Romney Foreign Policy Speech: ‘Time to Change Course in the Middle East’

There are substantial differences between the president and his challenger on foreign policy, even if they're neither as stark, nor as numerous, as the Romney camp would have voters believe.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign rally in a downpour in Newport News, Virginia Oct. 8, 2012

Romney also presented Iran’s nuclear progress as a result of Tehran being emboldened by Obama’s alleged weakness. But Iran’s current nuclear effort has progressed steadily, and in linear fashion, since early 2006, when President Bush was in office and 140,000 U.S. troops were on its doorstep in Iraq. The Republican candidate warned he would put Iran on notice that the U.S. will prevent it from “acquiring nuclear weapons capability,” vowing to tighten sanctions and increase military assistance to and in coordination with Israel. It’s hard to distinguish that stance from the one taken by the Obama Administration, and while he insists that there should be “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel on Iran, presumably he’s not planning to outsource U.S. decisions on war to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, no matter how close their friendship. So, like the Obama White House, a Romney Administration will find itself negotiating the issue with the Israelis.

On Syria, however, Romney signaled a policy difference, vowing to “work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.” Such a plan, he said, would deliver  a strategic blow to Assad’s backers in Iran, and would buy Washington influence with Syria’s future rulers who, he said, are being turned against America by Obama’s passivity. Until now, the incumbent has declined to openly encourage the arming of the rebels, and the New York Times reported on Sunday that Washington has discouraged regional allies from funneling heavier weaponry to the insurgents, lest they end up in the hands of elements hostile to the U.S.  Romney plans to remove such restraints, although he did not commit to the more direct forms U.S. military intervention urged by  rebels, and by allies like Turkey. A calculated escalation in Syria, then.

(MORE: Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Gamble)

Russia was the focus of a second policy difference: Romney vowed to aggressively pursue the missile-interceptor deployments in Europe that have antagonized Moscow, which fears that such deployments — packaged as a counter to Iran — would dilute its own nuclear deterrent. “And on this,” warned Romney, “there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin.” That was a direct reference to President Obama’s hot-mic message to Putin that once reelected, he’ll be able to show more flexibility on the issue. Romney’s harder line suggests a willingness to tangle with the country he has identified as America’s “number one foe,” which could imperil prospects for securing Russian cooperation on key U.S. goals such as Iran — although the counter-argument may point to Syria as a sign of just how little cooperation Moscow is willing to offer.

The third policy specific was Romney’s vow to build 15 new ships a year for the U.S. Navy — a 50% increase on the current rate of shipbuilding, as one of the more concrete expressions of Romney’s warning against cutting military spending. Such capacity would certainly expand the Navy’s force-projection capability .

But beyond those specifics, one other notable thematic policy difference advocated by Romney was his emphasis on trade — not simply the free-trade orientation shared by every White House since the end of the Cold War, but a “trade agenda” that recognizes U.S. economic power as a policy tool for engaging with the new Middle East and beyond. That element of Romney’s argument is very much line with the orientation urged by Zoellick, who stresses the centrality of U.S. domestic economic dynamism to its prospects of restoring global geopolitical influence. In Zoellick’s view, the overarching strategic priority for the U.S. is to get America’s own economic house in order. Notes Zoellick:

“The world continues to struggle through a global economic crisis that began in the United States. Fears, fragilities, and failures fuel tensions within and among countries. Leaders are under protectionist and nationalist pressures — in trade, but also regarding currencies, investments, resources, and the oceans. These frictions risk a downward economic spiral and even conflict. Because the United States has not faced up to its economic problems at home, its voice on international economics does not carry, its power has waned, and its strategic designs drift with the currents of the day’s news. Without healthy economic growth, the United States will be unable to lead. Just as dangerously, it will lose its identity on the global stage if it loses its economic dynamism. America’s unique strength is the ability to reinvent itself.”

That suggests that the man heading up a Romney transition should he win in November could be guided by a priority familiar to Bill Clinton’s 1992 election team: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

MORE: Old Borders, New Realities in the Middle East

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. Next
61 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
JS
JS

Who is ansane is Hussein Obama. He has never faced a challenge to his narrative. The media  - ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, AP, etc  - are Obama's first line of defense. Without the Media and his telepromptor, he was totally lost in the deabte. Obama has achieved the high debt and high Gas price as he had predicted. He is nearing hs goal of getting Gas up to $8 per gallon just like he predicted.

