John is to Mitt what Hillary is to Barack.

As American embassies in the Middle East continue to burn, and the "Arab Spring" turns into the winter of our discontent, we have to ask ourselves one important question: Who do we want to be our Secretary of State? Do we want Hillary Rodham Clinton, or do we want John Bolton? Mr. Bolton is the man most likely to be pegged for that position if Mitt Romney wins in November.

"One of Mitt Romney’s top campaign advisers (and potential Secretary of State if Obama loses) has such inadequate understanding of the Iranian issue, and is so belligerently wrong on the fundamentals, that it should frighten any observer of the 2012 race. In his latest piece at the Weekly Standard, John Bolton says that negotiations are “delusional” and that our only option at this point is to launch a war against Iran. And he’s not kidding." [Read more] 

This might explain the brash imperious posture Mitt is taking when it comes to foreign policy. In case you have been only watching tasteless reality shows on television of late, let me cue you in on where Mitt stands on foreign policy:

Mitt wants to increase military spending by at least two trillion dollars--- according to one estimate--- over the next decade. This is troubling, since, according to him, he plans to cut taxes. Combine this with his Neoconservative policy advisers like the aforementioned Mr. Bolton, and you can see that recipe for disaster just brewing in the pot.

Mitt has declared that when he is president America will be stronger and will deal more forcefully with everyone from Russia to Iran. It is no secret that he will be willing to go to war with Iran, because he has declared himself to be our warrior in chief. No apologies from this guy. He will not apologize for America. (BTW, I would love to see a clip of Obama apologizing for America. This apology is more elusive and mysterious than "Big Foot". And yet I hear these republicans talking about it all the time.)

I love what Ron Westgard had to say about this subject:

"After stumbling through Britain on a recent tour, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney then landed in Israel with bugles sounding and war drums rolling, Iran in his sights. Now he is critical of President Barack Obama for his alleged weakness in the face of the attack on our consulate in Libya.
As with former President George W. Bush, who sounded the trumpets for the invasion of Iraq, Romney would, of course, be safe in Washington, D.C., while others serve on any new battlefield. I suggest we skip new wars with Iran and Libya until we have paid for Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s obvious Romney wants to prove his manhood before the electorate, perhaps as a way of halting the current slide in his poll numbers. He could have proved it in Vietnam, but he found a way to do his service in southern France. Romney supported the Vietnam War — just not enough to get involved, as he used student deferments and missionary status to stay well away." [More]   

Mitt, in a speech, gave us some insight into how his administration would approach foreign policy:

"My foreign policy has three fundamental branches: first, confidence in our cause, a recognition that the principles America was based upon are not something we shrink from or apologise for, that we stand for those principles," Romney said.

"The second is clarity in our purpose, which is that when we have a foreign policy objective, we describe it honestly and clearly to the American people, to Congress and to the people of the world," he said.

"And number three is resolve in our might, that in those rare circumstances where we decide it's essential for us to apply military might, that we do so with overwhelming force, that we do so in the clarity of a mission, understanding the nature of the US interest involved, understanding when the mission would be complete, what will be left behind us when that mission has been terminated," Romney said."

"Clarity of a mission". Sound familiar? Yes, of course it does; that's what the guy who got us into Iraq said. Unfortunately that mission wasn't so clear, and we are still paying the price for it. Mitt says that he will use "overwhelming force"  to "apply military might". That force better wipe out over a billion people, or the mission will not be "terminated" for generations to come. A "mission" of this sort isn't like an employee you don't need. You can't just terminate it when you feel like it.

If Mitt does become president, he is going to learn very quickly that the structured boardrooms of corporate America-- with their set rules and regulations-- is nothing like the real world he will have to deal with as its most powerful leader.