Romney casts Obama's foreign policy as weak, dangerous

Comments (134)
VSNFR60 wrote:

sounds like R is ready to “bullet” up. Which also means blood down, U$ blood.

Oct 07, 2012 12:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Heard an interesting interview with Dan Reviv, co-author of the book “Spies Against Armageddon”. Obama is playing it exactly right in the Middle East. Particularly in the effort to stop Iran’s nuclear efforts. Drones have made the world unsafe for the terrorists. Stuxnet is just the tip of the iceberg in the subversive war against Iran’s nuclear efforts. Bombing Iran will backfire. Keeping the pressure on through the sanctions and funneling resources to the opposition in Iran is what’s needed. They have their own presidential election coming up soon. This is our best opportunity to tame Iran. Romney apparently has no idea of how aggressive we are REALLY being against Iran.

Oct 07, 2012 12:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Adam.Smith wrote:

“More aggressive policy towards the Middle East?”

Is this man a lunatic? He’s looking to start trouble, as if there isn’t enough?

Oct 07, 2012 12:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SAXMAN657 wrote:

I love it when fingers start pointing when the chips are down and the Obama camp starts chanting that the other guy lied. Truth be known, all politicians lie — whether they be from the left or the right, liberal or conservative.

Oct 07, 2012 12:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Adam.Smith wrote:

“We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran -rather than sitting on the sidelines”

This is before he even knows who the Syrian opposition is – how much of it is Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Why is it our war rather than the Arab League’s? Why not try to work through them instead of increasing hatred of America in the Middle East?

Oct 07, 2012 12:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
boreal wrote:

How will Romney finance the next proxy war on behalf of Israel when Healthcare needs to be fixed too?

Oct 08, 2012 1:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Adam.Smith wrote:

boreal wrote:

“How will Romney finance the next proxy war on behalf of Israel…”

There are no “proxy wars” fought on behalf of Israel.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but Israel was safer when he was in power – he kept the Islamist genie in the bottle.

W went to war against Iraq because Saddam “tried to kill my father, you know,” and because of W’s demented vision of “democracy” for the Muslim middle east – the same demented vision that caused W to press for the elections in Gaza that led to control by Hamas (I suppose you feel somehow that was for the benefit of Israel as well).

Blaming Israel and the Jews for everybody else’s problems is a tired old meme – time to move on towards reality.

Oct 08, 2012 1:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

“He would also increase military assistance and coordination to Israel, which has threatened a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.”

That’s not responsible foreign policy. That could either be called “bear baiting” or “fanning the flames”.

I agree with Adam Smith about Saddam Hussein but the occupation is still illegal and the Israelis are irresponsible and tight fisted occupiers. Zionism is one of the most obnoxious and bigoted political movements ever invented. I think it taught the ME the need for pan Arabism and even fundamentalist Islam, the way the Japanese invasion during WWII taught the Chinese to embrace Mao.

Why should the US support a religious tour de force?

Oct 08, 2012 2:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Did he mention any specifics? Such as what – specifically – his ‘aggressive’ – means?

Oct 08, 2012 4:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mikefromaz wrote:

Excuse me but which Mitt Romney are we talking about here? The man is an accomplished liar, vulture capitalist, and very good at parroting his opponents policies by morphing into Obama. I don’t believe he is even capable of thinking for himself except to play the role of ugly toad morphed into “Prince Charming. I wouldn’t trust Romney with a cap gun, no less give him the launch codes to the nuclear arsenal. We know how Republicans love their wars, the problem is no one knows what Romney stands for, except himself. Policy of the moment, delivered by an empty suit. No thanks Mitt, I would swim in a tank of sharks before I would vote for you. At least the sharks represent what they REALLY are.

Oct 08, 2012 7:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
teacher580 wrote:

Given that Romney has neocons such as John Bolton, Eliot Abrams, Dan Senor, to name a few, “aggressive” would be an apt description of his foreign policy and something that should concern everyone.

Oct 08, 2012 9:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Adam.Smith wrote:

paintcan says:

“I think it taught the ME the need for pan Arabism”

It’s interesting that you bring up “pan Arabism”

Why is it, with 99.5% of the Middle East in Arab hands (not a made up number look it up) the Arabs still keep the Palestinians in refugee camps in their own countries (like Syria and LEbanon) and don’t offer the Palestinian refugees citizenship?

A much bigger population exchange occurred in India and Pakistan at the same time (as the partition of Palestine), and as many Jews (almost 1,000,000) were successfully integrated into Israel (after being expelled from the Arab countries after 1948) as there were PAlestinian refugees.

And these expelled Jews have land claims equal to more than 4x the current landmass of Israel.

So in the spirit of “Pan Arabism” lets have a comprehensive settlement of the refugee problem, including land exchanges.

What’s that, “pan Arabism” isn’t as appealing as it was was a few minutes ago?

Oct 08, 2012 9:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

12 comments and not one is even close to the truth. its a reuters blog after all so why should that surprise me?

Oct 08, 2012 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

@Adam.Smith: Interesting remarks — worth reading.

Oct 08, 2012 10:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Adam.Smith wrote:
“Why is it, with 99.5% of the Middle East in Arab hands (not a made up number look it up) the Arabs still keep the Palestinians in refugee camps in their own countries (like Syria and LEbanon) and don’t offer the Palestinian refugees citizenship?”

It is obvious why. If the refugees were given citizenship, they would lose the Right to Return that they possess, courtesy of International Law. Why should they give up their nationality and right to return to their homeland?

Oct 08, 2012 11:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

Romney has played this exaclty right. He has waited until he gained momentum before launching this separate, potentially even more important criticism against Obama. There will be two more Presidential debates and one of them will cover foreign policy exclusively (except when Obama goes off on unrelated topics).

Oct 08, 2012 11:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pax_vobiscum wrote:

@Rich_F – Please do enlighten us.

@Adam_Smith – Accurate, albeit incomplete analysis. I could list plenty more good reasons W felt we had little choice but to ‘take-out’ Saddam Hussein, though you’re spot-on about the broader issue of ‘democratization’. Back in the days of Ronald Reagan I thought the U.S. had finally figured out that ‘Nation Building’ under a military occupation was a losing proposition, but apparently Bush Jr slept through that part of History 101.

Lest people forget:
Saddam had (and used) chemical weapons, was seeking to develop biological ones, and was actively developing drones to deploy either.
Saddam was freely engaged in genocidal acts against Kurds in the north, and Shiites in the south.
The U.S. was tired of enforcing no-fly zones in the North and South to discourage the above, and equally tired of a decade-long ‘cat-and-mouse’ games with U.N. inspectors per the treaty that Saddam signed in good faith at the close of GulfWar1.
Saddam was paying a $50,000 bounty to the relatives of any successful suicide bomber in Israel.

Oct 08, 2012 11:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Everything Romney knows about foreign policy, he learned while he spent the Vietnam War…. In france.

Oct 08, 2012 12:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Caspary wrote:

Talk is cheap and Romney is not holding back when it comes to talking. He’s never had to work a proper job in his life. As rollingstone mag says “For all this, when it came time to nominate a candidate for the presidency four years after the crash, the Republicans chose a man who in almost every respect perfectly represents this class of people. Mitt Romney is a rich-from-birth Ivy League product who not only has never done a hard day of work in his life – he never even saw a bad neighborhood in America until 1996, when he was 49 years old, when he went into some seedy sections of New York in search of a colleague’s missing daughter (“It was a shocker,” Mitt said. “The number of lost souls was astounding”).”