PaoloBernasconi
PaoloBernasconi

I am truly impressed by the amount of BS one can say and at how construed the paranoiac vision of life  can be of people who are driven by ethnic hate. 

JS
JS

Well, here comes the 'R' word - RACE.  Bottom Line - If you disagree with Obama, you are a racist.  What a pity that you can not argue with facts or logic.

Perhaps you did not know that Obama is half white. 

PaoloBernasconi
PaoloBernasconi

by the way, there is no one single fact in any part of the JS's statement ... so what r u talking about ?

PaoloBernasconi
PaoloBernasconi

only a racist would claim that half white is not black ... cause people who really aren't racist wouldn't care at all. So, that gives you away right there already. Note that under US law, 1/4 of black, makes you black.  So do not give me BS.

JS calls the president by the appellation of "Hussein Obama". 

No decent American citizen with decent respect for the Presidency and the American institutions would have such level of disrespect of the person and office of the President. Only an individual driven by  ethnic hate, that is a racist, would be willing to insult his own institution, cause onlyu such indivdual is willing to destroy his own country just to see the race he hate fail.

So, there you go, this is not about opinion, this is about using political dissent to hide  racial discrimination 

AlexVallas
AlexVallas

Was this supposed to be a great speech?  It proved how clueless this man is in foreign affairs.  With respect to Syria, he said we should support the rebels in coordination with our allies in the region.  He further stated we should support those rebels who share our ideals and values. How do you identify them?  A Gallup or Pew Poll?  Who are the leaders of the rebellion?  He went on to apply the same criteria in our relations with Egypt.  So he is going to tell Egypt they should adopt US values if they are to receive aid?   Who defines our values and ideals since the Democrats and Republicans cannot agree.  Romney switched positions and stated he believes in a two state solution for Palestine and Israel.  So he will be the great negotiator after insulting the Palestinians while embracing Netanyahu?   How much credibility will he have in the Arab world?  To blame the President for the attack on our consulate is really ugly politics.   How was the President supposed to stop an attack by terrorists?  There has been a lot of chatter about security.  Our embassies and consulates cannot be protected from rockets fired from a distance.   Romney stated the situation is worst in the Middle East since Obama became president.  The President risked his entire presidency by going after bin-Laden in a foreign country without the knowledge or consent of that country.  That took guts.  He continues to ignore borders to go after al-Qaeda and other terrorist leaders. Does Romney honestly believe supporting dictators was good foreign policy and we should have never supported the Arab Spring?  What is really scary – his choice for the VP slot is even more clueless.

owl905
owl905

America no longer has the military capability, the economic dominance, nor the will, nor even the desire, to shape the world in its image.    America's focus, as it should be, is on the construction of a post-Great Recession nation.  Every candidate should pay close attention to the traction of domestic issues, and the lack of traction of foreign policies and adventures.

PaoloBernasconi
PaoloBernasconi

Ideology in foreign politics has only and always brought war, so we know what Romney is trying to do, .. reassuring the military industry that with him they will get more business 

PaoloBernasconi
PaoloBernasconi

The problem is not how non nonsensical Romney vision is, rather the problem is that the American people might ell fall for it.

Hopefully Obama will prevent that ... 

Obamarrhoids
Obamarrhoids

Romney is just blowing smoke up our assses. I mean Obama's Middle East policy is perfect.  The Middle East is burning, Iran is close to nukes, our best (or only) ally in the area has been alienated by Obama and he's too busy having has fund raisers, campaigning, going on The View with Whoopi and the gang and playing golf to pay any attention. What could possibly get better.  

AlexVallas
AlexVallas

I started to respond to your post and then realized you are too brain dead to understand what I would write. 

Obamarrhoids
Obamarrhoids

This looks like a response to me. It's just an off topic snotty, insulting and vacuous one like most poster's on this sight. 

PaoloBernasconi
PaoloBernasconi

Your screen name says a lot more about you and your ideas than any of the things you write, which are perfectly empty of any meaning anyway .

You think and speak like a 5 years old....

Obamarrhoids
Obamarrhoids

The truth isn't empty of meaning. Obama's Middle East policies rival Carter's in imbecility. 

