My quibble with this would be whether there is an Exhibit B, after we all acknowledge George W. Bush’s existence. (I know, the Republicans don’t wanna.)

Historically, is there really a case to make for ‘Republican candidates’, as opposed to ‘Bush’, when we talk of saber-rattling leading to real-life wars? I mean, I’m thinking about Kennedy and LBJ here.

Doesn’t mean that Romney isn’t planning to make good on his very vague threats, (he will git tuff on international evildoers!) and God knows, I’m not going to take the chance…but I’m more skeptical of his willingness to follow through than Whitefield is.

Also, Romney will never be president, which makes him much less of a threat.