Posted on 10/09/2012 4:11:33 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The best way to sum up Mitt Romney’s approach to foreign policy is: Build peace through strength rather than generate contempt through apology. Mr. Romney laid out this vision for American national security at the Virginia Military Institute on Monday. President Obama’s camp predictably dismissed this point of view as “outside of the mainstream and often to the right of even George W. Bush.”
This is from the administration which has made targeted killings the centerpiece of its counterterrorism strategy. This is from the administration that has attempted— poorly —to make a legal case for assassinating U.S. citizens abroad. The Obama campaign can’t even claim to be consistent, having admitted many of Mr. Romney’s positions are identical to its own. As Ronald Reagan said to a previous generation of liberals, “Fellows, you can’t have it both ways. [I] can’t be a wild-eyed kook and a square.”
After Mr. Romney’s speech, CNN commentator and Obama supporter Fareed Zakaria argued the only major policy difference between the two candidates is that Mr. Romney allegedly wants to arm the Syrian rebels. Mr. Zakaria overlooked almost all the key differences. Mr. Romney would stop the raid on the military budget that threatens U.S. military pre-eminence. He’d build up American missile defense regardless of Mr. Obama’s backroom promises to Russian leaders to degrade it. He’d take credible steps to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He’d offer robust support to Iran’s dissident movement and back reformers in the Middle East rather than cheer Islamist extremists. He’d adopt regional strategies that show an understanding of the root causes of the enduring terrorist threat. He’d stand by America’s allies, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Middle East. In particular, he’d reaffirm the lack of daylight between the United States and Israel on matters of national security....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Ronald Reagan was commissioned in July 2003, making it the ninth Nimitz-class nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The ship is named after the 40th U.S. president, and carries the motto of “Peace through Strength,” a recurrent theme during the Reagan presidency. The ship returned to San Diego in July after a six-month maiden deployment.
Nota bad man to steal a slogan from.
What does Romney base his belief that we aren't strong enough on?
Shall we list them all, at which I’m sure that many will be missed right off the top of my head, or will the most current suffice to give you a clue?
Benghazi Consulate
In the theatre of operations in Afghanistan;
1 Rules of Engagement
2 Battlefield combatants being released from GITMO to fight and kill ours again. (Actually, that one works for Benghazi as well)
“After my election, I have more flexibility.”
If you are making a case against more military toys, he who has the most toys does not win by default. He also must have the balls to use them effectively as well. Key word here is effectively.
Let the commanders fight the war and pound the enemy into submission, don’t give them weapons to kill us instead.
Zakaria is a fool.
Romney was dead on.
A bit Milquetoast in the first 10 minutes but solid and steady in the last 20 min of his speech.
He was very definitive in contrasting himself to the current occupant.
We're not talking failure of leadership, for which there is no disagreement. Romney is saying that militarily we are not strong enough. My question to him is what he bases that statement on. My question to you is where were we deficient militarily which caused the Benghazi consulate fiasco?
He bases it on the current CIC who is undermining our Military and their accomplishments,as well as their budget and readiness.
That is a failure of leadership, and I'm not disputing that. Where are we deficient in military power? That is Romney's claim and my question. What is he basing that on?
For starters: not shooting Taliban because we don’t want to wake people up.
Militarily also includes the ability of the military to act militarily. Remember the CIC thingy that goes along with being President?
If you want to castigate his remarks as a budget one, then go ahead but remember the waste in the Pentagon is unfathomable right now. The biggest problem is that most of it is not spent on military toys but on the corrupt process to obtain them.
Romney is saying speak softly and carry a big stick.
Obama says lets have a gay pillow party.
Leadership is an entirely different question. I'm asking how many toys do we need? Romney says we don't have enough. What does he base that on?
Hi.
Are you living in Ireland now?
Are you registered to vote Nov 6 in the election?
How about protecting our ambassadors ?
So what does Romney base his claim that the military doesn't have the ability to act militarily on?
If you want to castigate his remarks as a budget one, then go ahead but remember the waste in the Pentagon is unfathomable right now. The biggest problem is that most of it is not spent on military toys but on the corrupt process to obtain them.
No doubt, but apparently Romney doesn't think they have enough to waste because he wants to give them more. Why does he think that?
Romney says the stick isn't big enough. Why does he think that?
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.