For all of you who get tired of beating up on our candidates, here is an alternative. Romney's speech provides us with all the ammunition we need to let loose on the Republican Financial Front Runner.
To start out, Mitt gives Bush a full embrace with what has to be one of the most inane comments ever uttered. With metaphorical tears in his eyes Mitt said
We are fortunate today to have a president who loves America
In Mitt's world this is one of the unique qualities of Bush - something that distinguishes him from past Presidents. He is not only different from that Philistine Clinton, but also the likes of Bush 42 and maybe even Saint Ronald.
Mitt goes on to explain that Bush's deep love of the United States is in clear evidence because Bush is a person
who acts solely out of a desire to protect her and to promote liberty around the world
Bush wants to protect the United States so much that he passed up the opportunity to capture the terrorists the caused 9/11 so that he could start an aggressive war in Iraq against a country that did not pose a meaningful threat to us. And while he was at it, he decided to spread liberty by destabilizing the entire region and ridding Iran of its arch enemy, Iraq. Yes, certainly sounds like Bush has our interests at heart.
Mitt then continued to cozy up to Bush by adopting the silly and totally discredited Republican attack on Speaker Pelosi. Reaching heights of absurd hyperboly he declared with grave solemnity that the Speaker's trip to Syria was
one of the most partisan, divisive and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade
Not to be outdone by his own rhetoric he graced the audience with his overarching philosophy of national defense. The audience was undoubtedly spellbound in rapturous awe when he declared that
his own defense philosophy follows from former President Ronald Reagan, who said, "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
What in the world does that mean? Does anyone seriously believe we became involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Viet Nam because we were too weak? That can't possibly be the explanation, especially not with regard to the first three wars. Our strength relative to our adversaries didn't get us into, nor would it have kept us out of, those wars. As far as Viet Nam is concerned, an argument can be made that if we had not been so militarily dominant and fearful of dominos falling on every corner of the world we might have decided not to engage in that tragic conflict.
Not only was Mitt's statement inane, the history of the lead up to the Iraq war suggests it was wrong. Does anyone think we would have commenced the needless and tragic war in Iraq if we had not been the dominant military power in the world? A power which believed it could reshape the world through military force of arms. A power that could use its military to rewrite thousands of years of history.
So there you have it. Mitt Romney - certified Bush lover, diplomatic guru and military historian. Just think, he could be our next President. If ever there was a time for prayer it is now.
So whenever we debate the merits of our own candidates we should always remember to keep our observations and criticisms in perspective. If we do too good a job of cutting our guys down we could end up with Mitt.