We would not be under terrorist threat if we did not send troops around the world, invading other countries and, instead, just kept them at home. It's called the Department of DEFENSE for a reason.

Mitt Romney is the robot politician, perfectly programmed to never say anything controversial.

His declaration here is that if we were attacked he would do something.

His position on health care is do whatever you want and I’ll go along with it.

His positions on immigration, abortion, stem-cells and gay rights depend on what state he’s in.

“I don’t want to be terribly more specific than that” should be the Romney campaign bumper sticker.

I hope American voters come to realize that beneath that handsome plastic exterior lies… absolutely nothing.

Mr. Romney does not understand that "thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads" are not a deterrent to a nuclear attack on a US city because we are not dealing with a nation equipped with nuclear warhead. If he is the president and we are attacked with a nuclear device, he has failed to protect the American people.

The only way to protect ourselves is to know who and where our enemies are. That can only be achieved if we have more people who like us than who don't like us.

I don't think Mr. Romney's statement has made us any friends today.

And how would you do that, Mitt? Head to your 11 acre summertime lakeside mansion on Lake Winnipesaukee, N.H. with your five sons that never bothered to serve their country and protect against possible looters?

Go away, Mitt. You're a fake. And it shows.

You would be ANOTHER disaster for this country!

Romney is such a phoney!

Nice to know that no matter who sets off a terror attack Romney will be glad to nuke Iran for it!That should get some money flowing.

"He said he doesn't want to "have the guys who ran the Katrina
cleanup" in charge of health care and would leave it up to states to design their own systems."

Exactly, that's why many will be happy to see the Bush Administration leave office. I'm glad you agree, Mitt.

And who would our "dramatic" retaliation be directed at? This isn't that simplistic of an issue.

Gov Romney's position if we were attacked is what I would want from our President. The US must be kept safe and the way to do that is through STRENGTH militarily, econamically and strong solid value centered families. Appeasement has never and will never make our enemies like us and yes, my brothers, we do have enemies to our way of life. Romney has what it takes to make a real change in Washington! Trying to pigeon hole his positions will not work. He is the one candidate that answers all the questions and in detail when given the time to do so.

Way to go, Mitt. Keep at em! Mitt has the real strength and experience to guide our nation best into a new era of peace and prosperity.

He's essentially saying he is not afraid to use extreme force as a final option in some hypothetical scenario. It's something every candidate knows and probably believes in but is too scared to say, at least now. He's not afraid to admit that powerful nations have to consider defense in a world that wants everything we have and will destroy us out of envy.

Any of you liberals who don't think that islamists already have plans to do exactly what Romney described are smoking something. And I don't think our objective is to "win friends" among those who would perpertrate such an act, it is to let them know that consequences follow, and it won't be tit for tat. It will be annililation for them. simple fact. What do you thing those 2 Egyptians from USF were doing at the Naval Nuclear Weapons Center in S. Carolina….there is overwhelming evidence they were bombers (undeniable evidence on their laptop, and storage area for explosives, and UBL info on how to create a nuclear "accident", which is undoubtedly going to happen. Where was Clinton when offered UBL on a platter at least 2 times?

Its strange how so many "Pro Lifers", who say every life is important, would support the bombing of others with such terrible weapons as these ones. It is unimaginable that any president would support using WMD's after the mad dash to stop Saddam from having them.
Mitt Romney does not have the worldly education to address the dynamics of modern foreign policy. He also forgets that the "guys who ran Katrina" were the current Presidents buddy's and did not have the education to do the job. "Heckofa Job Brownie" is a good example.

Mitt Romney does not have what it takes to be President of the United States. That is a fact.

I won't vote for Romney but you guys need to understand there had been several terrorists attacks in our country before 911. Since 911 there has been NOT been any in our country because we have troops out there protecting our lives by taking the battles to the terrorists on their land not ours so that another 3000 people won't be harmed here. You guys actually think if we pull out of iraq and stop the war on terror that the world will all of a sudden like us and terrorists will drop their weapons and never attack us again. Believe me, the fear and anger of the world is not an over powering America, but a weak America.

So, if terrorists unleash a nuclear weapon in the U.S., killing hundreds, maybe thousands, or even millions of innocent Americans, Mr. Romney would retaliate by killing hundreds, maybe thousands, or even millions of innocent citizens of another country? Because that is exactly what we are talking about. Nuclear weaponry does not have surgical strke capability — you don't "nuke" a building, you take out a nehghborhood, city, region, nation, or continent.

