leave in 2014. it s like everything because it s not a real foreign policy. there s no intellectual basis to it. it s being pushed by the same guys and it s basically they take whatever obama is doing and they make it slightly more truck u length. so we ll do something more active in syria or with iran. stronger. but there are about as many details as there are in their tax numbers. there s no details. and so what so they have this preposterous contraption about leaving afghanistan, of course it makes no sense. but they were trying to find desperate distinction from the policy that s in place, even if it s meaningless and it makes them look stupid. i don t think ryan has the knowledge, by the way, neither does romney, he has absolutely no foreign policy experience or background and said almost nothing about foreign policy until this entire campaign until he made that wonderful trip to
finally, finally got a giant national spotlight shining on the fact that he had no specifics to offer. that s why this debate was awesome. that s why this debate went fast. this was an exhilarating amount of ground to have covered in 90 minutes, an exhilarating amount of new information and new political truths that we did not know about before last night, but that we know now. it started right away. started right away. paul ryan saying, we should have apologized for u.s. marines urinating on taliban corpses in aft afghanistan but not say when asked directly and when pressed with a follow-up would not say if the u.s. was right to apologize for burning korans. no answer. no position on that. george w. bush administration apologized for that, the obama administration did, too. paul ryan is running with a guy who literally wrote a book callcall ed no apologies. does he also mean no apology for that? no answer. whether a strike on iran would
history of foreign policy, is essentially given ryan cliff s notes that he regurgitated not terribly well. couldn t improvise beyond the talking points he had and the simplest questions that penetrated that, he didn t have an answer. what i thought was going on last night on the issue of afghanistan was the issue that paul ryan was confused and did not realize he was giving an incoherent answer. he may not have understood what the words meant. that was my take on it last night. my take on it changed when i went back and looked at the tape of dan see nor before the debate saying the same thing. what does it mean to have as their on purpose, overt, not screwing it up strategy that they re going to leave in 2014 the way the president wants to and that leaving in 2014 is a mistake. and saying that is a mistake and we re saying we re going to
to explain what the republican position is on the war in afghanistan. he said romney and ryan support the president s timeline for leaving afghanistan in 2014 but then he also screwed up and said this. so this is important. governor romney has always said it is a mistake to broadcast timelines, if you re the commander in chief, to broadcast timelines so our enemies are in the know about our next move. it s a weird mistake, right? i mean, you can t be onboard totally with the timeline and then say the timeline is a huge mistake. broadcasting a date to our enemies. so that was a weird thing that happened on fox news before the debate. paul ryan s senior staffer on the campaign. then at the debate, it turned out that was not a mistake. they are trying to say this is a policy. with respect to the afghanistan and the 2014 deadline, we agree with the 2014 transition. oh. okay. you agree with the timeline to leave in 2014. so you don t agree with your senior staffer guy who went
he got a standing ovation and moves on now to the next round. very, very nice. all right. let s tell you this story. it takes place up in the boston, massachusetts, area, tax-achusetts. janice roberts has a place she wants to rent out. ist a two bedroom. it will go for $1220 a month. there s a fellow by the name of joe morgan, served in iraq, aft afghanistan and gitmo. he s moving to that area because he wants to be a boston firefighter. he applied to move into that apartment. she s a peace activist that doesn t really like him. she said she would not, apparently, allegedly, want rent to him because he was a member of the national guard. here s the only problem with that. under massachusetts and federal laws, it s against the law for a landlord to refuse to rent because of military background