Posted on 10/08/2012 7:34:13 AM PDT by SE Mom
Mitt Romney in a major speech Monday will call for a change of course in U.S. foreign policy -- saying the recent, deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya is part of a “profound upheaval” and that “hope is not a strategy.”
The speech will mark one of Romney’s final opportunities before Election Day to show his potential as a world leader -- amid political turmoil in the Middle East.
“The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East -- a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century,” Romney will say, according to speech excerpts provided by the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign.
“I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope,” Romney continues. “But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds.”
Romney is set to speak at Virginia Military Institute at 11:20 a.m. ET.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Is everyone around here now finally convinced that Romney wants to win this election?
He is not McCain
He isn’t a plant meant to assure Obama re-election
He didn’t squander the millions of bucks in donations
He isn’t stupid
He isn’t weak
He isn’t a traitor
We have a winner on our side, someone ready to lead and extremely determined and capable.
A review of the region's history reveals this to be a prerequisite for a long lived Arab ruler.
Sadat was a Nazi collaborator, participated in the coup of 1952, was a high ranking official in the 1950's, was VP during the 1960's. Sadat was a major decision maker in the 1967 war, the War of Attrition and he started the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Yet, popular American opinion is that Anwar Sadat was a good man.
I think Romney believes a line has been crossed in Syria. The whole world has seen Assad’s henchmen military attack whole neighborhoods of citizens where he believes some of his opponents are, and wipe out everyone there and destroy the buildings, infrastructure, etc.
Assad's father did similar against muslim radicals in Lebanon and against islamists in Syria. During an islamist uprising in the early 1980's, he wiped out the entire Syrian town of Hama killing tens of thousands.
The days of ever being able to help keep Assad in power such as we did Mubarak in Egypt, if only Assad would sway our way instead of Iran’s, are over I think Romney believes. I think he’s right. We can’t go back and unring the bell.
Only if you subscribe to the present narrative created by the same people who promised unicorns and rainbows from the arab spring.
But right now the situation there is an unholy mess, a disaster, a catastrophe.
Situation normal.
There ARE apparently some Assad opponents who have more decent intentions than either Assad or al qaeda (who, just like they have in Libya are flowing in there).
I agree but the small group of assorted choirboys stand no chance against the islamists.
And don’t forget the Muslim Brotherhood has already taken complete control of Egypt and his been in consultations with Iran to form an alliance. And Iran is about to get nuclear weapons and wants to exterminate Israel.
Yes and what should the United States do about it? What Assad wants most is to retain power. To the extent he works with Iran is to the extent he believes it helps him retain power. Pulling him away from Iran and letting bygones be bygones may be a way of reducing Iranian influence in Lebanon. Keeping Assad in power keeps the islamists at bay and thereby impedes the consolidation of the new Caliphate that Obama has attempted to create.
You were hoping Romney didn’t express wholehearted support to the anti-Assad movement. From my hearing, he didn’t. He expressed qualified support for an element that is way better than the other two power elements there, Assad the Iranian puppet bloody tyrant vs. al qaeda.
Some people need to be oppressed. as long as a large group of islamists exists in Syria, a tyrant is needed to keep them under control.
I’m sorry, we just disagree on Assad, now that he has done what he has done and now that the world is dividing up on an Iran vs Israel and the U.S. axis.
YOU are welcome to see everything as ever remaining the same as it always has. I see differences in the progression of things, and seminal moments, even with history behind being what it is.
Agree to disagree.
But the speech he gave did not do the thing you said you feared. I will stick with my main point on that.
He was very careful, very selective, mentioned conditional support if deemed appropriate, never once mentioned the stupid term, Arab Spring, never lumped all Assad opponents into a mushy, jello-y mass that we should back. Just the opposite.
I agree with what he said in the speech and his POV I took from the speech, more than I agree with what you seem to me to be saying and the POV you seem to me to be taking.
Full video of event from CSPAN
Assad has written his own epitaph.
“Keeping Assad in power”...oxymoron.
Assad is bunkered down and hated beyond anything he ever thought he knew of the populace’s hatred. Because of what he has done in recent months, which is NOT the same as he has ALWAYS done, no matter that he has done bad for a long time.
One man’s “situation normal” is another analyst’s flashing warning neon sign. Romney has excellent foreign policy advisors. I trust no one completely. I trust THEM, more than whoever and whatever you are.
Al qaeda is in the mix of an Iranian vs. U.S./Israel axis in the world. Romney and his advisors are also having to account for al qaeda in their analysis and planning. Oh yes, but it’s so simple to you, just “keep Assad in power”. Right. Like there’s no other consideration, and like Assad is truly still “in power” the same way as he once was. No and no.