If this is what Mr. Romney believes passes for leadership — the murder of innocent people — I hope the American people are wise enough to turn him away.

Romney just copied John Edwards when Romney said he doesn't want to "have the guys who ran the Katrina cleanup" concerning healthcare. I believe Edwards used that exact same line a few days ago. It seems that Romney is now so bored with flip-flopping on Gay Rights and Abortion and he's now just going to say what his Democratic challengers say

Not "slightly" dramatic?

ANOTHER GEORGE BUSH, DO THESE PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND THAT RESPONDING STRONGLY TO AN ATTACT IN THE WAY HE SAID THAT HE WOULD KILL THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. JUST LIKE THE SHRUB, THEY NEVER THINK.

Mitt must worship George. If attacked again we will find another country that had nothing to do with it, and attack them. Watch out Chile, you might be next.

I have to agree with Mark, Rio de Janeiro.

Why does America feel it has the monopoly on policing and dictating to all Nations of the World?

The US have Nuclear Weapons to "protect" their Nation. However, other Nations seen as a possible threat to the US are not allowed this privlidge?

If you were a Nation the US suspected as a threat, wouldn't you feel having Nuclear Weapons to protect yourself against a US attack necessary?

If the US perceives it is essential for a Nation to be a Democratic Society they send in their troops to make it happen. The Nations' Government or citizens do not have a vote!

If the US perceives a Nation as an eminent threat, they send in their troops and bomb them into submission!

This is what America calls International Diplomacy!

Is it any wonder so many Nations hold such hatred for America? Is it any wonder these Nations retaliate via Terrorist attacks?

America's International Diplomacy can be likened to the School Yard Bully. He too only attacks those who are too weak to fight back.

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorists and anyone who still doesn't know that should be re-educated!Have you not watched the news?Would you please revoke your right to vote until you can understand exactly what you're voting to do?Please,at least watch CNN for a while before making such ludicrous claims.Islamists and christian fundamentalists are virtually the same and it is unforgivable that they are turning their "babylon" into a netherlands for their holy crusade.So your "fight them over there,so we don't have to fight them here" arguement is such a silly thing to espouse that the entire world condemns it.

Yeah Mitt, what country are you going to bomb first? These terrorists are from a lot of different nations and they're working together. How will you know what country to blame? You and all candidates should be telling us how you're going to make sure a bomb doesn't just get carried across our southern or northern borders. I won't even mention our ports.

Where do you stand on this insane issue of outsourcing trucking jobs? How are you going to ensure security when American economic policy will soon allow anyone from Mexico who drives an 18-wheeler to go anywhere they want? Are you going to depend on the paperwork they carry? Yeah right! You can get credentials for anything you want for about $5 just across the border here in El Paso.

Oh, you say we'll use technology like databases and electronic/digital methods. Well, here's some news for you. We are already outsourcing our technology jobs and for the technology jobs we do have here, corporations and their lobbyists are paying you big money to bring in even more foreigners because, supposedly, there just aren't enough smart Americans to do the work. It doesn't take much to write a backdoor to software. Spam, viruses, need I say more?

I think ALL politicians should be forced to live as middle-class Americans before being allowed to run for such powerful positions as those in our branches of governement.

Tom, Las Vegas, Nevada … "Gov Romney's position if we were attacked is what I would want from our President."

Melinda, NY NY … "Way to go, Mitt. Keep at em! Mitt has the real strength and experience to guide our nation best into a new era of peace and prosperity."

All this based on continual FLIP FOPS and "I don't want to be terribly more specific than that"?

Could YOU maybe be "more specific than that"?

Probably NOT right?

Who's he going to attack, should the U.S. be attacked with nuclear weapons by terrorists, the air above our heads? Terrorism doesn't occupy a geographical place, such as a country. Is Bin Laden a country?

The GOP kills me, honestly they do. It doesn't have to make sense at all, it just has to sound tough and decisive. LOL! Where are my Depends when I need them?!

This is great! More simplistic crap from a member of the party that caters to the wealthy and manipulates the ignorant1 God save us all.

If terrorists detonate a nuclear device in the USA who is Mitt going to retaliate against? What happens if the terrorists steal one of our nuclear devices and detonate it on our territory - who do we attack then? What if the terrorists are from Saudi Arabia - do we attack our oil supply? Mitt - lots of bluster, no real solutions! Mitt is just another pretty face presented by the GOP to protect the real national interests - the "GOP Wealth" and of course the great prophet Smith's way of life!