PaoloBernasconi
PaoloBernasconi

that is consistent with the psychology of your screen name

SiDevilIam
SiDevilIam

Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech has made many people uncomfortable. Not because he advocated anything new or earth shaking but because he failed to convince how he would commit his presidency with borrowed advisers from George W Bush.

History tells us that his entire two term presidency was full of making more problems in the Middle East than solving US National Security.

For some odd reasons, Barack Obama carried Bush strategy in Afghanistan with additional 30,000 troops and was blamed from both Democratic and Republican party critics.

Not keeping sufficient military advisers in Iraq was not Barack Obama's fault. Nouri AlMaliki, wouldn't budge.

It is a dangerous place for our troops to remain for a target practice.

...and I am Sid Harth@mysistereileen.com

timelines
timelines

Romney's Foreign War Mongering Policy is based on his experience of the Board Game called BATTLESHIP

http://www.primarygames.com/pu...

Go Mitt Go...you show them how it is done...its clueless right.

paul46
paul46

I'm tired of all these wars America has been fighting. America should indeed use its great power to shape history, but instead of returning to a Bush-styled preemptive militaristic slaughter of imagined enemies in the Middle-East, how about if we stick with Obama's (slightly) more congenial method of attempted negotiations amp; consultations? Obama clearly has the edge--he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia. Obama will kill if necessary, but he prefers to negotiate. I agree with Obama.  We had the world's sympathy after 9/11, but GOP hawks turned the entire planet against us. Mind you, war makes big money for big companies--so there are many who would welcome a return to Bush's "might-makes-right" philosophy. Romney is apparently one of them.

karur
karur

The reality is that Romney is living in the past! The middle east has changed for ever and US dominance is a thing of the past. Islamists in many of the Governments are not going to make it easy for the US or Israel. Calling Obama soft on this matter is naive. Two wars, meant to show US military power, have produced very little. Using US power in Syria or Iran will be a disaster. Hopefully, Romney will not have this chance

Clarence Swinney
Clarence Swinney

 Democratic Party has a proud heritage in America.  Almost everything that is good for Middle America and the poor, were causes championed by Democrats!  Democrats passed Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, and Voting Rights for every single American; the New Deal after the Great Depression, The Family Medical Leave Act, the G. I. Bill (which helped establish a solid middle class) and Equal Pay for Equal Work.

 

This is OUR story; one every Democrat should be proud of. 

 

Democrats understand that all citizens, regardless of economic status, merit the opportunity to achieve their God given potential.  We believe that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a life with dignity and that a catastrophic health event should not wipe out a lifetime, or generations of savings.  Democrats know that the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply to everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.  We do not believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. We know the difference between a hand up and a hand out; helping our neighbors instead of bail outs for Wall Street.At virtually every point in time over the last sixty years when America made progress Democrats made it happen. And not only did Democrats make it happen they did it over Republican opposition and with many Republicans yelling “socialist.”   It was Rep. Sam Rayburn former Speaker of the House, who once responded to these GOP rants saying, “It’s not socialism, it’s applied Christianity.”

As Democrats we believe that a country as blessed as America, who can spend untold trillions on war and instruments of destruction and policing the world and rebuilding nations, should be able to help America’s very own middle class and our poor in their struggle to find work for all who can do it, fair wages, the right to bargain, shelter for the homeless, health care and a safety net for our elderly, our veterans, our children, the infirmed and hope for the destitute.

We also believe everyone, including Corporations, Wall Street and the top 1% should pay their fair share rather than taking from the taxpayers’ treasury and leaving the tax burden to everyone else.  We know the U.S. Government is not evil and that taxes are not evil, but are a tool necessary to provide Americans with necessary services, safety and infrastructure commensurate with the greatest nation on earth. 

Democrats believe in providing America’s young people with education and affordable higher learning, investing in America’s decaying infrastructure and all forms of energy including solar and wind because we know children are our greatest investment and we know of the importance of adopting to change in the 21st century.

The flip side of the Democratic Party’s proud record is a shameful tale as Republicans opposed and continue to oppose every single benefit enjoyed by generations of Americans. 

Republican oppose Medicare and want to give a ‘voucher’ which would destroy access to health care and prescription drugs for our seniors and the disabled and  yet charge another $6,000 per year for health care.