Oct 08, 2012 1:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Onerioi wrote:

@ VSNFR60 who wrote: “sounds like R is ready to “bullet” up. Which also means blood down, U$ blood.” Ahh yes, Mitt Romney – the Fortunate Son! “Some folks are born to wave the flag, Ooh, they’re red, white and blue. And when the band plays “Hail to the chief”, Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord, Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, Lord, don’t they help themselves, oh. But when the taxman comes to the door, Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale. It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no millionaire’s son, no. It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no. ” (Creedence Clearwater Revival – Fortunate Son)

Oct 08, 2012 1:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SeanTopman wrote:

I’m sorry but Romney is acting. I swear he is. Have you really dissected his speech? Almost everything he said there was ALREADY being done by Obama!

And for those things Obama isnt doing, IF he wins, Romney will find out that he needs to abandon his position for a more realistic approach.

Romney can not pursue his policy without igniting strife in these areas.

Magician Romney wants to bring down the deficit, cut taxes AND INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING?!! He also wants to increase staff strength of the Navy!?? And how does he intend on paying for these things?

The more i listen to Romney the more I’m convinced he is no good for America because hes flat out acting and telling lies to get to the White House!

Oct 08, 2012 1:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SchWI wrote:

If by “passivity” he means were not running into to countries guns a blazing only to try and help people who do not want out help, then yes passivity in this case would be a good thing. Last I checked drone attacks against militant elements have increased greatly under Obama. I guess the scalpel is more useful in this siutation than say a bowling ball.

Oct 08, 2012 1:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney is the same person who said he’d never enter Pakistan to pursue terrorists without express prior permission from our ‘valuable ally’ the Pakistani government. Below is an article from 2007 where Romney is worried about Obama ‘offending’ Pakistan. Romney practically apologizes to Pakistan in his statements here. So in other words, under a Romney presidency, Bin Laden (and dozens of his top commanders) would still be alive:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2007/08/04/idINIndia-28811520070804

Oct 08, 2012 1:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bfstk wrote:

Romney the reckless is the foreign policy of a man too inept and bullying ot know the difference between thought and action. Before setting out on a journey of a thousand miles a person needs to think about the first steps. Romney leaps before he thinks. He is impulsive like a small child who can’t understand there are consequences to actions. Thoughtfulness is a trait sorely lacking in his makeup. Unfortunately, it will lead to disaster if he is president. Romney has neither the temperment, calm thoughtfulness or experience to lead the country. He is a loose canon who cannot be trusted adn has questionable judgment at best. His so-called foreign policy ideas are a rehash of the tired worn out ones that George Bush used unsuccessfully for 8 long years and they will impede progress if they don’t get us into another war.

Oct 08, 2012 1:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Where is the Obama Adminstration on 5 or 6 days of mortar and artillery exchange between Syria and Turkey? I’ve got nothing but dial toen myself, and this is all Romney has to point out to make the point that the U.S. is currently not leading. He has gotten a pass by the media on foreign policy, this is undeniable as it’s just not happening and you can’t manufacture nothing to prove simething exists. Romney needs to point this out and inform the American public of how he will do things differently. For example he can speak to how Obama reacted to the Libya crisis and turn to Obama and ask him what he got for backing the forces that ousted the former regime. Answer: al Qeada terrorist attack, a dead Ambassador and now the latest they have ousted their first elected (US educated) executive branch leader. He only needs to ask what he did, and what we are doing. The answer can not include a credible defence because it has not happened. Or if it has, feel free to point that out.

Oct 08, 2012 1:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

Seems to me most of the folks here need to actually listing to his speech. The comments here are blatant lies, ignorance of what he actually said, or a complete inability to comprehend the English language. And then it could also be purely emotionally driven mania fueled by an insane islamist. Smoke, mirrors, fear and smear. Either way he did not say what most of you are accusing him of saying…again. He never mentioned war but did express the need to support those in the world that are struggling for fee and democratic societies. I can understand why some of you would be against that considering who your choice as leader of America is, or should I say was, it is over in January.

Oct 08, 2012 1:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@flashrooster, you have the perfect word for Romney…megalomaniac. As a Canadian checking in often to see what you all are doing down there, I see that blow hard making headway in the polls and I ask, please vote… Democrats… get out and vote for sanity.

Romney flipped out in the debate (perhaps not on speed, but likely on something like Redbull) becoming another entity entirely other than the Romney persona of 18 months previous and flipping from his campaign. (however his site policy hasn’t changed… just his running barrage of verbal lies) And that “strategy” worked in making him more popular?

Romney will be Bush 3 and take you to war. Will he hold another sign that favours a war while sending his sons and their family off to France to sit it out? He has a 16 year old grandchild he can send to war…and 15 others that will come of age. Will they serve? Nope… because people like him are the “good” ones who send the riff-raff off to fight their battles.

@boreal He will gladly use war as a distraction for his failure and there will be many… and he will need a distraction from the recession, removal of healthcare and his inability to keep the country moving in a good direction.

That Republicans saw this man as their best bet, shows they have not just a lunatic fringe in the teaparty, but have gone as far from “conservatism” as is extremely possible. (I wonder how they feel as he runs from the middle to the right and then to the left?) That any Conservative would hold their nose and vote for him is not just inane… it is insane.

(I am not sure if I pity those American as much as I fear them and the guns they likely own)

Oct 08, 2012 2:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gacha wrote:

Romney is quite hilarious on foreign affairs. A man who was able to offend the English in English should hardly talk. Romney’s hard on China ads are interesting. There are a lot of Chinese Americans and they are not a monolithic group by any means. But since Romneyites see in mostly white colored glasses, they haven’t even considered how a particular stand might scare away potential “ethnic” voters who might be attracted to the Republican low taxes mantra. Naaah. Keep it down Romney. Keep it way down.

Oct 08, 2012 2:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ouachita wrote:

There are so many Obama errors for Romney to attack regarding foreign policies, I’m not sure where he should start. What Obama said he wanted to do in 2008 and in his inaugural address and what he has actually done are quite different things:

1. He has embraced or expanded almost all the Bush-Cheney protocols that he demagogued against as a state legislator, a senator, and a presidential candidate;
2. He has given George W. Bush absolutely no credit for surging in, saving Iraq and giving them a chance;
3. He has given George W. Bush absolutely no credit for setting up the procedures for operations like those that killed bin Laden, which is again a matter of ingratitude, not to mention foreign policy;
3. The war on terror? Let’s not say that anymore. Instead he uses absurd euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters,”
4. The hypocrisy of railing against Bush’s waterboarding of three known terrorists while he simultaneously uses drones to blow up over 2,000 suspected terrorists (and any civilians near them);
5. His half-hearted efforts of both using and trying to close Guantanamo;
6. His naively envisioning trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian U.S. court, in NYC no less!;
7. The Lybian consulate fiasco (pre- and post-) should be low hanging fruit;
8. Failure to act when the Iranian people were marching if not rioting in the streets;
9. Abandoning Israel and achieving a single digit approval rating in Tel Aviv;
10. Fast and Furious debacle, and,
11. So, oh so many more mistakes and errors in judgement.