To the guy who said

"I think ALL politicians should be forced to live as middle-class Americans before being allowed to run for such powerful positions as those in our branches of government."

Meet Mitt. The first really nice house they bought, his oldest son chided him for buying out of his price range.

To Rick from Chicago,

Always chasing Romney with your "flip-flop" comment. Your flip-flop comment is not only vague, but a poorly applied, worn-out cliche. You're pro Clinton, or another Democrat right?

To Tricia from Charlottetown, have you lived in some of these other countries and experienced their governments' culture and decision making process? I have. That's like asking why adults should drive cars and not kindergärtners. I would like my grandkids to have a world left to live on, thanks. And if my kindergartner is unhappy I don't hand them the keys to the car, I will still be able to sleep at night.

Romney is focused, dedicated, professional, energetic, thorough, successful and proven. I am glad he is there to raise the bar among primary candidates.

To Tricia: I agree that we do a bit too much international 'policing', but this is nothing new, not something that just started in the past 6 years. Every president has engaged in it for as long as the US has had the means.

I take issue with one of your statements, though. It seems a bit strange to complain about the US not giving the people living in totalitarian countries a vote on whether or not they want to live under a non-totalitarian government. People living in these countries have no choice one way or another. And it certainly seems ridiculous to say that we should ask Kim Jong Il whether or not he'd like to cede power and make North Korea a more democratic country.

I do not think we should try to invade and reform every country into a more democratic system, but anyone with any measure of humanity, awareness of the rest of the world, and concern for our brothers and sisters should find dictatorships, authoritarian systems, totalitarian systems reprehensible.

Are you really concerned with what the people in these countries WANT? Do you care what they THINK? Well, for obvious reasons, the leaders of these countries do not take and publish legitimate polls of what their people think and want. It is also a bit on the challenging side for CNN to take popular opinion polls in countries like North Korea on Iran.

How can we get any sort of an idea about what these people think or want? It is fairly simple, actually. All one has to do is examine how hard a regime works to suppress free speech, control the media, control education, and massacre any organized opposition. Sure, it is difficult to measure such things scientifically, but I think one could make a very strong argument that there is a direct correlation between the degree of oppression in a country and the amount of discontent with the system in a country.

It would be an unnecessary use of resources and energy to force a people to do something they wanted to do in the first place. If they agree with you, it isn't necessary to control education and the media to force them to see things only in 'your' way.

Think about it.

But what does this mean for us? It means we need to look around the world, find where people are being the most oppressed, find where genocide is occurring, find where people are longing for something more but have no way out other than death. When we find these places, we need to look for ways to aid our fellow humans in need.

Don't make the mistake that many in America make, thinking that, "Oh, if these people living under tyranny were so unhappy with their leaders, they would vote them out".

In tyrannies, people cast their votes by standing up for what they believe in, knowing full well that they will be killed for it. Their leaders aren't listening, but we should be.

Doesn't surprise me. Mitt is willing to spend the lives of millions but he is not willing to risk his onw nor those of any of his five sons. Nothing but a typical chicken hawk.

What is he supposed to say "we would sit back and have a beer if the US was attacked"

This statement is no different than Hillary's response.

How did we ever arrive at the logic where the President is the 'hero' if we get attacked? The President should defend the nation by preventing attacks.

Romney looks to be a strong military supporter who recognizes Iran's threat; btw, thanks for another very nice picture of Gv Romney.

reply to Tricia's comment

I dont think America desires to "dictate" to other countries. I think we DO want to give them the choice of freedom. Every man woman and child on earth wants to be free; what's wrong with removing dictatorships and giving all people in all countries the chance to democratize themselves?

Tricia from Canada equates America as the bully on the playground - attacking those weaker than us.

This is why liberals have such a difficult time gaining any type of respect on military or terrorist issues. You think we're being UNFAIR because we go in with an overwhelming force to defeat terrorists or regimes bent on killing their own people?

Perhaps next time we remove a brutal dictator we'll send in Canadian mounties on horseback and swords. Would that be "fairer"?

The fact is - we have held nuclear supremacy yet never used it, aside from ending WW2. Civilized countries that maintain political stability, basic human rights, and do not threaten their neighbors without provocation have nothing to fear from the US.