Republicans have been successful in cutting funding for education and increasing tuition, shipping US jobs overseas and giving tax credits to those companies that do.  Republican led states have cut Medicaid, funding for children’s’ health care, Head start and demonized state workers and public unions, which causes many American families a lack of substantive economic capacity.  Republicans continue to oppose increases in minimum wages, equal pay for women, equal rights for taxpayers while systematically taking away the right of Americans to vote.

They have cut services to disabled veterans and family protective services and have declared an unholy war on America women by doing away with family planning and basic medical services which will result in more abortions and more undiagnosed diseases, both of which are fiscally and physically stupid.

They oppose updating America’s transportation system, have continuously failed at job creation and have no plans to move this country into the 21st century choosing instead to return to the days of the oil barons and create a society run by the wealthy, having taxpayers subservient to their every greedy need.

Republicans have successfully played on peoples’ fears of things different from themselves.  They have turned working families against each other; public against private; White against Black against Brown; straight against gay; Protestant against Catholic against Jew against Muslim against, against, against.  Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-health care, anti-women, anti-Hispanic, anti-education, anti-union, and the list goes on and on.  Many Americans are acutely aware that Republicans use code words and symbols that demonize, scapegoat and stereotype minorities. They threaten, engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric and then claim to be ‘patriots’. 

Republicans say they want a balanced budget, yet they created 85% of our national debt.  They have bailed out Wall Street, sold out Main Street and created the greatest income disparity between the rich who bribe them and middle class working families since the industrial revolution. Their economic policies have virtually bankrupted both the states and the nation, destroyed generations of earnings and threatened the economic security of every American family. They have done all this while claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility and they continue to get away with it.  Their deception is palpable as they say they want clean air but they do everything to pollute it, they say they want clean water but they do everything they can to contaminate it, they say they want education but they will not fund it, they say they care about seniors but they want to take away their Medicare, they say they want to end dependency on foreign oil, yet oppose alternative sources of energy.

In 2012, Democrats, Progressives and Independents must be aggressive in telling the truth, standing up for the ideals that sustain every American man, woman and child in order to preserve this great nation.

We must stand up and be proud of the legacy of our heroes such as FDR, JFK and LBJ; those unsung American who fought for benefits that every taxpaying citizen deserves.  Whether some Americans believe it or not, real and true Democratic values will save even those who seek to destroy them.americaforpurchase.com

slh53041
slh53041

 Romney wil

1CUT taxes 20%

2)INCREASE military spending

3)Cut Medicare

4)Cut Social Security

Net result...BIGGER deficits

He calls himself a business man. Ha!

We have to:

1) eliminate the W tax cuts

2)CUT the Pentagon budget

3)reinstate Glass-Steagle

None of this will happen with Romney!

misterjag
misterjag

 If you approved of G.W. Bush's war mongering, deficit-spiraling foreign policy then Romney's your man.

JS
JS

I did not  know that the current election is between Bush and Obama.

Obama has been at the White House for 4 years and the country is in dire situation. Wealth destruction, foreign policy in disarray, Ambassador getting killed, high unemployment, gas at $4 per gallon and rising, college graduates not getting jobs, etc. Obama knows only one thing - Redistribution of wealth. NOT wealth creation or job creation.

misterjag
misterjag

Most of Romney's foreign policy advisers (16 of the 24) are Neo-cons who advised the Bush administration. Romney said that withdrawing from Iraq was a "tragedy", that we should have kept troops there. He's also said that the war in Afghanistan should be open-ended, that no date should be set for withdrawal.

Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression from Bush, the Republican you voted into office. Bush created the awful economic mess, the massive unemployment, not Obama.

Every administration going back to James Madison's has paid the price for intelligence failures. Tragically, an intelligence failure led to the death of our ambassador to Libya and three others.

It doesn't help that America's status throughout the world was at its lowest ebb in history by the end of the Bush administration. Invading Iraq to search for non-existent weapons of mass destruction? (Now, there's an intelligence failure of epic proportion!)

The price of gasoline is set by international market forces of supply and demand. The price has risen because of increased demand in Asia.

Romney wants to bring the Keystone pipeline on line prematurely before its safely re-routed to avoid threatening an aquifer on which a million people and thousands of farmers rely. Romney would ignore environmental risks and "drill baby, drill", speeding up oil lease authorizations in the Gulf of Mexico despite the Deepwater Horizon disaster and authorizing a massive drilling campaign in the environmentally vulnerable Arctic region. But according to most economists, the impact of Romney's environmentally risky policy would have no more than a "miniscule" impact on gasoline prices!

