Join Date: 03/04/2012
FORUM REPUBLICANS: ROMNEY’S FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH WAS A DISGRACE AND AN EMBARRASSMENT TO OUR COUNTRY!!
The critiques of Romney's foreign policy are just as incoherent as Romney's forein policy!
Posted By Uri Friedman
Mitt Romney has, throughout this campaign, raised more questions than answers about what he'd actually do as President. He supported the Iraq war and said that removing all of our troops from Iraq was "tragic," he called Russia - not al-Qaeda - our "number one geopolitical foe," and he said that he wouldn't have set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan. Those aren't policies, those are misguided talking points - and the American people deserve more from someone running to be commander-in-chief.
Today's latest effort to reboot and reset the Romney foreign policy doesn't change the fact that he's repeatedly taken positions outside of the mainstream and often to the right of even George W. Bush. This isn't surprising. After all, Romney is advised by the same people who were responsible for some of the worst foreign policy failures in American history, including the Iraq War. And now he wants to take us back to the same with-us-or-against-us approach that got us into wars without getting us out of them.
For example, Governor Romney still can't say what he'd do differently on Iran other than taking us to war. He continues to criticize the President's timeline in Afghanistan even while saying he'd pursue it as President. His position on Libya has no credibility since he's been both for and against our Libya policy. And he offers no way forward on Syria other than suggesting that the United States should get more deeply involved in the conflict without defining a strategy.
The bar is high for Governor Romney during his speech today. After six previous chances, it is up to him to finally clear it. Because while the American people can trust Barack Obama's strong record of winding down wars and decimating al-Qaeda, Mitt Romney has repeatedly shown that he has no idea what he'd actually do as commander-in-chief. In today's complicated world, that's just not good enough.
So on one side of this campaign, we have a president who has made America lead like America again. What is there on the other side? An extreme and expedient candidate, who lacks the judgment and vision so vital in the Oval Office. The most inexperienced foreign policy twosome to run for president and vice president in decades.
It isn't fair to say Mitt Romney doesn't have a position on Afghanistan. He has every position. He was against setting a date for withdrawal-then he said it was right-and then he left the impression that maybe it was wrong to leave this soon. He said it was "tragic" to leave Iraq, and then he said it was fine. He said we should've intervened in Libya sooner. Then he ran down a hallway to duck reporters' questions. Then he said the intervention was too aggressive. Then he said the world was a "better place" because the intervention succeeded. Talk about being for it before you were against it!
Mr. Romney-here's a little advice: Before you debate Barack Obama on foreign policy, you better finish the debate with yourself!
"President Mitt Romney"-three hypothetical words that mystified and alienated our allies this summer. For Mitt Romney, an overseas trip is what you call it when you trip all over yourself overseas. It wasn't a goodwill mission-it was a blooper reel.
But a Romney-Ryan foreign policy would be anything but funny. Every president of both parties for 60 years has worked for nuclear arms control-but not Mitt Romney. Republican secretaries of state from Kissinger to Baker, Powell to Rice, President Bush, and 71 United States senators all supported President Obama's New Start treaty. But not Mitt Romney. He's even blurted out the preposterous notion that Russia is our "number one geopolitical foe." Folks: Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska; Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.
Mitt Romney is an inexperienced flip-flopper who is comically inept on the world stage. But in all seriousness, folks, he's dangerous.
Just when I thought Mr. Romney could sink no lower, he now begins channeling Dick Cheney and the chicken hawk neocon empire building crazies. Yea, yea, yea. It is our Divine Right to subjugate the World because we have the power and the glory. God is on our side yadayadayada. We have no money because we spend spend spend on social programs but the President is a bad man for not taking every tax dollar and putting it into defense and projecting American power all over the world, whether the world wants it or not.
If there were no other reason to deep six Mitt's presidential bid, his desire to put into harm's way every son and daughter in the military for the glory of his fatherland neocon fantasies should do it for any sane thinking voter. This man is a total disgrace and an embarrassment to the American political process!
Hope is not a strategy,’’ Romney said. But more war is? On the credit card? According to WaPo 7/29/12, Mitt Romney's foreign policy position (announced in Israel) completely disqualifies him from serious electoral consideration.
The article says he would "respect the decision" of Israel to attack Iran to stop a nuclear weapon "capability", a policy position that would hinge upon "zero enrichment of uranium". This despite the fact that Iran has signed the NPT which grants them in paragraph IV the "inalienable right" to develop nuclear technology for power generation and medical imaging isotopes. As Iran is not going to surrender their legal rights under the treaty, this means war. Outsourced by a Republican administration to Zionist Israel.
ANY country with a fully developed civilian nuclear sector has the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Brazil and Argentina have a nuclear weapons capability. But, just as you cannot get a speeding ticket for owning a sports car that has the capability to go 120 miles per hour, it is not illicit for countries to have the capability to build a nuclear weapon. What is illicit is for Iran to divert its safeguarded enriched-uranium stockpile to any military uses -- something Iran has never been accused of doing.
In the event of an Israeli attack on Iran (which would involve our interests in about half an hour whether we would have it so or not) they would certainly hit back to the best their abilities. Tanker insurance rates would zoom for the Straits of Hormuz through which passes about a quarter of the whole worlds petroleum supply. That is, if such could be obtained for the Straits of Hormuz at all. Small boat actions, mining and missile strikes could easily make tanker traffic infeasible, as well as uninsurable. They do not need to defeat the US navy to accomplish this. One or two missile hits on huge slow oil tankers and the job is done. Prices for petroleum would certainly skyrocket to who knows what level, collapsing our fragile economy like a house of cards.
Things quickly spiral out of control. Iraq as a majority Shiia state friendly to Iran, takes hostile actions against our remaining personnel and interests there. Al-Sadr's militia comes out of retirement and attacks whatever American personnel remain. Mass chaos from Lebanon to Pakistan, whose large Shiia population riots, threatening the government should it not condemn and take militant actions against America. Remember, Pakistan is a nuclear armed state. The growing sectarian civil war in Syria is hugely inflated. Afghanistan explodes. Al-Qaeda claps its hands in glee in Yemen and Somalia. China and Russia get quite hostile.
And of course in this event, Iran would conclude that it must quickly obtain a nuclear WMD deterrent capability. Achieving exactly what you claim you want to avoid!
CONCLUSION: Willard Mitt Romney is a CLOWN.