NYT's David Sanger dissects the vague, confused foreign policy address Romney will give today

[highplainsdem]

The Romney campaign released the speech to the media. My first thought when I read it was that it seemed weak and confused.

Sanger's comments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/us/politics/romney-remains-vague-on-foreign-policy-details.html

Indeed, while the theme Mr. Romney plans to hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by “weakness” and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran’s nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama’s approach.

And the speech appears to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it “mission creep and mission muddle,” though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was “just no way” a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.

Mr. Romney’s Monday speech calls vaguely for support of Libya’s “efforts to forge a lasting government” and to pursue the “terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.” And he said he would “recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security” with Israel. But he does not say what resources he would devote to those tasks.

The shifts, a half dozen of Mr. Romney’s advisers said in interviews, partly reflect the fact that the candidate himself has not deeply engaged in these issues for most of the campaign, certainly not with the enthusiasm, and instincts, he has on domestic economic issues. But they also represent continuing divisions.

-snip-

Two of Mr. Romney’s advisers said he did not seem to have the strong instincts that he has on economic issues; he resonates best, one said, to the concept of “projecting strength” and “restoring global economic growth.” But he has appeared unconcerned about the widely differing views within his own campaign about whether spreading American-style freedoms in the Middle East or simply managing, and limiting, the rise of Islamist governments should be a major goal.

And that has led to some embarrassing confusion. Mr. Williamson said in an interview two weeks ago that Mr. Romney favored arming the Syrian rebels, then called back to say that, in fact, Mr. Romney favored having Arab neighbors arm them, a position fairly close to Mr. Obama’s. In the speech he is to give on Monday, Mr. Romney calls for organizing “members of the opposition who share our values” and ensuring “they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.” But he stops short of saying he would provide them himself.

-snip-

In the V.M.I. speech, he returns to the promise to “prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.” But he discusses primarily “new sanctions on Iran,” at a moment when Mr. Obama has imposed what Republicans from the Bush administration agree are the most severe sanctions in history, and combined them with cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

-snip-

[msongs]

1. it's all about looking "presidential", not the content...worked so well at the debate did it not? nt

[Tx4obama]

2. Check this out, more regarding Romney's foreign speech planned for tomorrow, below

Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)

See Comment #6 on the link below for a good summary of Romney's speech that includes commentary regarding both Romney and Obama

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251125560

And also on the link about check out the OP and comment #3 too.




Edited to add the correct link.

[highplainsdem]

4. ???? The link is to a topic on the Stewart/O'Reilly debate.

[Tx4obama]

5. Oops, sorry. Here's the correct link below

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251125560

[madrchsod]

3. it sort of boils down to trust does`t it...

do we trust obama with the on going war on iran or mittens? regardless who it will be ,sometime in the near future someone is going to have to blink

will it be the next president or the men behind the curtain in iran?