Hell, I could win a debate with Obama on these issues. Go for it Mitt, and you may use my input even without attribution.

Oct 08, 2012 2:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
uc8tcme wrote:

Now he wants to sound middle of the road – what a crock. So basically, his policies are the same as Obama’s – what is different. You can say I will “tighten” sactions on Iran, and “He would also increase military assistance and coordination to Israel” or go after Syria and find elements of the Syrian opposition who share U.S. values and ensure they obtain weapons needed to defeat Syrian President Bashir.

These are adjectives, it is the same as Obama but with adjectives. Net 0 gain.

Oct 08, 2012 2:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Bfstk: Nice post, and dead on. Why do Obama supporters sound so much more intelligent and informed than Romney supporters? (Just a rhetorical question.)

Oct 08, 2012 2:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

totherepublic: I think it’s “purely emotionally driven mania fueled by an insane islamist.” What does that even mean?

Why is it so difficult for rightwingers to use specifics and to back up their positions? Consider how generalized everything Romney says is. For example, “I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy.” It’s such an ironic thing for him to say without offering his own strategy. It’s so typical Romney.

Look at your own comments, totherepublic: “The comments here are blatant lies, ignorance of what he actually said, or a complete inability to comprehend the English language.” Yet you offer no examples nor do you back it up with anything.

The truth is, one never really knows what Romney’s position actually is. As another poster correctly points out, Romney’s a shape shifter, or as Romney’s own campaign adviser says, Romeny is like an Etch-A-Sketch. So what he says in this speech, or any speech, really doesn’t matter because he will have contradicted positions he’s already taken in the past. Why should anyone decide to trust this particular set of positions when they could just as easily change tomorrow, or a month from now or, more dangerously for us, after he became President? Romney has changed positions so many times that no one knows what they’d really be getting with a Romney Presidency. And that’s a real problem.

And it’s not just a problem for Americans. Regarding foreign policy, no foreign country, friend or ally, will be able to depend on Romney’s word because he’s so clearly demonstrated that he’ll change his positions on a whim, whatever position benefits him politically on that particular day. That’s a terrible characteristic to embody when wanting to be a major world player, and it’s particularly terrible for the American people.

Oct 08, 2012 2:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ofilha wrote:

@flashrooster.
You hit the nail on the head. A few weeks ago i read somewhere either yahoo news or somewhere else where Anne Romney made the claim that her most important job is to help Romney with his mental health. I thought that was a very weird statement by a would be first lady and one i did not see the media pick up.

Oct 08, 2012 2:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

Enough of this “we” business. Leave me out.

I have no relatives in the Middle East. Why should I care which religion is on top there? Why is my tax money being sent there instead of spent here in the USA where it is raised (or borrowed in my name)? Romney makes far, far too many assumptions about where “our” (“my”) interests lay.

Oct 08, 2012 2:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VSNFR60 wrote:

@ boreal – Don’t you mean finance the proxy war on behalf of GE, Halliburton and &c.?

Oct 08, 2012 2:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ofilha wrote:

The problem with Romney’s so called vision is that he thinks the US has any influence over how world events develop. That is in itself a very naive belief and it just shows that this man is just attacking the president without ever stating what he would do concretly. Like many of his policy ideas, this one is just another make belief statement that only someone who thinks that he has the answers to all the ills in the world can believe and that is scary.

Oct 08, 2012 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

AlkalineState
That IS all you got…

Oct 08, 2012 3:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

youniquelikeme
Stay up north Eh

Oct 08, 2012 3:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

SeanTopman
Oh so that’s why he won

Oct 08, 2012 3:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney now wants to talk tough on foreign policy?

Fact 1: Romney spent the Vietnam war in France (for Religious reasons).

Fact 2: Romney’s 5 sons came of military age during Gulf 1, Iraq and Afghanistan. None of them served.

Conclusion: 6 men, 4 wars, zero military service. Romney’s tough talk is for other people.

Oct 08, 2012 3:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
possibilianP wrote:

Romney knows a great deal about foreign countries. He’s avoided taxes by hiding millions of dollars overseas for many years.

Oct 08, 2012 3:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

Handing off stinger missiles to the Taliban was not one of G. Bush’s most enlightened calls. Handing of heavy armaments to Hezbollah can’t be any less foolhardy.

Oct 08, 2012 3:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

PeterLounsberry asks: “Where is the Obama Adminstration on 5 or 6 days of mortar and artillery exchange between Syria and Turkey?”

Letting Turkey fire back of course. You think we should ask Turkey to ‘be patient?’ Turkey will defend its borders and they have a massive and modern military to do it. If you think the best course of action would be a mouthy response from the U.S….. you would be wrong. The situation is being handled properly and that seems to aggravate you.

Oct 08, 2012 3:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney promises to return Bush Doctrine. A trillion dollars and 4,000 U.S. service lives for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. You get what you vote for.

Oct 08, 2012 3:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

Look at Romney Etch-a-sketching! Remember when he decreed that he would not conduct a military mission in Pakistan without their approval? He tried to backtrack from that by saying he would have done so, just thought it was bad for global politics to publicly state as much. Now we have publicly him making a statement that, on the global political stage, would be quite controversial!
Furthermore, I don’t think Romney has considered the ramifications of arming a loosely organized militant group of rebels. The US engaged in such actions decades ago, arming The Mujahideen in their conflict against a pro-Soviet establishment. I wonder what became of those guys?

Oct 08, 2012 3:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Veterans rip Romney for supporting draft (of other people), then applying for repeat-deferments to France:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/10/romneys-mormon-draft-deferrment-not-legal/

Oct 08, 2012 3:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@ouachita wrote:
“What Obama said he wanted to do in 2008 and in his inaugural address and what he has actually done are quite different things:
1. He has embraced or expanded almost all the Bush-Cheney protocols that he demagogued against as a state legislator, a senator, and a presidential candidate;”
You’re 100% right about this, and I disagree with several aspects of Obama’s handling of foreign affairs. However, the reason Romney CAN’T call Obama on this is because Romney, as evidenced by his hawkish rhetoric in this article, wants to double down on the Bush-Cheney doctrine in engaging in wars of choice. Actively engaging in nearly every global conflict is not in America’s best interest, will not make America safer, is flat out immoral, and is part of what lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Oct 08, 2012 3:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Can any of you romney apologists state clearly for the record:

What is romney’s position on the Arab Spring, on entering Pakistani airspace to pursue terrorist targets, on arming Syrian rebels.

These are 3 (just to name a few) foreign policy issues where Romney has been clearly indecisive and changed course midstream. So can you sum up for us his CURRENT thinking on the three issues above? We await your response. Good luck.

Oct 08, 2012 3:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

“but not rush blindly into armed conflict”
Well mitt you’ve lied to us about every other topic, we’ve learned not to take anything you say at face value.
I think we’re pretty happy with what Obama’s been doing with winding down the last republican presidents messes in the middle east. I don’t think we’re ready for another chickenhawk like the last one running around starting wars.