The problem exists when feuding nations obtain nuclear technology and heightens the possibility of nuclear strikes - creating a dominoe effect and escalading it from a territorial issue into a global conflict.

Our pursuit of restricting nuclear technology is the sane and RESPONSIBLE approach.

James, Phoenix AZ,

I'm glad you continue to post on these blogs as it gives me someone to correct.

"You think we're being UNFAIR because we go in with an overwhelming force to defeat terrorists or regimes bent on killing their own people"

OVERWHELMING force that has yet to defeat third-world countries with 1/1000th the military we have? After almost FIVE years of trying? Resulting in 75,000 dead Iraqi civilians and MILLIONS of displaced Iraqi civilians?

Try again James.

Tell me, do the Iraqis think this is fair? Did you even bother asking THEM?

"Perhaps next time we remove a brutal dictator we'll send in Canadian mounties on horseback and swords. Would that be "fairer"?"

Perhaps next time you wont invade a country who DIDN'T attack us, primarily based on WMDs your Commander in Thief was told that Saddam didn't have (by the very people who were actually DOING THE SEARCHES), with a military not equipped to fight guerrilla warfare, despite the fact that that same Commander in Thief said we COULDN'T win a war on terror in the first place.

"The problem exists when feuding nations obtain nuclear technology and heightens the possibility of nuclear strikes - creating a dominoe effect and escalading it from a territorial issue into a global conflict."

No .. try AGAIN.

The problem exists when we continually interfere with countries in the Middle East since AT LEAST the 1950's and Operation Ajax - playing these countries against each other like they’re all pieces in our little game of global chess; overthrowing DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments and officials (Mohammed Mossadegh) because we can get a cheaper supply of oil if we install a dictator (the Shah) who treats his own people like crap; supporting other existing dictators (Saddam) financially and MILITARILY even though we KNEW he was using those same weapons to kill 30,000 of his own people with; using Afghanistan as a battleground vs. the Soviets and then leaving it in shambles, thus allowing the Taliban (one of the most oppressive regimes in history) to step right into the power vaccume left behind … because it wasn’t so much about helping those poor Afghanistanis (and “freedom and democracy”) as it was just stopping the Soviets; and let's not forget installing a secular, American-made, puppet government, that Iraqi's historically tribal-minded citizens never asked for, aligned with Israel of all things, at gunpoint, to be America's new proxy in the region while it's trying to privatize their oil … and all this by the same foreign government that bombed their entire infrastructure (sewage, water systems etc) to bits, let their anti-Saddam uprising get slaughtered by Saddam after it abandoned them in 1991, and approved sanctions that killed a million Iraqi children.

Go ahead, you keep using mindless patriotism to justify everything, and I'll keep using critical thinking and common sense to shoot it down.

And I'll win every time!

Rick ~ Chicago,

Ahh… the Ba'ath party has been looking for you to guest speak at their next jihad convention. Since you're consistently mocking the efforts of our troops, they think you'd be a great propaganda tool.

You wrote, "OVERWHELMING force that has yet to defeat third-world countries with 1/1000th the military we have?"

Perhaps you're waking from a coma, but our troops steam-rolled Saddam's regime. Saddam was dragged from a rat-hole, tried, and hung. The Taliban was run out of town and thousands of Al Qaeda, Ba-athist sympathizers, and insurgents killed.

Our Soldiers are effectively peace keeping, hunting down insurgents, and helping the Iraqis people maintain a semblance of stability while a representative style government takes hold and their police force put into place.

But no doubt you'll ignore the overwhelming effort made by our brave soldiers and make some half-brained comment about OBL?

And then you want to dive into operation Ajax, where the US and UK helped bring to power a western-friendly Shah. NOOOOO!!! Considering the previous democratically elected western friendly leader had been assassinated and the religious zealots in parliament moved to nationalize the oil industry, efforts were made to stabilize their government AND industry for the world. You then want to make mention of the Soviet involvement and our efforts to support those fighting the Soviets.

You exemplify the ignorance to the FACT countries have for thousands of years operated in their national best interests. You seem SHOCKED to learn the US might be involved in military or political issues abroad. Good lord, Rick - HOW did America become a nation? What nation helped the settlers defeat the British by lending their naval strength? Rick, who sold the slaves in Africa to the European slave traders? What countries harbor Palestinian terrorist groups in the Middle East bent on the destruction of Israel?

