After 10 years, Mitt doesn't know enough to take a stand...

After 10 Years Of War, Romney Lacks Enough Information To 'Take A Stand' On Afghanistan (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- More than a decade into the war in Afghanistan, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney does not have enough information to "take a stand" on whether troops should remain or continue to withdraw on the timetable set by President Obama.

"Before I take a stand, I want to get input [from military leaders] that are there," Romney said on "Fox News Sunday." "General [John] Allen is coming to Washington and testifying about what the conditions are," he noted, adding that some conclusions can already be drawn.

"I think it is plain to see conditions are not going very well," Romney said. "And I lay part of the blame on that on the lack of leadership on our president."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 56730.html

Of course he doesn't know enough to take a position; doesn't know enough to know the history or the background of Bush's 2nd Unnecessary War...But whatever it is, it must be Obama's fault... (Gee, kind of like the rest of the doofuses in the GOP...)

We'll wait for the empty-suits at FauxNews to tell him what to think...and why.... rofllol

LadyJazzer wrote:

After 10 Years Of War, Romney Lacks Enough Information To 'Take A Stand' On Afghanistan (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- More than a decade into the war in Afghanistan, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney does not have enough information to "take a stand" on whether troops should remain or continue to withdraw on the timetable set by President Obama.

"Before I take a stand, I want to get input [from military leaders] that are there," Romney said on "Fox News Sunday." "General [John] Allen is coming to Washington and testifying about what the conditions are," he noted, adding that some conclusions can already be drawn.

"I think it is plain to see conditions are not going very well," Romney said. "And I lay part of the blame on that on the lack of leadership on our president."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 56730.html

Of course he doesn't know enough to take a position; doesn't know enough to know the history or the background of Bush's 2nd Unnecessary War...But whatever it is, it must be Obama's fault... (Gee, kind of like the rest of the doofuses in the GOP...)

We'll wait for the empty-suits at FauxNews to tell him what to think...and why.... rofllol

Of course he's never held office as President. Oc course he's never held a federal political office with the kind of access that the President and Senate members have to classified information about the war. Of course he doesn't have much more information as you or I have. Even in the article he alludes to that and defers to the generals. Of course, I bet Lady Jazzer could give us an INFORMED high level insight to the war?

Republicans just can't win with LJ, if they spout off like Newt Gingrich on how to solve Libya, they don't know what they are talking about. If they haven't formed an opinion in a rapidly changing situation, they are weak and indecisive.

LJ, so when Obama took weeks to decide on increasing forces in Afghanistan, he was being weak and indecisive?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Of course he's never held office as President. Oc course he's never held a federal political office with the kind of access that the President and Senate members have to classified information about the war. Of course he doesn't have much more information as you or I have. Even in the article he alludes to that and defers to the generals. Of course, I bet Lady Jazzer could give us an INFORMED high level insight to the war?

Of course she can, she read about it in the Huffington Post.

Democrats think different than republicans. When a republican says "I'll have to get more information before I say for sure, but for now it seems to me that..." the republicans see someone that wants input before a decision is made. Democrats hear things like "I'm going to close Gitmo" and throw their votes at the speaker's feet, despite the fact that once he got into office he figured out why Gitmo is still open and that he can't close it like he promised.

Nobody that matters wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Of course he's never held office as President. Oc course he's never held a federal political office with the kind of access that the President and Senate members have to classified information about the war. Of course he doesn't have much more information as you or I have. Even in the article he alludes to that and defers to the generals. Of course, I bet Lady Jazzer could give us an INFORMED high level insight to the war?

Of course she can, she read about it in the Huffington Post.

Democrats think different than republicans. When a republican says "I'll have to get more information before I say for sure, but for now it seems to me that..." the republicans see someone that wants input before a decision is made. Democrats hear things like "I'm going to close Gitmo" and throw their votes at the speaker's feet, despite the fact that once he got into office he figured out why Gitmo is still open and that he can't close it like he promised.

Yeah, I realize 10 years is probably too much for poor Mitt to look at and arrive at a conclusion. My bad...

But I'm sure McCain/Graham will quickly make him see the error of his ways. Never let a war go to waste.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, I realize 10 years is probably too much for poor Mitt to look at and arrive at a conclusion. My bad...

He did draw a conclusion, but recognized the fact that as president he might have access to information that would require him to make a change in his conclusion. He was being realistic. It's a damn shame that you're so blinded by your utter hatered for the (r) behind his name that you can't see it.

And yeah... it is your bad.

Oh, I understand your anger. If I had your field of loser candidates, I'd be upset too.

LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, I understand your anger. If I had your field of loser candidates, I'd be upset too.

If Obama is doing so well, why is he still in the 40's like Romney and others? Shouldn't he be in the 60's since he is leading the recovery. Or should I say the jobless recovery, at the rate hiring is going, it will take 20 years to employ Generation Y.

LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, I understand your anger. If I had your field of loser candidates, I'd be upset too.

Sure... and your commissar is doing smashing...

Obama’s high-dollar donations lagging

President Obama is struggling to draw in big-dollar donations, with half as many people writing large checks to his campaign than at this point four years ago.Obama is outpacing his Republican rivals in fundraising overall, and his advisers have concentrated on amassing small-dollar backers, part of a strategy to get more people invested in the reelection effort. At the end of January, 1.4 million people had donated to the Obama campaign, responding to appeals for contributions as small as $2.

But Obama lags behind Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in finding donors willing to give $2,000 or more — a surprising development for a sitting president, and one that could signal more worrisome financial problems heading into the general election. At this point in the last election cycle, Obama had received such large donations from more than 23,000 supporters, more than double the 11,000 who have given him that much this time. President George W. Bush had more than four times that number of big donations at this point in his reelection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Maybe it's the economy?