Mitt Romney Presents His Nuanced Take On Middle East Geopolitics

It took us so long to check it out, but we finally did, and guess what? Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America PAC" website has any number of funnies! There are all these videos of him yelling at Obama for doing things that Mitt Romney did like 20 times when he was governor of Massachusetts. And then he always asks for money to support whatever he needs money for. (The best is probably the one where he goes nuts about cap-and-trade supposedly costing every person $1,700 dollars, after which he requests $5,000 donations.) But let's check out this dongle he links to at Human Events, an op-ed by Mittens himself: "Iran: Biggest Threat Since Soviets."

Thanks to Mormon Magic, the publication of Mittens' horrifying war article just happened to coincide with his speech at an AIPAC conference last week. Prepare to be die from fear of dying:

The Iranian leadership is the greatest immediate threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany.

Ha ha ha that's the first sentence! BOOM! Some sentences just deserve their own blockquotes. But anyway, back to the Iranian Nazi Holocaust toy chest:

I will happily agree that the U.N. has done some good in its history. But I will also insist that it has also done terrible damage to the causes it claims to uphold. And on no issue has it been more irresponsible and morally reckless than when considering the fate of Israel.

The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. It is a repressive regime… an intractable enemy of liberty and human rights… the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and subversive war. The threat it poses to the world would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power.

Later, he proposes his options: "withering sanctions" -- everybody loves sanctions, except the people of Iran, who starve, and hate the imposer of the sanctions! -- to be followed the next day by war.

And the military option must remain on the table -- and that threat needs to be credible. Unfortunately -- for reasons that are unfathomable to me -- our government has signaled that the military option is effectively off the table. How can that be countenanced when an ally of the United States faces an existential threat?

Yeah, didn't the "Harvard Law Academy of Columbia" ever teach Barack Obama to properly countenance an existential threat? Usually you learn this during mandatory CPR training sessions.

 Iran: Biggest Threat Since Soviets [Human Events]