Romney makes most reckless error of campaign

Romney also delivered a policy speech, pointedly calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel (a controversial declaration that U.S. presidents have avoided for decades), and saying that the U.S. has a "solemn duty and a moral imperative" to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that "no option should be excluded" toward that end.

Senior Romney foreign policy adviser Dan Senor was more explicit Sunday morning, saying that "if Israel has to take action on its own" to stop Iran, "the governor would respect that decision." Is all-but-endorsing a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran really a good idea for a presidential candidate?

Romney is being reckless: If Israel attacks Iran, says Martin Longman at Booman Tribune, much of the world will blame the United States, as we give Israel a huge amount of foreign aid. So it's downright "dangerous and irresponsible" for Romney to openly bless such a strike, especially with no conditions. That not only slaps at President Obama's foreign policy, it undermines it: "We are trying to prevent a war and Romney is urging Israel to start one." Besides, rather than making Romney look strong on defense, this "makes him look weak," as it appears that he's playing second fiddle to Netanyahu.

http://theweek.com/article/index/231239 ... esponsible

Interesting, a story was leaked out of Israel this week saying Obama has signed on to help if Israel launches a military strike on Iran.

This might just be a political move by the Obama re-election team to make sure the pro-Israel Jewish vote stays Dem this year.

"Leaked"?? As in not confirmed???

No comment from Obama's people. Israel has denied it.

Raees wrote:

Romney also delivered a policy speech, pointedly calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel (a controversial declaration that U.S. presidents have avoided for decades), and saying that the U.S. has a "solemn duty and a moral imperative" to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that "no option should be excluded" toward that end.

Senior Romney foreign policy adviser Dan Senor was more explicit Sunday morning, saying that "if Israel has to take action on its own" to stop Iran, "the governor would respect that decision." Is all-but-endorsing a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran really a good idea for a presidential candidate?

Romney is being reckless: If Israel attacks Iran, says Martin Longman at Booman Tribune, much of the world will blame the United States, as we give Israel a huge amount of foreign aid. So it's downright "dangerous and irresponsible" for Romney to openly bless such a strike, especially with no conditions. That not only slaps at President Obama's foreign policy, it undermines it: "We are trying to prevent a war and Romney is urging Israel to start one." Besides, rather than making Romney look strong on defense, this "makes him look weak," as it appears that he's playing second fiddle to Netanyahu.

http://theweek.com/article/index/231239 ... esponsible

It's about time some US leader made a decisive statement about Iran and support for Israel. Loving it.

Raees wrote: "Leaked"?? As in not confirmed???

You are not that naive.

FredHayek wrote: Interesting, a story was leaked out of Israel this week saying Obama has signed on to help if Israel launches a military strike on Iran.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: It's about time some US leader made a decisive statement about Iran and support for Israel. Loving it.

Why LGT, I didn't think you had it in you... :thumbsup:

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Interesting, a story was leaked out of Israel this week saying Obama has signed on to help if Israel launches a military strike on Iran.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: It's about time some US leader made a decisive statement about Iran and support for Israel. Loving it.

Why LGT, I didn't think you had it in you... :thumbsup:

Romney didn't have to have anything "leaked." He said it outright. Obama let's his flunkies do his "leaking" so he can just vote "present" if something doesn't go right. I didn't think Obama had it in him, and he doesn't.

Raees wrote:

Romney also delivered a policy speech, pointedly calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel (a controversial declaration that U.S. presidents have avoided for decades), and saying that the U.S. has a "solemn duty and a moral imperative" to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that "no option should be excluded" toward that end.

Senior Romney foreign policy adviser Dan Senor was more explicit Sunday morning, saying that "if Israel has to take action on its own" to stop Iran, "the governor would respect that decision." Is all-but-endorsing a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran really a good idea for a presidential candidate?

Romney is being reckless: If Israel attacks Iran, says Martin Longman at Booman Tribune, much of the world will blame the United States, as we give Israel a huge amount of foreign aid. So it's downright "dangerous and irresponsible" for Romney to openly bless such a strike, especially with no conditions. That not only slaps at President Obama's foreign policy, it undermines it: "We are trying to prevent a war and Romney is urging Israel to start one." Besides, rather than making Romney look strong on defense, this "makes him look weak," as it appears that he's playing second fiddle to Netanyahu.

http://theweek.com/article/index/231239 ... esponsible

Why is it they do all this trash talking about Romney being in Israel and supporting them if attacked (which we should in my opinion), but when Obama talked about a possible military intervention in Iran is not out of the question, nothing was said. So obama making that comment is no different, he is stating we may go to war with Iran, where Romney only stated he would respect the decision that Israel would make. He made no mention of the US going to war against Iran like Obama did. Question is why is OK for boama but not for Romney.


At the White House meeting, Obama told Netanyahu the United States reserved "all options" in dealing with Iran. The president has made clear that would include a possible military component.

In other words, we would go to war with Iran if that is what it comes to.

Hell obama is nothing but a liar. Whatever sells tickets that what he says. Read that last paragraph of the article.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... -iran?lite

And now that Romney goes to Israel and its a election year, Obama signs the Israel Security Bill, on the eve of Romney arriving there. More election ploys cause he is running scared. He did not care about Israel until Romney put Israel on his travels.

I can hear it now, I am wrong he has always cared etc. NOT he was for the other side not on Israels side.