The tax system is by far the most powerful redistributive tool the government has at its disposal. And today the tax system is the most regressive its been in fifty years! The tax burden on the wealthiest members of society is the lightest it's been in 50 years! How are we supposed to pay down the deficit when those most capable of paying more in taxes are those who are paying less than their fair share? Bullocks! Both candidates say we need tax reform. Only Obama has promised to protect the middle class and raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000.

xexon
xexon

Romney is a tool. He's a tool for big business. He's a tool for the military/industrial complex. He's a tool for the zionists that control Israel.

You want an economy based on warmongering and death, Romney's your man.

Because you can bet our military will be sent into various places around the Middle East to terraform it according to the wishes of his zionist masters and their "New World Order".

And you so called Christians are helping them to do it. Because you believe what you've been told about modern day Israel. It's their intention to create a wide buffer zone around the country. Guess who's military will be suckered into doing it?

And guess what candidate has close ties to Netanyahu?

x

Jfante1452
Jfante1452

Romney's a shameless liar who will say anything to get elected. He doesn't really care about this country, otherwise he wouldn't insult everyone by making so many abrupt turnarounds and false statements. He just wants to get elected. Why?

Ramamurthi
Ramamurthi

Romney is talking tough thinking that voters who seem to be criticizing Obama's policies. It was Bush who jumped into the warmongering initiatives. Obama is trying to get unleashed and obviously that looks like adopting a weak policy. In fact  Obama and Romney need to go back in history to find the real reason of the conflicts in the Middle Muslim world. The real reason is the historic animosity between two Muslim sects, Shias and Sunnis. It is more like a family feud. When the west entered the arena for prospecting the liquid gold they virtually stepped into the family feud. Knowingly or otherwise the west played one sect against another and in the bargain have become enemies of both. Sunnis who are more in numbers are the radicalized group. They have found that their radical stance has been instrumental in inflicting deep wounds not only in the Muslim world but even across continents. They obviously want the west to get out of their arena so that they can totally subjugate the Shias. It is in pursuit of this that they are inflicting wounds in other countries. the only way to deal with this menace is for the west, especially the US to quit the Muslim world and allow the sects to settle their dispute, may be similar to the Arab Spring or an inter state conflicts. Within a couple of years we can hope for a new Muslim world who can be readmitted into the peace loving group of nations. The fear of the dirty war is just an obsession, since no one will venture into a nuclear offense, since it will surely lead to total self destruction. The Sunnis are clever enough to understand this. 

A4O4
A4O4

He will declare Big Bird as a foreign entity and kill him. That as much specific you can expect from him.

So, that will solve two Big Bird issues, I mean two Big issues, federal deficit and foreign  threats.

Two Big Birds, I mean two Birds in one stone.

Clarence Swinney
Clarence Swinney

 Cynicism about our government

Some are blinded by ideology and pursue policies that are not for the common good.

For example, send entire industries to foreign nations to make a few more bucks without thinking of long term effect on our economy and people. The board accomplishments of our government far over shadow the weaknesses.

Government addresses our serious economic, social, environmental problems

and alleviates much of our human suffering .

I am tired of the Inequality where my teachers get laid off while corporations and banks make record profits after we bailed them out.

It is time to reunite the people to demand a fair shake. We had great growth of middle class 1945-1980

where a worker could afford a nice home, educate his children, care for his sick, and look forward to a happy retirement.

Which leadership can do it? Do you see one?

Jim S.
Jim S.

Best Foreign Policy, taking Care of Those You Send Into The Wars of Choice!!

Still: No Revenues {nor private reagan capitalism economic investments,

free market capitalism} = No Demand For = No Sacrifice = No Support =

DeJa-Vu all over again!.

“Veterans were very offended” by Romney

Larry Pressler, who served 22 years in Congress as a Republican, speaks with Salon about why he's endorsing Obama

"Everybody has all these programs, ball games praising veterans, and all

the presidential candidates praise them, but Obama’s the only one

that’s got the budget money. And he’s the only one willing to — if we

have to raise taxes in order to help veterans, we’ll have to raise them

on the very wealthy, and maybe on everybody, but we’ve got to do it."

Former Sen. Larry Pressler. (R-SD) 'Nam Vet Endorses Obama

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/0...