Oct 08, 2012 4:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xit007 wrote:

I thought Obama was going for the uninformed vote. Those who really don’t much about how the government and industry work. How Washington is about squeezing dollars out of special interests.. both parties do. But I finally figured it out – Obama is going for those who feel powerless. Scare mongering, pandering and divisive politics – is that of a community organizer. Really look into his past and you don’t see a future without government state and unions. He is an unabashed Socialist in sheep’s clothing. He has not got a clue about how it really works – and his debate shows you that he is nothing without a teleprompter. The foolishness of right or left is that unless you figure out how to manage the fiscal cliff – we are done. But Obama doesn’t care cause he will have fundamentally transformed the US into a third world country…

Oct 08, 2012 4:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
KyuuAL wrote:

Rmoney looks to start new wars using other people’s money.

Oct 08, 2012 4:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

AlkalineState: So true. You know, with all of the attention being paid to our domestic issues, it’s easy to forget just how much is at stake with our foreign policy. Contrary to what Romney seems to be suggesting, our foreign policy is most effective when it’s off Americans’ radar screens. Relatively speaking, this has been the case with Obama. Although we are still very much at war in Afghanistan, Obama has been winding that down. He ended our unfortunate involvement in Iraq (a costly mistake that has empowered and emboldened Iran). And, of course, there was bin Laden and the killing of many top al Qaeda officials. And although the Obama administration has been busy, they have not started up any new conflicts, but have quietly been going about promoting America’s best interest around the globe. By any rational measure, Obama’s foreign policy has been extremely successful, and like his domestic initiatives, it makes absolutely no rational sense to change policies now, not while they’re working, and return to policies that did great harm to our country in the past.

Why would we change now? I would be very satisfied to have 4 more years of foreign policy like the last 4 years. Rightwingers are trying to make hay out of the attack on the Libyan embassy, but Libya remains a dangerous place, and no American knew that better than Ambassador Stevens. And there should be no doubt that Ambassador Stevens would oppose an aggressive, hard-handed approach toward Libya’s fledgling democracy. Romney could only make matters worse.

Romney thinks America can control events beyond our borders. That’s lunacy. That’s dangerous thinking, and reflects the advisers he’s surrounded himself with, most of whom also advised our last Republican President. So Americans have to ask themselves this: Would they rather have a foreign policy like the last 4 years or would they prefer to return to the foreign policy we experienced under Bush? I think for anyone who doesn’t have their heads buried in GOP sand the answer is simple.

Oct 08, 2012 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VSNFR60 wrote:

First time view at Bloomberg.com. Report about Romney and his plans regarding Pre-Existing Conditions…health insurance. “It’s a complete mystery what he’s talking about,” said Joe Antos, a health-care economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington policy group. “He’s clearly asserting that he’s got a new policy, but he hasn’t said what it is.”
Another case where no one knows what this guy – Romney – means.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-08/romney-s-preexisting-conditions-put-36-million-at-risk.html

Oct 08, 2012 4:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I can’t believe the fact that VMI allows political stumping on it’s grounds.

The military academies should be void of politics and void of partisanship. These are hallowed grounds for our future officers. Men and Women who don’t consider politics over orders, candidates over missions or personal desire over honor of service.

They are walking into the most hostile world we have ever seen and allowing ANY candidate to leverage that is a question I cannot fathom the answer to.

Oct 08, 2012 4:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I can’t believe the fact that VMI allows political stumping on it’s grounds.

The military academies should be void of politics and void of partisanship. These are hallowed grounds for our future officers. Men and Women who don’t consider politics over orders, candidates over missions or personal desire over honor of service.

They are walking into the most hostile world we have ever seen and allowing ANY candidate to leverage that is a question I cannot fathom the answer to.

Oct 08, 2012 4:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fred5407 wrote:

I see lots of words in comments, but not much substance. If we just posture, like the Obama Regime, and point your finger every time things don’t work out, and you don’t want to be held accountable, then you have the Obama, and many of the commentors policy. After while you have no credibility, and then things go to hell in a handbasket, like Libya, and someone else has to come in and clean up the mess. I think Romney is pointing the way to a new action policy but has to fill in the details.

Oct 08, 2012 4:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fred5407 wrote:

I see lots of words in comments, but not much substance. If we just posture, like the Obama Regime, and point your finger every time things don’t work out, and you don’t want to be held accountable, then you have the Obama, and many of the commentors policy. After while you have no credibility, and then things go to hell in a handbasket, like Libya, and someone else has to come in and clean up the mess. I think Romney is pointing the way to a new action policy but has to fill in the details.

Oct 08, 2012 4:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xit007 wrote:

For you Obama supporter can you state why Obama passed Obamacare – then gave waivers to hundreds of companies… I would like to know also why they twisted the facts on the Libyan fiasco? I checked with a friend who had family in Libya and the consulate knew there was danger and asked for more protection. But when you are too busy winning the conversation and visiting the “view” small details get lost – oh like the guns in Mexico. I could forgive the administration for all this if I really thought they had a clue on how to run government – but judging from the debate here – it’s more of the same – all talk and no results…now is the time for change – any change is better that the malaise that is gripping the country – show the socialist the door…

Oct 08, 2012 4:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

@Adam.Smith – I’m a little confused myself about that.

Than what is the “Arab” spring supposed to be about? Pan Arabism started about the same time as Zionism was first dreamed up. I still can’t understand why it is a great crime for organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood to exist (or used to be in US and Russian backed ME regimes) and yet “Zionism”, a fundamentalist religious idea if there ever was one – is somehow just fine? Are the Palestinians considered the “blacks” of the ME? Maybe so? They were backwards farmers with no tradition of self determination. If they have progressed to the point where they could actually rule themselves, they can’t thank the Israeli’s for that advancement, except, perhaps, that they could find low wage employment there and in any other state that would have them. They can thank the UN for keeping them alive and allowing them to get educated.

The Indians could actually look to the British – in spite of British racial policies – for actually staffing many of the Raj’s important political and cultural positions with native Indians. The Israeli’s have lived with an apartheid policy for decades. It is racist, for lack of a better term, and no amount of double talk or tricky framing of the question is going to change that fact. The Israelis owe a lot of money to displaced Palestinians who were forced to flee during the earlier wars that resulted from Israeli’s decision to alter the original borders that were established by the UN. I read that UN record and it was obvious the wars were begun because Israel changed to maps unilaterally and the settlements were an attempt to continue that process by passive acquisition. It has been called an attempt to establish facts on the ground. Remember the term Palestinians “Bantustans”. The Palestinians weren’t doing that to themselves. The Israeli’s always start “negotiations with the idea that there are facts on the ground they cannot give up and there is no concern for the “security” of the Palestinian side. There are no genuine negotiations if one side refuses to allow, or clings to, claims the other side is not permitted.

The fact that Israel allowed 1 million Arabs to remain doesn’t quite excuse the exclusion of all those in the West Bank. Do they enjoy all the rights and prerogatives of “Jewish” inhabitants of Israel?

I didn’t invent the policies or practices or even the names for what the media claims is going on there. To be sure, and I’ve read about it myself, that Arabs can live in Israel. Do they get access to state supported housing? Do they also live in the settlements in the West bank? Do they have to be fairly affluent to qualify and are they new arrivals or survivors of the modified borders? Why not fold both sides into a combined state and make it constitutionally impossible for one religious or ethnic identity to dominate the other? Make Israel the truly sophisticated and liberal society it claims to be?

