Was reading this article from The Economist. I have been watching the debates and tracking the republican presidential race quite closely (as some of you may have read on my blow by blow twitter blasts of the wrestling matches we call the republican presidential debates). Mostly I find the whole thing to be an exercise in hypocrisy. In the above article, they are talking about the lack of imaginativeness in the economic and foreign policy plans that Romney has put out thus far. For me, here's the hypocrisy: Say what you want about Obama, but he pretty much did what he said he was going to do concerning Afganistan and Iraq. Also, and as noted in this article, as the Arab spring unfolded, his strategy of "leading from behind" has been a cost containing measure which has successfully gotten our allies to finally significantly contribute to that which we have been doing by ourselves for so long - - policing the world.
I would think that even though you want him out, you would have to agree that Obama has out Bushed Bush in his prosecution of our foreign affairs. Bin Laden is DEAD, essentially assassinated, in the middle of the night, B.O. told no one...GANGTSA style. Ba-dow!! American muslim cleric with Al-Quaeda ties, Boom! Gotcha in da neck mo fo...Somali pirates shot dead by snipers, on direct order from Obama...I thought this is what republicans liked! He-took-them-out! But nooooo...Obama is an american apologist? But Mitt Romney would keep the military Reagan-like strong in the midst of an economic crisis and there is no Soviet Union any more? I'm so confused....on a gut level I just don't understand.