After abandoning the Main Missions for sending troops into that region

with the first drum beat pointed at Iraq and almost full support of

those served!

USN All Shore '67-'71 GMG3 Vietnam In Country '70-'71

Dr Sam
Dr Sam

ROMNEY'S NEW WAR.

During his foreign policy speech yesterday (September 8), Romney made extravagants statements, some of which will blow a cavaneous hole in the deficit. He said that should he ever become President, he would build 50 warships every year--that means 200 in a four year Presidency and 400 in eight. Amazing statement indeed! Voters, journalists and lawmakers have a right to ask now: Is Romney interested at all in reducing the deficit? What new wars will Romney start that would involve not just the cost of these ships but much more cost to American lives and treasury? What indeed would all these cost, including cost to America's reputation abroad? What impact on domestic programs, including education, social security, etec.? This man who has never enlisted in any war--no member of his family has-- is going to take us down the path of reckless militarism as George W. did--even worse. AMERICANS, THINK! iT IS NOT about slick debate and speeches. Look at policies and how it would affect you individually and the nation. THINK!

JZimm09
JZimm09

If we were facing the Cuban missile crisis today, who would you rather have at the helm, Obama?  Romney?  Or hey...how about Geo W?

akpat
akpat

 Yup Romney is a open mouth shoot first firebrand like the little gunslinger from TX

fmarc
fmarc

Bottom lines for America: (1) It is easy to criticize the strategy, but its very nature was such that it prevented Americans from ever seeing what could have happened to them had such a plan not been pursued. (2) It is not wise to show weakness in a world which suffers from an excess of clinical psychopaths running extremist countries and terror organizations.The strategy pursued by George W.

Bush was a strategy of deterrence, which was designed to, and did successfully,

enlist through threat, the most powerful and qualified individuals on the

planet to suppress any further terror incidents on American soil. Who did he

enlist and what was the threat?

Very simple. He enlisted those most

qualified to identify, control and suppress further terror incidents and

terrorists. Who? The then existing lineup of Middle East dictators. What was

the threat? The exact threat which was demonstrated: "You took two of our

buildings in New York, we'll take two of your countries in the Middle East...let's

see...how about Iraq and Afghanistan. Done. Now, who'd like to be next?"

That was the highly brutal, and

100% effective strategy, which kept further terror incidents from occurring on

American soil after the strategy was launched. The strategy was "sold"

to Americans based on cooked evidence, to be sure. Whenever one hears an artful

new term like "weapons of mass destruction" being used, one can be

assured that term was created for marketing/selling purposes.

Did the strategy flout

international law? Most likely. As did the 9/11 terror attacks on America. Did

the strategy succeed. Certainly.

Vast amounts of illegal drugs --

barges full of the stuff by all accounts -- enter America each year, and all of

America's homeland security resources fail to stop these shipments. Does anyone

think that if vast shipments of drugs can enter America, that the weapons,

explosives, and worse items under control of terror organizations could

similarly get into America? Of course they could.

The reason further incidents did

not occur, is that the individuals in the Middle East who knew where the terror

cells were, and who was doing what, were deeply -- repeat DEEPLY -- enlisted in

America's cause. They were enlisted because they, as dictators, did not want to

lose that which they valued most -- their power. So the used all the skills

with which they got that power -- the skills of controlling and suppressing

opposing elements and their people generally, to self-protect against the

dangerous consequences which which Mr. Bush faced them.

And as America amply demonstrated

with the taking of Iraq and Afghanistan, any dictator not wishing to help do

everything possible to stop further incidents in America, would be next on the

hit list.

Muammar Gaddafi saw exactly what

was going on with this strategy and endeavored quickly, preemptively and quite

desperately to prove that he had no "weapons of mass destruction" nor

any connection to the events of 9/11. He knew he was on the short list of

targets if America needed to conduct another public demonstration of its

resolve.

This is what George W. Bush did for

America. It was surely not an easy choice for him to make. It was an ugly

strategy. And it worked. It was a classic example of using American military

strength to protect Americans.

And surely, the rather clumsy

"WMD" charade gave openings for criticism by whining political

opponents.

What all might wish to reflect upon

is this: What would have happened in America were there, for example, multiple

subsequent American aircraft being blown out of the sky? A destroyed economy,

and more economic pain than America had ever endured.