Your “situation normal” while excerpting my quotes on what factors Romney/advisors are considering, is totally dismissive. But remember, you aren’t dismissive of ME alone but everyone helping Romney with his foreign policy. If it makes you feel big, hey, whatever.
Big, above it all, and beyond Romney advisors such as Bolton, is not how it appears.
JMO
I really appreciate your comments and think it best that I hold off commenting until after I've had a chance to watch the speech.
YOU are welcome to see everything as ever remaining the same as it always has. I see differences in the progression of things, and seminal moments, even with history behind being what it is.
Agree to disagree.
Let me watch the speech later today.
But the speech he gave did not do the thing you said you feared. I will stick with my main point on that.
That's very encouraging.
He was very careful, very selective, mentioned conditional support if deemed appropriate, never once mentioned the stupid term, Arab Spring, never lumped all Assad opponents into a mushy, jello-y mass that we should back. Just the opposite.
Again, I really appreciate your summarizing his speech for me.
I agree with what he said in the speech and his POV I took from the speech, more than I agree with what you seem to me to be saying and the POV you seem to me to be taking.
I was apprehensive about watching it but you have given me encouragement and I'll let you know my impressions after I get a chance to watch it later this evening.
In watching again, my honest wish is that he would’ve expressed and shown authentic core emotion .. the deep outrage and anger of these outrageous attacks on our dear nation and the unnecessary and tragic loss of 4 of our own .. and not just read the unfeeling words of a script. And change his facial expressions in reflection, fergodssake. I want to see PASSION and ANGER and RESOLVE .. sober, deadly seriousness .. about these flagrant, evil acts of WAR!
You may think Romney looks “artificial” but he does have classic good looks (which will go over very well on the international stage i.e. Presidential appearance...).
Great Speech. Reaganesque.
Thanks again for the summary you provided earlier.
GOP pussyfooting, fear of the opposition.
While speaking out with passion and excoriating the present government would get him some votes.
That's a bit too tea party though.
Now I will respond to your most recent post to me:
Assad is bunkered down and hated beyond anything he ever thought he knew of the populace’s hatred. Because of what he has done in recent months, which is NOT the same as he has ALWAYS done, no matter that he has done bad for a long time.
Assad is hated by who, non-fundamentalist women, Alawites, Christians, Druze, or a million plus refugees recently arrived from Iraq?
One man’s “situation normal” is another analyst’s flashing warning neon sign. Romney has excellent foreign policy advisors. I trust no one completely. I trust THEM, more than whoever and whatever you are.
You don't have to vote for me and I'm not trying to get you to vote for someone else. I'm just trying to point out that as bad as Assad may be, it could be much, much worse.
Al qaeda is in the mix of an Iranian vs. U.S./Israel axis in the world. Romney and his advisors are also having to account for al qaeda in their analysis and planning. Oh yes, but it’s so simple to you, just “keep Assad in power”. Right. Like there’s no other consideration, and like Assad is truly still “in power” the same way as he once was. No and no.
I never said keep Assad in power, I just urged extreme caution in any decision to remove Assad from power. I do believe winning Assad over from the Iranians and Russians in a manner similar to Carter winning Sadat over is to me a viable option that should be considered.
Your “situation normal” while excerpting my quotes on what factors Romney/advisors are considering, is totally dismissive. But remember, you aren’t dismissive of ME alone but everyone helping Romney with his foreign policy. If it makes you feel big, hey, whatever.
I think you totally misread my comment(s). I was not being dismissive in any sense of what you wrote. I was actually very much appreciative of your having taken the time to summarize the speech for me.
Thanks again for the summary you provided earlier.
You didn’t happen to tune in to MSNBC to see if they were covering it, did ya, LOL. Seriously, I suspect they did as well if only to counter it with supplied talking points.
Odd looking? I see a very handsome man who exudes class.
No money. Don't need them.
ty STARWISE for c-span link.
Is this speech going to be replayed anywhere???
I heard this part of the speech and thought "Oh crap, here we go again with the mythical "moderate Muslims".
I still intend to vote for Romney, but I'm not happy with this. It's "nation-building" and it will, repeat will, fail.
I too am concerned about arming the Syrian rebels, Al Qaida, Salafists, who knows where. Then there is the Russia problem which was not a factor in Libya. Given that Romney has stated Russia is our number one enemy, I really have a number of worries about Romney’s military plans. Does anyone know anything about the experience and views of his military advisors? Also, if he has a good plan for getting us out of Afghanistan effectively, I wish he would share it with our military. My son is headed there soon, AGAIN!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.