And what is Israel protecting by trying to maintain the dominant ethnic, religious or linguistic presence in either Israel or the West Bank settlements? I don’t have any reason as a citizen of the US to like the way the Israeli’s do things or to believe their rational or their excuses. We don’t do that in the US and it isn’t legal. There are aborigines in the US who live on reservations but were never required by law (only social pressure and white racism) to remain on them if they could find lives elsewhere. You don’t help the Israeli cause by citing abuses – if they are? – for the rest of the regimes in the area. It just says they’re no better than the rest. So why are the Israeli’s worth such enormous protection and the risk of continual conflict in the name of – What?

BTW – I think one reason why Palestinians wind up staying in refugee camps everywhere. It that they fled their former homes bankrupt and destitute and it took decades to regain some semblance of a quality of life. They weren’t getting much help from anyone except the never so wealth Russians. They are not part of a cultural or religious identity like the Israeli’s that could look to much outside support. The ME economies were also too small to absorb the refugees in vast numbers. Now that is changing and the US and Israel are not at all comfortable with that fact.

“Politics” (and development) “always seems to grow from the point of a gun” as Mao said. But it really helps those developments if the results more or less agree with the laws of the countries that support them.

Oct 08, 2012 4:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

“Hope is not a strategy.” Indeed.

After staging a coup in the first debate, Romney is not setting the table for the next two. Expect Obama to come after him, criticizing specific things he said in this speech. Which won’t work at all, because Romney has deftly left enough specifics out parry potential the barbs and counter the criticisms. Romney has been rope-a-doping Obama for a while now. It’s just like Van Jones said: “Romney is able to out-Obama Obama.”

Down with Hope! Rope-a-dope!

Oct 08, 2012 4:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

How could anyone really knows what Romney intends to do. He lies and changes his direction on an hourly basis. Just because he is spouting his tough stance while running for election means nothing.. He could be a peacenik? He did spend time in France and is a morman after all.

Oct 08, 2012 4:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
hginandon wrote:

The only foreign thing Romney knows about is the Cayman Islands. You have to be kidding with this article.

Oct 08, 2012 4:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Romney avoided the draft by claiming to be a “minister of the Mormon Faith”, and that he (and Mormons) did not believe in war.
So this guy wants to be Commander in Chief of the world’s super power that maintains peace on the planet?
Ridiculous concept.
Even more ridiculous, the war hawk party nominating him.

Oct 08, 2012 4:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

Also, the argument that Romney has no foreign policy experience is not valid. Obama had no foreign policy experience in 2008 but has been a better foreign policy President than Bush, who had a lot more foreign policy experience to that point.

Generals lose wars when they fight on the premises of previous wars. Obama is fighting in this election against a previous opponent.

Oct 08, 2012 4:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

Sensibility wrote:
“Expect Obama to come after him, criticizing specific things he said in this speech.”

I.E. hold him accountable for his words, which is EXACTLY what should be done in a debate. And only you would call giving vague plan after vague plan “deft”. “Daft” is more like it!

Oct 08, 2012 4:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Talleyrand02 wrote:

I am not sure why this man is even close to winning the election (if he’ll win at all). hew wants to go about nationbuilding like the solid neocon he is, but he is living in Cold War days. Those days are gone for good.There is no US exceptionalism. We need quieter diplomacy, not some Incredible Hulk strutting about the place.

Oct 08, 2012 4:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RynoM wrote:

Overall his policy points are very much like what Obama has been doing, with the exception of the aggressive neocon overtones. In other words, like pre-campaign Romney himself, before he brought the neocons on board. Ordinarily this shift back to the center would be reassuring, except that at this point I have no idea what Romney really believes, or what he would do when President. I have to say I don’t trust him to be honest with us.

Oct 08, 2012 4:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MKM23 wrote:

Romney’s money has more foreign policy than Romney himself.

Oct 08, 2012 4:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
yubamary wrote:

@xit007. you siad it right in both of your posts. People have to start listening for themselves instead of being lead by the media. We can’t keep going with the current administration. The Middle-East doesn’t understand nice talk. We need to give someone else a chance in November because the way we are going is just not cutting it. And as for the people that say Romney doesn’t give specifics, I don’t remember Obama giving specifics in 2008.

Oct 08, 2012 5:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Eideard wrote:

Any idea who actually wrote this crap for Romney? Dick Cheney?

Oct 08, 2012 5:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Eideard wrote:

Any idea who actually wrote this crap for Romney? Dick Cheney?

Oct 08, 2012 5:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

Romney’s policy: Get a bunch of your private school buddies, hold down small countries and cut their hair off. That will teach them to respect you, through fear.

A simple and elegant way to diplomacy and world peace.

Oct 08, 2012 5:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Timbuk3 wrote:

@ Sensability: Bush had more foreign policy credentials? I agree with some of your opinions but I think you are completely wrong on this one. Bush never once travelled outside the United States before his presidency.

I have a Japanese friend who says that the slang word in Japan for vomit is “do the Bush” for when Bush threw up over their during a meeting during an official visit. Not really carrying a gleaming torch of dignity.

Oct 08, 2012 5:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

War = $$$$$ for Private Profiteers.

Not much to do with serious competitive threat / protection.

Much to reckless disregard of strife of people on both sides.

Is Romney yet another war-monger in the works?

Oct 08, 2012 5:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

@yubamary: ‘The Middle-East doesn’t understand nice talk.’

Did you ever stop and think that the Middle East couldn’t care less about what way you talk? Who exactly are you, as Americans, to dictate anything to anyone?

Take out a map and remind yourself of where your borders are. Seems for some of you it’s all become a little fuzzy.

Oct 08, 2012 5:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
checkthefacts wrote:

I don’t understand why people think Obama has any foreign policy credibility. Obama wanted to keep troops in iraq longer than bushs timeline for withdrawal. In afghanistan 70% of the deaths and 80% of the injuries happened under Obamas watch. You have the failure in libya and protests in over 20 countries. That never happened under bush and he started 2 wars.

Oct 08, 2012 6:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Where does Romney stand on China? Romney was against the recent tariff placed on Chinese tires being dumped into the U.S. market. Is he still against it? In all fairness, Romney was speaking to a group of international business colleagues when he was against the tariff. But he has not stated any new positions on it other than that he plans to now ‘get tought with China.’ You romney apologists have been unable to answer these very simple questions. Is Romney for tariffs against China or against them?

Oct 08, 2012 6:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LH56 wrote:

Romney want to arm the Syrian insurgents? Unbelievable! That strategy has never come back to bite us. Do conservatives have any kind of foreign policy that does not involve throwing more weapons at it or starting new wars?

Oct 08, 2012 6:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoeObserver wrote:

Romney is a genuine guy. He calls a spade a spade. He even said ” I am not like a Brit who says a thing that he doesn’t mean it. I am a straightforward person”. He also said that He didn’t like some Fed officials including Bernanke who are endangering world economy by their irresponsible policies and that he would restructure the Fed if he were elected.

Oct 08, 2012 6:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
happy_12 wrote:

A cockroach has more brain then him when it comes to foreign policy. Where is the USA on the map Romney?

