If you aren’t reading my colleague Daniel Larison’s daily eviscerations of Mitt Romney, you are missing a Curnonsky-level gourmet experience. I like this from the most recent:

 The Iraq war was misleadingly sold to Congress and the public as a relatively low-cost, short-term affair (among other things), so conscription wouldn’t have made much of a difference in preventing it. If we want our political leaders to “think twice” about the wisdom of needlessly invading a country whose government posed no major threat to the United States, perhaps we should start by holding accountable the politicians that failed to do so.

This is a slap at Romney, or ought to be, given how he gives these foreign policy speeches that sound like they were dusted off from the last two Bush campaigns. Serious question to the room: In what economic and foreign policy ways is Mitt Romney substantially different from the Bush administrations’? I feel like he’s Dubya 2012. Am I missing something?