23 of Romney’s foreign policy advisers served under George W Bush

[Chomsky]

http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php/2012/01/30/23-of-romneys-foreign-policy-advisers-served-under-george-w-bush-360/

"George W Bush has not been a central topic in this GOP election cycle but significant elements of his administration are lurking in the shadows of the Romney campaign. Twenty three of Romney's senior advisers served under Bush in some capacity, several serving in key roles in the administration. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005-2009..." And it goes on to list more and more people.

[VictorB]

More importantly....23 advisers? Why does he need so many? Geez.

[RonPaul101.com]

This info will play well in open primary states, like Viriginia, where there is a likelyhood of a large anti-GWB crowd.

[acptulsa]

The only thing missing is Dickhead Cheney.

We did want him to have another stint one heartbeat away from the presidency, did we not?

[CaptUSA]

If Romney wins the nomination, this will be why he loses the general.

Obama will simply say, "Romney wants to take you back to Bush" and the media will eat it up. The election will turn into a referendum of Bush's record versus a referendum of Obama's. And since Obama can say he's not done yet, Romney will lose this battle.

Only Ron Paul can escape this eventual fate.

[COpatriot]

That group is PNAC 2.0. Romney is about as scary as Santorum.

[fatjohn]

If Romney wins the nomination, this will be why he loses the general.

Obama will simply say, "Romney wants to take you back to Bush" and the media will eat it up. The election will turn into a referendum of Bush's record versus a referendum of Obama's. And since Obama can say he's not done yet, Romney will lose this battle.

Only Ron Paul can escape this eventual fate.

Mhh don´t most americans equate bush to a better standard of living?

[acptulsa]

Mhh don´t most americans equate bush to a better standard of living?

Only until he destroyed the economy. Most Americans say, 'Obama inherited this mess from Bush,' in fact.

[CaptUSA]

Mhh don´t most americans equate bush to a better standard of living?I don't think so. The train came off the rails under Bush. I think most people thought Obama would put it back on the rails. He didn't - so he takes the blame, but I think people still remember how we got here.

[amonasro]

Twenty-three sycophants that want a position in his administration.

[jolynna]

The ship (Lehman) went down on Bush's watch. It is STILL going down. The investment banks are still doing the same things now, that they were doing then, they have just repackaged the products.

Ignore the "things are better" stuff the media is saying. They said the "housing market is fine" almost up to the day it was announced there were going to be bailouts. Heaven forbid, somebody actually is able to get on a lifeboat (that isn't a financial CEO) before the ship sinks.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Romney has ALL of Bush's foreign policy advisers. His speeches and language, "keeping America strong", "China has a bigger Navy (a flat-out, pants on fire, lie), "Obama is too timid" & "I'd go get the drone" is nicey-nice, ivy league code-talk that means "KILL the Muslims hoarding the oil".

On his website and in his speeches, Romney pledges to build more planes, build more ships, update our nuke capability AND add 100,000 active duty servicemen. That sounds like somebody who is planning on some WAR.

I've been saying for weeks and months that Romney is the greatest war-hawk running for president. Even more than Obama. When somebody PUTS IN WRITING, right on their website, that they want to INCREASE the amount of GDP spending for military, believe them.

[goldpants]

Baby what a big surprise, right before my very eyes.

[Carole]

More importantly....23 advisers? Why does he need so many? Geez.

Because he knows so little and someone has to tell him what to say. :D

[deputydon]

I don't think so. The train came off the rails under Bush. I think most people thought Obama would put it back on the rails. He didn't - so he takes the blame, but I think people still remember how we got here.

Obama's biggest issues, in my opinion, are that, contrary to popular belief, he's increased military spending every year of his presidency (the GOP like to say he hasn't). And that the unemployment rate hasn't really yet rebounded, even though he has created 3 million jobs. He's not as bad as Republicans would like to believe. He's just not that great either. And things like Obamacare and a war with Iran might not hurt job growth, but it will further our National debt. Obama's biggest problem is that while he has helped parts of the economy, he's done so without caring about how much it costs. He keeps increasing our spending more and more.

Romney will be even worse than Obama because he has the same health care plan, and he wants to INCREASE military spending even more when we have absolutely zero reason to.

Newt is worse than Obama because he wants to take our money and build a moon base.

Santorum is even worse than all of them because he wants to start a war with just about everybody, and he has a disturbing amount of hate for gay people and other religions.

I've said it before, if Paul doesn't get the Nomination, I'm voting Obama.

[sailingaway]

More importantly....23 advisers? Why does he need so many? Geez.

this is what I was wondering. Exactly how MANY countries is he planning to invade?

[jolynna]

The bankers who invested in Obama AND Romney are counting on one OR the other being elected.

Vote for either Obama OR Romney and they win.

Whatever the master plan is. More war. Being able to round up people and ship them off to detention camps should people become rowdy when the financial collapse finally arrives. Anybody who votes for either Romney OR Obama will contribute to sheep being slaughtered.

If you've served in the military during wartime or had a family member serve, killing another human being is an experience that sears a soul forever. Don't just look on the outside and at the packaging. That is how Obama, who should be charged along with Bush for war crimes, got elected.

People got fooled into Vietnam. Then they went into Iraq to get weapons of mass destruction. People are still dying. It is urgent not to contribute to it.

My opinion only...but a very heartfelt one.

[Chomsky]

we should submit this to reddit, this is right up their alley, I can't because I'm at work, but if anybody could do it you should post the link in this thread

[Hyperion]

Scary stuff. It's hard to discern who is worse between Mitt/Santorum and Newt. What the hell has happened to the GOP?

I just don't get this defense of the Bush era.

[Tyler_Durden]

More importantly....23 advisers? Why does he need so many? Geez.

Because he has to ask the lawyers and doesn't know what's in the constitution.....

The Military Industrial Complex smiles from above....

[jolynna]

Romney has been open about being a war-hawk.

That he wants to increase the percentage of GDP spent for military is right on his website. He also gives speeches and has on his website that he wants to build more warships and planes. He said in a debate, "He'd go after the drone" and called bloodthirsty Obama, "too timid" in the middle east. That sounds like a man that is planning on LOTS of WAR somewhere.

There was an article in New York Times over a month ago about how Romney has ex-Bush advisers.

It all comes down to branding. People have a certain image in their minds of how a war-hawk should look and act. Good old boys that strut and talk with Southern accents like Bush did are hated and despised for their evil war crimes.

But, if an educated Harvard man, like Obama, commits equally atrocious killings, the liberals who were appalled over what Bush did, start making excuses. Like..."we have to clean up the mess Bush made". Even though, NOBODY that served in Iraq or that was a reporter in Iraq thinks ANYTHING was accomplished by our prolonged military presence there.

Ask a Liberal or a Progressive WHY we are still killing people in the middle east and watch them squirm and spout the same stuff they called garbage when Bush "said it". All of the nonsense about "keeping terrorists over "there" they HAVE to say because they can't admit that their liberal hero is doing what they called "evil deeds" when a GOP president ordered it done.

Same with Romney. He has elite manners and money. He forgets he used to be pro-choice and gets videoed kissing a baby and all of a sudden the former "progressive" that wrote Romneycare which became Obamacare (both of which are MANDATES that will make the pharmaceutical and insurance industries very, very rich & make healthcare LESS accessible and MORE expensive) is "born again" as a conservative. Therefore his killing and war-mongering talk and proposed actions, like Obama's actually doing killing and war-crimes get NO attention from the liberal media.

Speak a certain way. Look into the camera sincerely. And you are labeled "safe". Even if you are the maddest hatter in the bunch.

IMO