Oct 08, 2012 6:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney promises to ‘resurrect’ Bush doctrine. Offers photos of weapons of mass destruction. “I am able to see what no other man is able to see. Give me one trillion dollars and 4,000 U.S. flag caskets…. and democracy will flower in the desert.”

Halliburton wins…… you lose.

Oct 08, 2012 6:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LelioRisen wrote:

The only thing that is weak and dangerous on foreign policy is Mitt Romney himself.

As he said when he thought no one was listening, he will do whatever it takes to capitalize on any foreign policy tragedy to enhance his political fortunes. And we saw how that turned out.

Mr. Romney had 4 deferments to avoid serving in the military. He has 5 grown sons. None of them were in the military. And this man is giving advice on military matters?

Oct 08, 2012 6:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TZA wrote:

Romney stated during the first Republican debate that he would go to war with Iran. He wants to add Syria to the list. There is no reason for the US to be at war in the Middle East. I bet he’d have a different attitude if his sons were being shipped over there to fight for oil.

Oct 08, 2012 6:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

JoeObserver writes: “Romney is a genuine guy.”

That needs no further punchline. Google ’47%’ and his multiple takes on that group alone (including his bizarre apology to the 47% last week) and if you think that is genuine, I have some genuine snake oil – from a real snake – that I can sell you online.

Oct 08, 2012 6:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DuneSurf wrote:

The Republicans always try to scare Americans with fear. Their poor policies are what got America into all the oil wars. All roads lead to Texas and Mitt’s financiers.

GOP history is attempting to repeat itself. Question is, will Americans be fooled yet again by this obsessive, compuslive lying presidential candidate?

Oct 08, 2012 6:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WBGriffin wrote:

For someone who has been able to put his foot in it with several countries even before (possibly) getting into the Presidential Office this takes a lot of gall.

Oct 08, 2012 6:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CMEBARK wrote:

This guy wants to increase defense spending to 4% GNP. This is pay back the moneys spent by the military-industrial complex Ike warned us of in the ’50s. This guy is a loose cannon.

Oct 08, 2012 6:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Adam_Smith wrote:

“… a nuclear program the West believes is aimed at producing atomic bombs.”

Who exactly is “the West” that believes this? According to a Reuters special report it isn’t the intelligence agencies:

“(Reuters) – The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/uk-iran-usa-nuclear-idUKBRE82M0GI20120323

Who “believes” Iran’s program is is aimed at producing atomic bombs is most likely the same parties that falsely accused Iraq of the same thing in order to provoke a war.

Oct 08, 2012 6:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Just about everything Romney said he would do with regards to US Foreign Policy, particularly in the Middle East, is already being done by the Obama Administration.

The Iranian currency is collapsing due to Obama and the Western coalition tightening the noose of the sanctions that have been in place since Bush, for example.

There are many other examples of this. Read around the web today. There are several articles from different organizations pointing out the extraneous and superfluous “plans” that Romney has for the Middle East and US Foreign Policy.

He also said at VMI today that, “It is the duty of the president to use great American power to shape world history”, and that the US should “lead the Middle East”.

That’s funny. Nowhere in Article II, Sections 1-4 of the US Constitution outlining the powers and duties of the Executive Power does it say “it is the responsibility of the president to use US power to shape world history”.

Nor does it say that we should “lead the Middle East”, or any other region of the world that is not under US sovereignty or dominion.

I thought that we believed in “freedom”, “liberty” and “democracy”, and that the peoples and nations of the world should have the right to determine their own destiny? Yes? No?

Maybe we just like to talk big and noble about grandiose ideals, meanwhile “spreading some ‘democracy’” with our terrifyingly gargantuan military.

We have become grotesque hypocrites if we think we’re supposed to “lead” sovereign, independent nations. And the impression I get is that the Middle East, and most of the rest of the world, would appreciate it if we would get our noses out of everybody else’s business.

Oct 08, 2012 6:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

“Romney is a genuine guy. He calls a spade a spade.” He also calls a spade a club, and a diamond, and a heart, all depending on who he’s talking to. Why do you engage in posting such utter nonsense? Do you think you’re convincing someone? If I go around repeating that Obama is a gregarious extrovert who loves to schmooze with other politicians, then do you think that that will somehow make it so? You pick the least defensible characteristic and claim that that’s Romney. Say Romney is a good business man, say Romney is a good debater, say Romney is a good family man, but don’t say Romney is a genuine guy. He’s a lot of things, but he ain’t no genuine guy.

As I’ve stated earlier, Romney’s a megalomaniac and a compulsive liar. Even his own adviser referred to Romney as being like an etch-a-sketch. You can’t be both an etch-a-sketch AND a genuine guy. Did you not listen to what Romney was saying when he was secretly video taped? He dismissed 47% of the American people, calling them lazy moochers, and the truth is that he described a lot more than just 47% of the American population. He attacks them for not paying income taxes, yet he pays an army of accountants to keep HIM from having to pay income taxes, and for all we know there are years he DIDN’T pay taxes, because this “genuine guy,” this “straightforward person” refused to release his income tax returns like all other Presidential candidates. Why? Why should he be held to a different standard than everyone else? He pulled the same “privileged” crap during the Vietnam War. He protested in favor of the war and then when it came his turn to serve he skips town and goes to France, while others were risking all for this country. And now when it suits him he wants to lead the same country he abandoned? I don’t think so.

A genuine or straightforward guy doesn’t flip-flop on every issue he’s asked about. If Romney was straightforward, we’d know just what we’d be getting, but we don’t. Now we can’t be sure what he intends to do with Medicare, Medicaid or our healthcare system in general. During the debate he flat denied that his healthcare plan would deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions, but again it took one of his own advisers to point out that this is not the case. He’s been saying that he’d cut taxes across the board, but during the debate he claimed that taxes on the rich would not be cut. Romney is the biggest liar to come this close to being our President. It makes no sense to elect someone who’s unable to tell us what he stands for.

Oct 08, 2012 6:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MarkSW wrote:

Romney couldn’t even handle a simple trip to the London olympics without offending everyone and making a complete a*s of himself on the international scene, and he has the nerve to critique the President on foreign policy?! Mitt, you are a complete JOKE.

Oct 08, 2012 6:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Gman123 wrote:

About time we get a leader that can prevent a major disaster here on our homeland. Peace through strength.

Oct 08, 2012 6:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney needs your sons for more war and foreign intervention. His 5 sons are busy on his campaign.

Regardless of what Romney says, never forget this one simple thing about his familiy and their true priorities:

6 men, 4 wars, no service.

Oct 08, 2012 6:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney declares he now has strong evidence to prove…. The Ukraine is pursuing a nuclear program. Elevated radioactivity levels around the city of Chernobyl.

Oct 08, 2012 7:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

yubamary wrote:
“And as for the people that say Romney doesn’t give specifics, I don’t remember Obama giving specifics in 2008.”

