Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mitt Romney was his May 17 Florida fundraiser — the subject of now-ubiquitous leaked video — how he could "duplicate" the 1980 hostage crisis scenario, credited with defeating Jimmy Carter.

In response, the presidential candidate said: "I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/romney-said-hed-take-advantage-of-iran-hostage-li

OH ROMNEY!

Its as if they tried to use the latest Libya crisis for such reasons... nah, too obvious considering this quote :

Romney Foreign Policy Adviser Richard Williamson wrote:
There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation... For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.

TOO OBVIOUS!

Does Romney not have the stupid filter most of us have in our brain that tells us not say stuff like that?
I mean its like he doesnt listen to his advisors or something.

Romney really needs to learn to vet a room a bit better. Hidden mics aren't new.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Does Romney not have the stupid filter most of us have in our brain that tells us not say stuff like that?
I mean its like he doesnt listen to his advisors or something.

/didn't read article

He said he would take advantage of a hostage situation, y'know, something that i a horrible thing to say.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
He said he would take advantage of a hostage situation, y'know, something that i a horrible thing to say.

From the article you didn't read

Questioner: When Carter was president, we had hostages. Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement even before he became, he was actually sworn in, and the hostages were released…

Mitt Romney: On the day of his inauguration.

Questioner: Right. So my question is really how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?

Romney: I could ask you, I could ask you how you do I duplicate that scenario?

Questioner: I think it had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan… That’s why I’m suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would prevent. And I think that’s something that could possibly resonate very well with the American public.

Romney: I appreciate the idea. One of the things that’s frustrating to me is that in a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This President’s failure to put in place a status of forces agreement allowing ten to twenty thousand troops to stay in Iraq- unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they’d go, “Now hold on. It’s really a-”[size=24 I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity[/size].

So in the anecdotal format of this thread title: Romney said he'd take advantage of the opportunist to convince Iran to give up nuclear weapons before his inauguration.
Which is a laudable goal for anyone, it's just not sensational or realistic.

Exactly, He said he would take advantage of a horrible situation, This isnt something that hould be politicized.
Also, Yes, I did read the article.

And yet clearly you still don't get it. What's horrible about getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons?

Nothing, But he is using the death of a human being to do it.

Really? why don't you go ahead and post that part of his statement.

My big issue with the statements is that they're weird and contradictory. He bemoans Obamas lack of foreign policy focus towards china in the middle of a "strategic shift" towards it, and states that not keeping twenty thousand troops in Iraq forever is unthinkable.

This is the same guy that says that foreign policy is a democrat trick to get the focus off of the economy every week.

He may be one of the worst human beings alive on the planet.

A complete piece of gak.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
My big issue with the statements is that they're weird and contradictory.

You just described Mittens.

 AustonT wrote:
Really? why don't you go ahead and post that part of his statement.

"I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity"
Here ya go.

Your equating Romney with the caste from Jersey Shore?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Really? why don't you go ahead and post that part of his statement.

"I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity"
Here ya go.

Where are the hostages

It's just the same double speak trying to take advantage of a political situation that we have seen since 2005.

Just look at the Middle East. You can find video clips of most people complaining about how trying to bring democracy to that region is a waste of time and will only result death, even though less than 10 years ago they were saying that deaths can be expected and that it is still a worthwhile effort to bring democracy to the middle east.

None of them give a flying gak about people, they just want to use whatever situation to secure their power and try to give resources to people and ideas they support.

Whoa now....US government policy is not to deal with terrorist groups so Obama and admin can't do anything. You see any efforts to get our guy back from the Haqqani group yet? Romney not holding any political office so he can "take advantage of the oppurtunity" if it arises. If a country government takes US hostages thats a different story.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
This is the same guy that says that foreign policy is a democrat trick to get the focus off of the economy every week.

Well that was the Romdroid that thought his path to the presidency came through attacking Obama on the economy. When that didn't work that Romdroid was turned off and replaced with a new Romdroid that is trying to make up ground by attacking the President on foreign policy. Out of respect to deactivated Romdroid, we will speak no more of them, just like we speak no more of the Romdroid that tried to make it about balanced budgets by picking Ryan, or the Romdroid that claimed all that crazy right wing stuff during the primary.


This whole campaign is beginning to get a 2008 feel to it. Obama just plugging along, straight up the middle, with a Republican bouncing around him, trying anything he can to make up the 3% he needs to win, and with every failed shift dropping ever so slightly further back.

 sebster wrote:
This whole campaign is beginning to get a 2008 feel to it. Obama just plugging along, straight up the middle, with a Republican bouncing around him, trying anything he can to make up the 3% he needs to win, and with every failed shift dropping ever so slightly further back.

See, I am getting flashbacks of 2004 with Bush just plugging along, staying on track with a Democrat bouncing around him, trying anything he can to make up the difference.

Romney is a Republican Kerry as far as I can tell. They should get into a flip-flop business together.

obama could just use the windsurfing ad and just paste romneys head in

Eh, this sauce is weak. Every politician would take advantage of such an opportunity, and we'd reward them for doing so. Lets not pretend it's otherwise.

 d-usa wrote:
See, I am getting flashbacks of 2004 with Bush just plugging along, staying on track with a Democrat bouncing around him, trying anything he can to make up the difference.

Romney is a Republican Kerry as far as I can tell. They should get into a flip-flop business together.

That's a much better comparison, and I'm now kind of annoyed I didn't go with that one instead

I’m with Auston that the actual comments on this one aren’t all that controversial or damning.

Speaking hypothetically before the fact, if there were a foreign policy crisis, it would make sense to take that opportunity to criticize the incumbent on their foreign policy. Even if you have limited foreign policy experience, you can gain an advantage if you can argue that the incumbent’s experience is BAD experience, making bad choices.

Kerry failed at this in 2004, though he had other failures, and was up against the Rove campaign machine. Obama succeeded in 2008, in part because McCain could be shown to be supportive of Bush’s bad policies. Mitt’s failure wasn’t those comments in May; it was last week, in rushing too fast into the situation and being loose with the facts, which looked particularly bad on 9/11, when someone had just been killed and some caution and respectful restraint would have been smarter and more ethical.

Anyway, the main reason this part of the video is a story is part of what someone mentioned before- to motivate people to get out to the polls by convincing them that Romney is a Bond villain.

Romney is a Republican Kerry as far as I can tell. They should get into a flip-flop business together.

“I’m from Massachusetts” could enter the lexicon alongside “I’m from Missouri”. Only, instead of “Show me”, it would be shorthand for “I’m an intelligent, highly-educated guy with moderate economic and social views, but a total inability to communicate those views in a cogent and convincing manner on a national level.”