| Author |
Message |
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 10/8/2012 10:10:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
THIS was your "MAJOR" foreign policy speech? Less than one month before the election--THIS is your brave stand on the world??
One half agreeing with Obama (Thanks for that), one quarter 'McCainesque Let's invade everyone' and one quarter typical Romney, I'm just going to flip-flop on this one....
At the Virginia Military Institute: Putting Iran “on notice” that it can’t have a nuke. He’ll propose “new sanctions” and to “tighten the sanctions we currently have,” which is the cornerstone of Obama’s Iran policy.
On Afghanistan, he “will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014,” which is the cornerstone of Obama’s Afghanistan policy. (Romney doesn’t like Obama’s 2014 timetable for ending U.S. combat in Afghanistan (a “politically timed retreat,” Romney calls it), but, again, he says he’ll stick to it)
On Libya, Romney will “support the Libyan people’s efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them,” which is the cornerstone of Obama’s Libya policy.
On Syria, Romney says he’ll “entify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need.” It's been pretty much established that not all of those 'share our values'; and arming them to the teeth? Well, that's risk free, right? And it won't cost us anything, right??
What about Israel? Even though the Israeli leaders have said Obama is the best ally in years; Mitt slides into classic windshield wiper mode:
“I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.” And he faulted Mr. Obama for failing to deliver on that front." But last spring, (in that infamous 47% speech) Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was “just no way” a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work. Damn tape.
Blah blah blah. But I said it REAL seriously. At a military academy AND in front of an aircraft carrier, so he MUST be serious. At least we didn't have to see him in fake uniform.
Now keep in mind this is the same guy who solemnly declared Russia was our #1 geopolitcal foe (Al Queda who?) and has Bush neocon leftovers (John Bolton, Liz Cheney, Elliott Abrams etc) advising him, so take it from there.
THREE bad news items for Mitt here: 1) Foreign policy IS going to be a Debate Topic. Aw crap. He's going to have to repeat this verbal baby cereal all over again. 2) Very typical: Forty-seven percent of voters said in last week's NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that Obama would be a better commander in chief; 39 percent of registered voters preferred Romney. On the question of who would best handle foreign policy, Obama led 46 to 40 percent.
3) I keep saying it. It's NOT just the economy stupid.
|
|
| cruiser |
Posted - 10/8/2012 10:14:21 PM | show profile | flag this post
Gee, those grapes must taste
sour.
|
|
| mpdodgson |
Posted - 10/8/2012 11:43:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
Nope.
The fruit's pretty sweet on this side.
Nice to see Mitt follow his usual pattern:
Agree with the President, or
Talk like an un-informed boob, or
Flip-Flop.
And tomorrow?? When pressed on the details?? "How much should we "arm the rebels?" "with what?" "combat troops or just air support??" "Uniltaerally, or with our allies?" "and how will you get them to commit?" "How will we pay for it?"
It's going to be 'Well...we'll listen to the commanders on the ground, no details yet, that's to be seen, blah blah blah.
I'm just waitin for it.
|
|
| cdnreprtr |
Posted - 10/9/2012 5:03:13 AM | show profile | flag this post
Mitt lied. Again.
He stated Obama did negotiate any trade deals.
the facts:
Panama - United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2011)
Colombia - United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2011)
South Korea- United States Free Trade Agreement (2011)
It is no secret. All deals had to be ratified by congress and were. And Obama re-sparked latin/south american, Pacific and european, multilateral trade pacts.
Here the thing ... why is Romney lying on such easily proven facts?
I'm sure he has some excuse or slippery definition.
But at the end of the day, he's either lying or being a flip-flop weasel.
Why cant he just be straight and honest with the American people?
As for the rest ofthe speech .. it was bizarre throwback to Cold War rhetoric and a strategy for a world that simply does not exit in reality.
He actually wants to pick a fight with Putin. To create emnity, and an enemy in Russia. Why? Ya don't have to like Putin, but actually calling for American aggression as a strategy is irresponsible dangerous.
Kissenger has come out and slammed the China policy.
And then there the bizarre claim that he's going to make NATO countries spend 2% of GDP on the military.
yeah, how is he going to do that? Because he says so?
Last time I checked the POTUS doesn't set other nations budgets. What incredible arrogance.
(Is he going to threaten Canada, like Russia? Go ahead, Mitt, we'll sell our oil to China. Feel free to break up NAFTA ... see how that fixes America's economy... )
American right wingers may clap, but the only sound I heard during the speech up was laughter and the consensus that this guy is totally, and wholly, clueless about the realities of foreign relations.
He can dream all he want.
But if he walks on to the world stage and tries any of this, he'll quickly be booted off it.
Its not a strategy of American leadership. Its a recipe for America's irrelevance and decline.
|
|
| etaoin shrdlu |
Posted - 10/9/2012 8:09:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
So much for the debate bounce...
Mitt's back to being Mitt.
He's absolutely clueless on foreign policy -- able to insult our allies while encouraging our enemies.
His entire foreign policy is "just keep doing what Obama's been doing" -- but ignore China and the Pacific.
|
|
Log in to customize alerts, subscribe to newsletters, and apply to jobs.
June 4, 2013 | San Francisco
