Reply With Quote
"foreign-policy setbacks that make the Barack Obama of 2008 look naïve and opportunistic,"
which setbacks?
The economist takes Mitt to task for his irresponsible and naive foreign policy bullpucky. (with a rightful ding to the Nobel dorks for Obama's "not Bush" award)
(full article here)IF MITT ROMNEY'S latest foreign-policy speech, delivered to the Virginia Military Ins ute on October 8th amid much build-up from campaign aides, was a barnburner, it would have to be a small and highly flammable barn.
Moderate Massachusetts Mitt Romney, the self-assured centrist who made such a splash at the first presidential debate last week, put in another appearance in Virginia, delivering a more-cautious-than-expected attack on Barack Obama’s foreign-policy record—one that carefully avoided blaming the president or his diplomacy for the murderous attacks in Benghazi that left America’s ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three colleagues, dead.
True, in its main signposts and landmarks, it was a traditional conservative speech, with references to Churchill, the cold war, America holding a lamp of freedom aloft for the world to see, and Reaganesque talk of achieving “peace through strength”.
But in its main line of attack—an opportunistic claim that the in bent president had foolishly failed to see a magic strategy that would vastly increase American influence in the world and defang the nation’s foes—the speech reminded Lexington curiously of another presidential candidate closer to the present day, Barack Obama in 2008.
...
The problem was that foreign policy is easier to critique than to fix. To give a name check to Robert Cooper, a British and European Union diplomat, former Blair adviser and all-round sage whom I quoted in a piece last week anonymously, the trouble with foreign policy is that it involves foreigners, and they do not always do that you want.
Carping opposition politicians, laying into an in bent for failing to right the world’s wrongs, have a right to criticise, but then must offer a credible answer to the counter-question: well, what are you going to do about it, then?
Mr Romney’s speech failed that test several times. Thus, though he is right to point to foreign-policy setbacks that make the Barack Obama of 2008 look naïve and opportunistic, his own analysis is not any less opportunistic, and no less cheap.
...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...foreign-policy
We are not impressed.
"foreign-policy setbacks that make the Barack Obama of 2008 look naïve and opportunistic,"
which setbacks?
Afghanistan comes to mind.
(in b4 blame Bush)
how was Barry to blame Afghanistan? His surge didn't work, trying to fix dubya's disaster, but neither did dubya's Iraq surge didn't work, either.
what else?
You answered your own question, B...
As for what else - renewing the Patriot Act, signing off on NDAA, ramping up the TSA abuses, and expanding Dubya's uncons utional drone warfare, for starters.....
Not that Willard would be any better, he's just friendlier with Netanyahu, tbh....
NDAA, Patriot, TSA aren't "foreign policy" failures", and even if we don't like them, they appear to succeed.
btw, the detested Petraeus/SOCOM drone, bad guy murders, etc are probably succeeding, also.
what foreign policies have failed, other the the Afghan surge, which was continuation of dubya's up. Hardly a creative, original foreign policy initiative.
OMFG. Bookmarked.
blueteam_ proving once again that he's a brainless partisan sycophant
Does this mean you're officially retiring your "MIC/VWRC/1% surveillance state can't be stopped" rant?
They're probably succeeding, so they are A-OK!!
so you think Petraeus and drones are FAILING to murder people?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
