 1:16 pm

If you want to know what Obama’s foreign policy is, he’ll tell you to ask Hillary.

Joe October 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm

If you want to know what Obama’s foreign policy is, he’ll tell you to ask Hillary.

Or ask the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sarah Sez October 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm

Hey Sid. Lets get our military some more horses. Then we’ll bring em over to your place, have a six pack, and then watch em’ shit in your yard.

sid October 23, 2012 at 1:59 pm

I know it’s hard for you, but try to keep up with the folks who actually know what is going on. While the military does still use horses, I never argued that was a problem with Barry’s quip. It was the bayonet reference.

BTW, how’s that revisionist history on discussions about climate change going for you?

Sarah Sez October 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Horses! Sad thing is, little man, you are so invested in arguing whether you’re wrong or right, you don’t seem to comprehend the overall insignificance of the issue. Military Horses!

And dumb shit, you are the one who told a Climate Editor what the current state of knowledge on the topic was. At least I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know.

sid October 23, 2012 at 3:30 pm

Actually, I just made a casual obsevation about the shortcomings of Barry’s quip. It was some other Obamabots who wanted to run to his defense over the bayonet reference, then you decided, for some unknown reason, to start talking about horses. Again, horses were never called into question.

As for a Climate Editor, you are wrong, once again. I went back and forth with a Professor (from Georgia, I think) who wanted to have a debate on the issue of anthropomorphic climate change. He wanted to debate some other folks who had posted (not me), and I suggested I could get experts from his field who disagreed with his personal opinions to have the debate. He quickly bowed out.

But I wasn’t debating him on the science. I merely pointed out colleagues in his field did not agree with him. That, my dear, is an incontrovertible fact.

Now, if intelligence were based on the amount of information that you don’t know, I think you might be a certifiable genius. Unfortunately, I get the impression you don’t have a firm grasp of the true depths of your lack of intelligence. Thus, you are likely a failure at even being “smart enough to know what (you) don’t know.”

Sarah Sez October 23, 2012 at 4:16 pm

You amuse me Sid.

And that would be anthropogenic, you cretin. Anthropomorphic!!!!!!!! LOL.

Keep arguing about how intelligent you are. Or amuse me further.

Carl Spackler October 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm

That’s a KO Sarah. Well played.

sid October 23, 2012 at 4:56 pm

My bad, SS. Chalk it up to hasty typing, since I used the correct term in our previous discussion. You know, the one where you tried to claim a warming trend, and I corrected you with the real data.

Now, care to argue the merits of the post?

BTW, you never answered my question about your looks. You’ve been following me for years, apparently, so you should at least tell me what you look like. Unless you are a pig. I don’t want to spoil the fantasy, so if you are a pig, just don’t tell me.

Carl, I believe you have another conversation you need to attend to. You know, the one regarding Barry’s Nobel prize for not being Bush. I’m not Bush, so where’s mine?

Sarah Sez October 23, 2012 at 9:56 pm

You corrected me with real data? Where is this data? And why isn’t everyone talking about it? Do enlighten. And how can data be non-real?

And Sid, I date slightly older men with confidence, not brash know-it-all college punks who run their mouths bullying others and cum in two minutes. I will give you one point for at least admitting you typed the wrong word.

Carl Spackler October 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Sid said “I would argue he has more foreign affairs experience right now than Barry”

R U for real? I know you try to be the village shitbag, but now you’re morphing into Big T territory.

One of these guys has a Nobel Peace Prize, the other doesn’t. Game over.

Joe October 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm

One of these guys has a Nobel Peace Prize, the other doesn’t.

Priceless….yes, a Nobel Prize for which he was nominated BEFORE he even assumed office. And before he launched an undeclared war in Libya, whose chickens and blood came home to roost on Sept 11, 2012.

LOL…Nobel Prize…you gotta be kidding me Carl.


sid October 23, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Seriously? You’re gonna bring up the Nobel Peace Prize? Everyone in the world who wasn’t firmly entrenched up Barry’s backside knows that award was a joke. Giving it to him greatly diminished its value to every recipient before, since, and for future generations. He did nothing to be awarded it, other than make some campaign speeches and win an election. Now he’s proud of killing countless individuals (as well as some innocent bystanders) through his use of drones. Don’t get me wrong. I am glad he has been so ruthless with the drones, but I’d hardly call that living up to the Peace Prize standards.

So, explain all of his foreign affairs experience prior to getting into the White House.

President Perry October 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Yeah….reckon Obama got the award cause he’s not Bush.

Otherwise, I see some serious envy here. What do you have Sid? SC Asshole of the Month ten months running?

Joe, ring back when your IQ reaches three digits.

Joe October 23, 2012 at 2:40 pm

LOL….you’re a witty one, there sport. But I see some serious bitterness in you. Bitterness over the pending defeat of Obummer. That’s too bad.

You can say it with me too – PRESIDENT MITT ROMNEY

sid October 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm

Hell, PP (what appropriate initials), I’d hope I’ve got that award for longer than 10 months, if it is awarded for slapping around little Obamabots like you. Maybe a Lifetime Achievement?

But you are probably correct about the reason for the award. There are so many ways that Barry is not Bush. To add to that list of ways he is not Bush will soon be (we can only hope) the designation “Two-Term President.”

Mike at the Beach October 23, 2012 at 11:13 pm

Getting back to the “interventionist” theme of the article…

My shop happens to be working on a Hezbollah project, and I noticed that today is the anniversary of the Beirut barracks bombs.

Funny (ironic is a better word, I guess) how much blood, sweat, and tears we’ve shed in that part of the world, and how little some things have changed. Iran is still backing terror groups, and they still have us in their sights. Hezbollah is still rolling. American soldiers are still dying to try to improve other peoples’ lot in life. It’s still all our fault, according to most segments in the media (and a small, but significant part of our ignorant electorate).


Check out the comments on YouTube. Intellectually, you know we can’t just wrap it all up and bring everyone home from everywhere in the world, but it’s a neat mental exercise to imagine doing just that and just letting everyone fend for themselves for a year or two and see if they have the stomach for it.


Leave a Comment