Some take the view that the

extremely rare, and highly coincidental, crash of an American Airlines flight

on November 12, 2001 which had just taken off from New York's JFK airport, was

likely just such an event. The American authorities denied that this was a

terror event, as well they should have -- even if it was -- so as to protect

the American economy from complete collapse.

There was and is no way to secure

America's borders against drug cargoes or the cargoes of those seeking to blow

up aircraft and the like. Ergo, the only viable strategy was one of enlisting

those with the maximum capacity to implement a deterrence campaign. This is the

strategy which was formulated and executed upon, and which worked. Did it

comply with international law? Likely no more so than did the incidents which

gave birth and necessity to the strategy.

akpat
akpat

 This is a long winded post. Cut to the chase. You really beleive that if Iran wanted to smuggle in something nasty they could not do so.

All we have done by going into Iraq is remove the balance of power over there. It was one of the most foolhardy stupid moves ever made by a president of this country.

Darrel K.Ratliff
Darrel K.Ratliff

If we follow Romney's idea of a budget  just the military part would blow the deficit  to near twice what we owe now.  better off with what we have in office than that mistake.

akpat
akpat

 Yes.

'Deficits dont matter'.....tricky Dickie C

'The economy is strong'.......GWB just before the crash

'I will lower taxes 20% in a revenue neutral way'.. whatever that means Mitt

you cant make this stuff up any better.

akpat
akpat

 Yup.

'Defecits dont matter' Dick Cheney....strange how they do now.

'The economy is strong'  .... GWB just before the crash

'I will lower taxes by 20%..... in a revenue neutral way' Magic Mitt

Its hard to make up better stuff than this

not2guilty
not2guilty

Someone close to Romney should tell him that sending his money to the Cayman Islands and investing in Chinese companies does not him him a foreign policy expert. This quote from Adlai Stevenson describes Romney perfectly: " He is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump for a speech on conservation."

D Armstrong
D Armstrong

 Hmm, as opposed the amateurs we have had in place the last 4 years? I'll take the new guy thank you.

Jfante1452
Jfante1452

People like you who would vote for a patholigical used car salesman like Romney are what's wrong with this country. Electing someone like him will have grave consequences for generations because of the power the president has to appoint supreme court justices. Sure, let Romney pick 'em. It'll only mean another decade or so of uninterrupted corporate influence on American politics.

timelines
timelines

Which New Guy...the one who has ever changing positions which makes Kama Sutra look like it is in a static position or the Mitt who ies all the time.

Oh wait, they are the same Mitt ...silly me.

JS
JS

Your source of information is Obama's speeches which go unchallenged and misleading. In the debate, Obama was completely exposed and he did not have ABC, CBS, MSNBC etc to be the first line of defense. Obama had no idea how to defend his positions, therefore he had nothing to say. If any thing, Obama was caught lying about Romney's position. Obama offered no vision or course of action he wants to implement in the next 4 years. Just continue with the old policies which has given no benefit to the Country.

Commentonitall
Commentonitall

You mean the Bush administration that got us into this mess, yes they were amateurs.  Meanwhile our starters got Osama.

akpat
akpat

 During the swansong summer of Bush gas rose above $5 in some places, we were involved in two unfounded out of budget wars, the banks were failing, some insurance companies were failing, the car industry was failing and 800,000 people per month were being laid off, yes thats right 800,000.

Now gas is high butlower than $5, we are out of one war, we have shored up the banks and insurance. The car companies are ok, and 100,000 per month are finding work.

So yes we are better off under the 'amateurs' than the 'professionals'

Eileen Fleming
Eileen Fleming

Mitt is not advocating that the US should lead, but that he can be led to ignore Israel’s continuing colonization of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Both Romney and Obama’s Israel Palestine policy is one of conflict management; not about seeking a just peace.

Regarding foreign aid, Romney said he "will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government.

Israel has received the greatest amount of U.S. foreign aid of any other state, but it does NOT respect the rights of all of its citizens-the 1.4 million 'Arab Israelis' and the 4 million Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Unlike Mitt, Obama and all of Congress this candidate for US HOUSE who is seeking a Just Peace has actually been to Israel AND occupied Palestine seven times since 2005, and as I responded to the Orlando based HERITAGE FLORIDA JEWISH NEWS......

http://wearewideawake.org/inde...