Then you have the memory of a goldfish. Obama promised

1) Close Guantanamo Bay
2) Let Bush-Era Tax Cuts Expire
3) Create a $ 10 billion fund to prevent foreclosures
4) Immigration reform
5) Pull troops out of Iraq
6) Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
7) Sign a Universal Health Care law

Now, while Obama didn’t achieve all these goals, at least he was able to give specifics for the path he wanted to take the nation. Furthermore, those items not achieved are either the result of the GOP using a record-number of filibusters, the result of the GOP playing chicken with the global economy, or are actions I have even less confidence Romney would do.

Oct 08, 2012 7:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
FilmNoirFan wrote:

“accused Obama of failing to use U.S. diplomacy ”

I didn’t think Romney knew what the word diplomacy meant since he didn’t show any last month when he was the one who opened his big mouth before learning of all the facts.

It is dangerous to act first and find out the facts later when you have access to nuclear weapons. I Romney were president on this past 9/11, we’d be in war right now.

Oct 08, 2012 7:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

Will any of his kids be signing up for these new wars as part of acting tough? All talk and no action easy to be a tough warmonger when you know tht nne of your kids or grandkids will be put in harms way.

Oct 08, 2012 7:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bfstk wrote:

No Mitt. Your policies are dangerous and reckless. You shoot before you know the facts. You are a loose canon, a pile of combustible material ready to explode. It is written all over you. It’s your nature. A Mitt
Romney presidency would prove to be the undoing of America.
President Obama a thoughtful man coolly weighs the options and consults before jumping to make a decision. Romney would other countries making our foreign policy, a bad idea. He is a flip flopper who isn’t worthy of trust and will isolate us from our friends throughout the world. In short,Romney Ryan two pigs in a poke and they ain’t worth buying.

Oct 08, 2012 7:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BadWhisky wrote:

More agressive, doesn’t nessicarily mean boots on the ground , it means giving those folks something to think about, something to fear. Fear in Islam translates to respect which also translates to less BS from fear of the reaction. The Iranians releasing the hostages on the day Reagan took the oath of office wasn’t an accident, it was an understanding of the man and the possibility of what he might do as opposed to the weak Carter.

Oct 08, 2012 7:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TimCrowleyUSA wrote:

He just wants to hasten Armageddon. It’s what his religion teaches.

Oct 08, 2012 8:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ofilha wrote:

And Romney looks like a bipolar foreign policy maker. He is MR fixer even if there is nothing to be fixed. He wants us to believe that somehow the whole world is falling apart because of Obama and ignores the fact that his party was in power before and during the financial meltdown and started two wars with no end in sight. Now they want control to “fix” things, but i would say that they won’t fix them but will make it worst.

Oct 08, 2012 8:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ofilha wrote:

@xit007
I would be careful about using friends in libya as your source. I have friends in the middle east and they do not all agree on the same thing. What you are doing is basically hearsay without any real foundation. Was it a fiasco? You mean like the one of invading Iraq on some false pretense and destroy a country and its people without making anything better?

Oct 08, 2012 8:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
nypiff00 wrote:

bahaha Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous says romney??.. what a joke.. romney’s foreign policy will be just as dangerous.. maybe even more dangerous! the same people who control Obama are the same people who control romney.. there will be no change, same gov’t more wars and loss of our constitutional rights here at home.

look up obamas and romneys top campaign contributors!. wake up.

Oct 08, 2012 8:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WavyChips wrote:

Now the real Romney is coming. He now says he wants war in the Middle East.

Oct 08, 2012 8:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

@checkthefacts
“You have the failure in libya and protests in over 20 countries. That never happened under bush and he started 2 wars.”

Seriously? There were huge protests going on in the countries of our own allies and in our own country!

Oct 08, 2012 9:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ncpg wrote:

No doubt. Obama’s “head in the sand” approach gets good people killed.

Oct 08, 2012 9:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Butch_from_PA wrote:

No doubt more young testosterone filled messed up Americans with missing limbs, brain damage and anger for fighting a useless war will be coming to live in your neighborhood. God Bless America – we blow em up good.

What is the difference between a young terrorist and a USA marine? Not much – just fighting for 2 different lies.

A vote for Romney is a vote for war and a vote for a huge depression when it’s time to pay for the war. Oh and by the way – not a war for America. A war for halfway around the world that will never make a difference – just for those making profit from war.

You are damned if you do – damned if you do. One for war, and profits, the other for patronage and money wasting government waste.

Makes me wish for Vodoo economics.

Oct 08, 2012 9:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jjmciny wrote:

Oh great…George Bush the III. Let’s go over and pick a fight with Iran, a country that presents little threat to our own homeland, a country with no credible navy, air force or ICBM’s….so we can kill thousands our men (probably even some local kids I know) and tens of thousands of their men, women, and children.

Gas can go to $8.00 which will totally decimate the economy of the USA. To pay for it we’ll have a tax cut for the wealthy until they feel properly stimulated. Then we’ll claim the reason we’re broke is because of SSI and the answer is to raise the offical retirement age to about 70+.

Ol’ Georgie damn near broke this country with his two unfunded wars and tax cut and now we can elect his protege’ to finish us off. If we elect this man we deserve what we get. Every Country that in the history of the world that tried to have an Empire broke themselves…Spain, France, England, Portugal, Dutch, Germany, Ottoman, USSR and biggest of all Rome. Next will be the USA and we’ll have done it to ourselves. So vote for him and and accelerate the downfall. We need to pay our bills first before we take on another boondaggle in the middle east.

Oct 08, 2012 9:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dump28usn wrote:

Obama’s foreign policy thus far has been a disaster. He has spit in the Israeli’s face and kissed the Arabs where they sit. He has shown the terrorist that he is weak and they now can do pretty much whatever they want to. He’s pissed off various friendly countries all over the globe, yet he goes merrily on his way, thinking he’s successful and is loved by all. It is impossible to really understand what the man is doing for our country as he has done nothing so far. He has shown that he is totally unqualified to be President and yet people like him? I simply can’t understand that but I hope that the American voters can see through his smoke and mirrors and vote him out of office. I don’t want to see a “hanging chad” type victory for Governor Romney, I want to see Obama slam dunked and see if he has that smug look on his face then.

Oct 08, 2012 9:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

The U.S. has NO presence in the Middle East or elsewhere. Obama is a weak president and the rest of the world not only sees it, but openly mocks him and us. The POTUS has done nothing but apoligize for all American occupations and actions, and caused a serious threat to our troops (the staggering number of our soldiers shot in the back in Afghanistan is an example).

All Obama appears to want to do is let the U.N. command our military, so he can continue his four-year campaign to save his own skin.

Oct 08, 2012 10:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaywellington wrote:

The fact that Romney is perceived as a hawk could calm the region down. The weakness of Obama has dangers.

Oct 08, 2012 10:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

@ Butch from PA,

You should just go ahead and surrender you U.S. citizenship, since you obviously hate this country so much. As for wars, get over it…it’s the human condition. Just laying down and becoming zen with the world will get you enslaved. It looks like that what the majority of posters here want, but don’t beleive it will happen.

Those Marines you are so flippantly calling terrorists are keeping you and your’s from becoming just another goat herder strapped with bombs…and that makes me sick just to think we have Americans who think like you.

Oct 08, 2012 10:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
lfhhknwhd wrote:

The Lier in Chief… Is the Lier in Chief…

Oct 08, 2012 10:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
chadp71 wrote:

I know all of you Obama supporters race to Reuters to post your belief..But do you really think the world would be a better place when Iran has a nuke? Also do you think Iran would even be playing this game if they thought Obama would give them a smack down?

