"Mitt Romney’s speech at VMI today confirmed every realist’s and non-interventionist’s worst fears about him: not only is his foreign-policy vision indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush — except that it may be more utopian and Wilsonian — but there’s no indication that any realist has the slightest influence on his strategic thinking.
That includes political realists: anyone who might convey to Mitt what a price the GOP paid for Bush’s wars in 2006 and 2008 — the price it will pay again in 2012, the way Mitt is going. Romney promised military Kenyesianism and was as demagogic as the best-paid Pentagon lobbyist in claiming ‘our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut.’" …
“This was not a speech he had to make — a speech distracting from the ground Romney had recently made up by refocusing his attention on the plight of America’s middle class. And if he had to make a foreign-policy speech, it did not have to cater to the neoconservatives and pork hawks already on his team. Nothing in this speech appeals to a war-weary and economically troubled people. It’s politically damaging. But he gave this speech anyway, and the only reasonable explanation is either that Mitt really believes — zealously — what he says, or else he’s entirely compliant to the ideological demands of right-wing Wilsonians. I suspect the latter is the case, and that portends a Romney presidency that would repeat all the errors of his Republican predecessor. The issue here is not even a reckless foreign policy versus a domestic policy that may give Republicans grounds for hope: a foreign policy like this will not permit much of a domestic policy at all. It will consume a presidency, just as it consumed George W. Bush’s.” …
Indeed. It was a mess.
Fred Kaplan over at Slate has an article called “Mitt Romney’s Most Dishonest Speech, ” which sorts through a bunch of the speech’s claims. I don’t really think the meat of the article lives up to the title, mostly cataloging what seems to be pretty commonplace conservative rhetoric.
Romney’s full quote: “When millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, ‘Are you with us, or are you with them?’ – the American president was silent.”
Did Obama give an answer to that question? No. He basically said “Can’t we all get along?”. E.g. he was silent on the specific question as to whether the US would support the protesters.
Also, contrary to Romney’s lie, there are, in fact, U.S. troops still in Iraq. However, even if there weren’t, it wouldn’t be the president’s fault, given that Republicans in Congress voted against funding to send troops back in to train and assist Iraqi security forces.
And you’ll note that I’m providing an extremely right-wing cite that is actually opposed to these additional troops that President Obama has in there.
This reminds me of what my Sunday School teacher used to tell me - sometimes God answers or prayers by saying no.
In this case Obama and his administration clearly said “no” to the question of whether we would support the revolution. One can argue about whether this is correct (an argument Romney does not make), but you can’t say he was silent. In fact, he rather contentiously said that there wasn’t much difference between Mousavi and Ahmedinijad.
Basically, “what the government is doing is wrong and they should stop, but we aren’t going to commit to a response if they don’t”. Which is basically what I said above: (some of) the protestors asked for help and the US said no.
No is an answer - it may not be the answer you and Mr. Romney think we should have given, but it’s not silence. If you think we should have supported a revolution in Iran then make that argument.
How about force projection capability? Or a by-class analysis of ships?
Total number of ships is just about the dumbest way to measure the power of a Navy.
On the trade agreements part, if you want to hang your hat on the notion that a trade agreement isn’t new if the previous administration worked on one, even if it was completely renegotiated, go for it - but I’d be embarrassed.