At the New York Times, Danielle Pletka writes that Mitt Romney needs to do more than simply criticize President Obama’s mistakes during his foreign policy speech today. He needs to provide an alternative vision, which he’s been reluctant to do so far:
Mr. Romney can make the case that when people fight for their freedom, they will find support — sometimes political, sometimes economic and sometimes military — from the American president. When Russians and Chinese demand accountability from their governments, we can stand with them and work with their governments to further common interests. When terrorists target us, we will not simply eliminate them with drones while ignoring the environment that breeds them. And when our allies look to us for support, we will help them fight for themselves.
Criticisms of Mr. Obama’s national security policies have degenerated into a set of clichés about apologies, Israel, Iran and military spending. To be sure, there is more than a germ of truth in many of these accusations. But these are complaints, not alternatives. Worse yet, they betray the same robotic antipathy that animated Bush-haters. “I will not apologize for America” is no more a clarion call than “let’s nation-build at home.”
Romney has been able to avoid delving seriously into foreign policy for most of the election, but the attack in Benghazi changed that. People will be looking for him to give more than slogans today; he’ll need to present both details and a broader vision. It’s not that we haven’t seen glimmers of this from him in the past. At the Clinton Global Initiative, Romney presented a thoughtful plan on foreign aid, which emphasized democracy and free trade promotion. But obviously Romney will touch on subjects today that are much more contentious than foreign aid.
At the Weekly Standard, Daniel Halper posts some preview excerpts of today’s speech, including some very tough words for the Obama administration on Benghazi:
The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of the same forces that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
Romney speaks at 11:20 a.m. EST at the Virginia Military Institute.
"ignoring the environment that bred" the terrorists? n nTo what is she referring? The old myth of slums and economic misery that supposedly turns otherwise happy clappy muslims into terrorist killers? n nWhat is crucial is to stop merely stamping out the mosquitoes while ignoring the malarial swamp of ideology that breeds them. It is Islamofascism or Islamism or Radical Islam or whatever name you care to attach, but America has yet to squarely name the hateful ideology that is plaguing the world. Until we do, we cannot properly figure out how to combat it.
well, Max Boot, he is for arming selected factions of the Syrian uprising and he made clear throughout that unlike our current President he is running for Presidency of the United States and not Manchuria (or La Mancha), but back to condemning Obama as well-intentioned but weak without putting a name to his one-worldism and argy-bargy such as: n n"Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel" with a call for renewed negotiations. He did pledge to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons capability, ending "daylight" between America and Israel, moving military assets to the region and coordinating militarily with Israel. But while specific mention of sanctions, not explicit setting down of a red line that would trigger force.
More bogus advice from backseat drivers. I don't know if Ms. Pletka supported anyone in the GOP primaries but I know she didn't back Romney and he'd do well to ignore her entirely. n Her op-ed piece is one with the Bill Kristol spurious pre-debate advice that Romney had to present alternatives rather than criticize Obama. WRONG. n Turns out much of the electorate didn't pay much attention to the race before the debates, liked what they saw in Romney and are now prepared to elect him president. All he needs to do is keep hammering Obama and avoid the dreaded joe Biden-like foot-in-mouth disease.