THANK YOU for posting and showing how naive you are about foreign policy. You would rather follow Patrick Buchanan’s isolationist dogma and allow political, industrial, and military enemies pick apart our great country. You probably applauded Bill Clinton’s approval of Loral selling sensitive technology to China… or were you even aware of this?

THANK YOU Rick for crawling out to expose you. It's a good reminder of the ever present Blame-America crowd still exists.

James, Phoenix AZ,

"Perhaps you're waking from a coma, but our troops steam-rolled Saddam's regime."

Perhaps you're still IN a coma since you neglect to realize that WE'RE STILL FIGHTING countries with 1/1000th the military we have - in spite of the steam-rolling you mentioned.

"The Taliban was run out of town and thousands of Al Qaeda, Ba-athist sympathizers, and insurgents killed."

Yet the Taliban has had a resurgence and opium production is at an all time high as it continues to economically feed the Taliban.

"Our Soldiers are effectively peace keeping, hunting down insurgents, and helping the Iraqis people maintain a semblance of stability while a representative style government takes hold and their police force put into place."

Perhaps you haven't heard the latest, but our soldiers are policing another country's civil war while the Iraqis and their govt fall woefully short of progress benchmarks, ignore Nuri Al Maliki, and continue to walk out on their own govt.

"THANK YOU for posting and showing how naive you are about foreign policy."

No .. thank you for your understandable unwillingness to even TRY and refute any of the foreign policy blunders I mentioned!

"It's a good reminder of the ever present Blame-America crowd still exists."

I'll place blame WHEREVER it deserves to be placed. And I'd MUCH rather be a member of the "Blame-America (govt)" crowd than the "THEY started it/Our govt is NEVER wrong/They just hate us because they're jealous of our freedoms" Sean Hannity crowd.

Sorry, but your “innocent victim” routine just doesn’t stand up to historical scrutiny. You can spin all you want, but …

Like I said, critical thinking and common sense will defeat your mindless patriotism EVERY TIME!

James, Phoenix AZ,

"Perhaps you're waking from a coma, but our troops steam-rolled Saddam's regime."

Ummm … perhaps you're still IN a coma since you neglect to realize that WE'RE STILL FIGHTING countries with 1/1000th the military we have - in spite of the steam-rolling you mentioned.

"The Taliban was run out of town and thousands of Al Qaeda, Ba-athist sympathizers, and insurgents killed."

Yet the Taliban has had a resurgence and opium production is at an all time high as it continues to economically feed the Taliban.

"Our Soldiers are effectively peace keeping, hunting down insurgents, and helping the Iraqis people maintain a semblance of stability while a representative style government takes hold and their police force put into place."

Perhaps you haven't heard the latest, but our soldiers are policing another country's civil war while the Iraqis and their govt fall woefully short of progress benchmarks, ignore Nuri Al Maliki, and continue to walk out on their own govt.

"THANK YOU for posting and showing how naive you are about foreign policy."

No .. thank you for your understandable unwillingness to even TRY and refute any of the foreign policy blunders I mentioned!

"It's a good reminder of the ever present Blame-America crowd still exists."

I'll place blame WHEREVER it deserves to be placed. And I'd MUCH rather be a member of the "Blame-America (govt)" crowd than the "THEY started it/Our govt is NEVER wrong/They just hate us because they're jealous of our freedoms" Sean Hannity crowd.

Sorry, but your “innocent victim” routine just doesn’t stand up to historical scrutiny. You can spin all you want, but …

Like I said, critical thinking and common sense will defeat your mindless patriotism EVERY TIME!

Rick ~ Chicago,

CNN seems to disapprove of my correcting your mistakes… but I'll give it one more shot here on this article.

You wrote,

"Ummm … perhaps you're still IN a coma since you neglect to realize that WE'RE STILL FIGHTING countries with 1/1000th the military we have - in spite of the steam-rolling you mentioned."

Rick, your words expose your lack of understanding.

The enemies our soldiers face are insurgents, terrorists, and individuals bent on killing Americans. We are NOT fighting Iraq (country) or the army of Iraq. Saddam's army was defeated and dismantled. The generals were imprisoned and/or executed.

Please - do try keeping up.

I agree with Mr. Jensen.

Why has the mainstream media ignore the cantidate that won the msnbc and CSpan online polls HANDS DOWN during the debate?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/070507ronpaul.htm

Don't let CNN or any other mass media outlet feed you false truth.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com