Oct 08, 2012 10:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

NO MO BO 2012!

Oct 08, 2012 10:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sixtieschild wrote:

You don’t beat a bully by letting him get his way. We USED TO BE a super power in the world. Today we are weak and even our warriors aren’t supported like they used to be. My Dad came home from the Second World War AND the Korean War a medaled hero, not traumatized – because our country made the men who fought for us look and feel like heros, instead of holding up some stupid movie stars. Confetti parades, war gardens, flags all over…because it was NOT the United States of different opinions and religions – it was America, home of the free because we were a strong Christian nation, and home of the brave because that is what we produced and appreciated. Now you want us to leave the Middle East alone after attacking us? Old America would have said NOT AN OPTION. I hate what our country has become.

Oct 08, 2012 11:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
David86 wrote:

I think that it’s important that people have some perspective. There have been some recent protests in Libya and Egypt and less than 10 people were killed. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars hundreds of thousands of people were killed, including thousands of US and allied troops. This recent uprising isn’t a major conflict for the region.

Also, increasing the US presence in other countries is extremely costly. It’s wasting tax payers money on fixing problems overseas rather than at home. The money could be spent on improving schools, hospitals and roads. The US army is larger than the 10 countries following it combined. Keep the anti-terrorism work up sure, but noone is going to mess with you.

Romney is wasting your money.

Oct 08, 2012 11:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4Tish wrote:

international partners??

like the money to flow to Egypt as long as the State Department …..

Where are these remarks coming from????

Are ya’ll register to vote?

Oct 08, 2012 12:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
FOsama wrote:

Strenght in the U.S. by deterrent.
Obama’a plan, Appease and pray for hope. Like Neville Chamberlain appeased t Hitler and lost Europe

Oct 09, 2012 1:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
angellight wrote:

Romney failed the foreign policy test by saying one) There will never be peace between Israel & Palestine and two) advising Iran on bombing a U.S. City. These statements can be heard in the secret video where the real Romney was speaking.

Oct 09, 2012 7:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAmerican wrote:

Romney never made a single foreign policy speech or wrote a single foreign affairs paper in his life and I doubt he knows history. He is a money guy, a CEO and a Governor – which is great. I think the US needs a smart thrifty Mormon money guy to put the nation on a sound fiscal footing.
But he has handed all foreign affairs over to the neocon-military warmonger wing of the GOP – and that’s bad for him and the GOP.
If Romney wasn’t disinterested in history and foreign affairs, he wouldn’t have enlisted these reckless warmongers, who will drag his campaign down to defeat. The LAST thing the aware American public wants is more “American leadership” – aka American WAR – in the Middle East. The GOP is hoping 4 years is enough to shrug off Cheney-Bush, but no way. Iraq happened. Cheney happened. Wolfowitz, Perle – all of them happened, we were scammed and it blew up in our faces. This Republican won’t let his party off the hook until these imposters are rooted out.

Oct 09, 2012 8:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
lloydc1234 wrote:

The generals, security advisors, Congressional committee members who advise presidents will not allow Romney nor Obama to endager the defense of our nation. Red herring from Romney!

Oct 09, 2012 8:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pluscard2 wrote:

Obamas mission right now is to paint Romney as an “unacceptable” choice to replace him for POTUS. Most would agree Obama has failed, but Obama and the media have done a pretty good job with their Romney character assassination. The so called “gaffs” on Romneys trip were either orchestrated by the media, or just plain spin.

The debate proved Romney is not the crazyman Obama would have us believe. Which brings the next question… if Romney really is a decent guy – what else is the Obama administration misleading us about?

Oct 09, 2012 9:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SpeaktheTruth wrote:

A much filled gaffed overseas trip?

Can you take the time to e plain where the gaffe was?

A much criticized quick reaction to the Libya attack?

And whom did the criticizing?

The Obama friendly media….

The same media that refused to condemn Reid for getting caught BLATANTLY lying about Romney being a felon….

The same media that did not report the truth about Obama stating that the Government acting in a racist matter in Katrina….

Nor that Obama is actually losing this election by a wide margin…

Not that Obama is taking tens of millions of dollars from overseas
That Obama is a fraud through and through…

And the Libya comment that was MUCH CITICIZED?

Turns out he was right….

But hey, no need to go there…

Oct 09, 2012 10:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SpeaktheTruth wrote:

I say we keep the Muslim sympathizer in office so we can have that nice black Al Qeada flag hanging over Washington…

You know, the same flag they hung in Cairo, Egypt, Syria, and Libya….

Wait a second, Obama supported all of those uprisings….

Hey, but his foregon policy is great….

Oct 09, 2012 10:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
robcip wrote:

The hypocritical Romney/Ryan Campaign is weak, dangerous and inexperienced, not to mention a couple of liars that have their own agenda for the rich. They are not to be trusted running this country. We will be set back 20 years with these two running our country into the ground once again.

Oct 09, 2012 10:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GST72 wrote:

Obama has one plan and that is to make America into a European Union type socialist state and to turn his back on Amrica’s role of leadership. His personal feelings against “colonialism” by America and European countries continuously clouds his view and vision of US foriegn policy and leadership. Obama aligns his personal beliefs with that of the Arab/Islamic countries and the organizations sworn to destroy the west; he vilifies allies and friends. He has brought the world to the brink of World War III in the Middle East and he does not comprehennd what he has done.

Oct 09, 2012 10:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
B_Paul wrote:

A quick look back shows that Obama’s foreign policy shows it’s incoherent and dangerous to America. The only thing keeping Obama afloat is the deception from the media. Time to turn off the mainstream media for good. Get your news somewhere else and you’ll be insulted by how much you have been lied to.

Oct 09, 2012 10:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
nonyaman wrote:

While Romney was at the Va. Military Inst. talking cogently about foreign affairs and acting like a commander in chief, Obama was releasing a ridiculous ad about Big Bird.
Kinda says it all doesn’t it folks?

Oct 09, 2012 11:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RexMax46 wrote:

@ B_Paul
Where, exactly, do you get your information from?

Oct 09, 2012 6:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marcus1000 wrote:

Unfortunately we’re back to fear and hate again. I thought we were through with this when Bush was booted out, but Romneys starting it all over again.

Oct 12, 2012 11:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marcus1000 wrote:

Unfortunately we’re back to fear and hate again. I thought we were through with this when Bush was booted out, but Romneys starting it all over again.

Oct 12, 2012 11:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Decatur wrote:

GST,

“America is the only world power with an ‘anti-colonial’ history”

Who said that?

Ike

He saw the cost of WW2 and did not make it a war or follow-up to shed American blood to restore old world empires.

He may have seen the colonial attitudes of 1919 peace treaty and the mess they led to even after WW2.

The anti-colonial charge against Obama is historically ignorant – so far off base it’s almost comical.

Oct 13, 2012 1:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
HOLECHIT wrote:

The last advise anyone should take comes from the VANISHING Bush war lords.Yes they have advise,just the kind a person like Mitt who may change his mind next week needs seeing how the only policy on China he has ever had was where the labor ws the cheapest.

Oct 14, 2012 6:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.