Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Romney starts "debate #2" with Wide-Ranging Foreign Policy Speech

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Romney is criticizing Obama's foreign policies and perhaps for good reason.

His Campaign speech today specifically cited last months attacks and protests at U.S. Embassies in more than 20 countries.

Romney is obviously preparing for the 2nd debate with Obama later this week.

What Will Obama say about the failed foreign policies ?

I suppose Obama could attempt to highlight the positives ?




Romney: US should be more assertive on world stage

LEXINGTON, Va. (AP) — Republican Mitt Romney said Monday the risk of conflict in the Middle East "is higher now" than it was when President Barack Obama took office. He proposed that the U.S. take a more assertive role in Syria and claimed Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq has jeopardized U.S. interests.

Declaring that "it's time to change course in the Middle East" and accusing Obama of "passivity," the Republican presidential nominee called for the U.S. to work with other countries to arm the Syrian rebels to help them defeat President Bashar Assad's "tanks, helicopters and fighter jets." Romney aides said he is not calling for the U.S. to directly arm the rebels, but said he would support helping other countries provide the opposition with enough weaponry to force Assad from power......
 




Mitt Romney Just Hammered Obama On Libya In A Big, Wide-Ranging Foreign Policy Speech

Republican nominee Mitt Romney gave a highly pumped-up foreign policy speech Monday that hammered President Barack Obama's foreign policy direction, including his handling of the recent attacks in Libya that left a U.S. ambassador dead.

Here's the full text of Romney's speech:

....................


How will Obama "Handle" debate #2 ?

How will he "Deflect" ?



How will Obama "explain" the complete breakdown of agencies in regards to the "official" versions of recent events ?

Will Obama still blame that video ?






edit on Oct-08-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)
edit on Oct-08-2012 by xuenchen because:





posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I watched this live on CNN. It was a good speech for Romney, he argues his position well.

And yet, I disagree with it. This is where I favor Obama, his shift in tone away from American dictation to all others. There is no real indication that Obama is weak, that is a false and hyperbolic spin of the shift. He is simply more agreeable, which I see as a better diplomatic tone in a world where American relative power will inevitable shrink.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
More of the same from Romney...more lies lies lies. Does this guy ever open his mouth without lying?




In a key foreign policy speech Monday morning, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney claimed President Barack Obama “has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years,” and promised to “reverse that failure.” Raw Story (s.tt...)


In fact, Obama has signed 3 such agreements, and if Romney knew anything about foreign policy he would know this, or he just decided to lie again.




Congress passed and Obama signed three major trade deals in 2011, giving American companies access to new markets in South Korea, Panama and Colombia. The Associated Press said the arrangements “could be worth billions to American exporters and create tens of thousands of jobs.” Even Fox News reported on it.


Romney pretends Obama's free trade agreements don't exist



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


It's easy to argue a position well when you can just say anything to make yourself look good, true or not. Romney was caught in 9 lies stating his positions. 9 lies which his handlers now say are ok, because he was speaking "off the cuff".

Unbelievable!



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Romney, as usual in the gung ho republican manner, had only said it forthrightly.

Indeed, President Obama seemed pathetic and weak on first look upon his foriegn policy.

But if one were to academically study his policies, despite its faults and flaws, it only seeks for a more inclusive course than one the way republicans often sought for, as as led by Reagan or Bush.

His only failure for not being forefront is that the President is fully aware of the numerous half truths and lies which makes up the anti-US propaganda around the world, and thus had to tread very carefully and patiently, so as not to antagonize those on the fence around the world.

It lays in the grassroot effectiveness - ordinary americans whom will stand up for USA and explain its policies to fellow americans and the world, not propaganda or biased opinions, but truths, facts and realities, the very responsibilities of a citizen in a democratic society.

Unfortunately, too many americans were apathetic, and had let the rather loud vocal but minority to set the narratives, and for decades.

Romney seems a strong leader, but may he or his administration have the same equal wisdom, if not better, if he is elected, to truly lead the free world, not by BS, but by truth and patience to win hearts and minds.

The founding fathers, civil war and world war2 leaders had already done the hardest parts to lead americans and mankind. May the new administration maintain that pace and path for progress and evolution of all mankind, leaving none behind.
edit on 8-10-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I learned a lot of things from my Father over the years and one important thing he told me was that what a politician says does not necessarily reflect what he believes, but it reflects what his supporters will buy in to.

Romney will continue to fill his supporters full of crap because no one has the balls to call him out on it and people continue to fall for the marketing scheme.

So I think this shows us more about the people that fall for Romney's BS, than Romney himself.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Screw Syria,screw the middle east we got more pressing concerns here.

A strong "homeland" does more for foreign policy than anything either one has ever thought of.

And secure the southern border.

economic strength,fiscal reserve,and a superior military and when someone gets stupid serve them a taste of humble pie.

That is my policy as a evil right winger.
edit on 8-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Obama has yet to answer for what happened last month and each day since we learn more about the disaster in Benghazi. Perhaps he can explain why our security forces were pulled from this embassy and why security requests were ignored. It's smelling more and more like a set up... with a cover up being served for dessert.


The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

townhall.com...

It is time to close the door on Afghanistan forever and time to start dismantling what Obama has been assembling in Northern and Central Africa. The worlds future source for oil...

Romney is clearly playing the game and this will hopefully put Obama on the spot to explain his FAILED Obama Doctrine to the nation.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Obama has yet to answer for what happened last month and each day since we learn more about the disaster in Benghazi. Perhaps he can explain why our security forces were pulled from this embassy and why security requests were ignored. It's smelling more and more like a set up... with a cover up being served for dessert.


The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

townhall.com...

It is time to close the door on Afghanistan forever and time to start dismantling what Obama has been assembling in Northern and Central Africa. The worlds future source for oil...

Romney is clearly playing the game and this will hopefully put Obama on the spot to explain his FAILED Obama Doctrine to the nation.


The attack happened at the consulate in Benghazi, not the embassy in tripoli, so what do these security detail withdrawls have to do with security in Benghazi?

And why are you talking about dismantling what Obama is assembling in northern and central Africa, if it is, indeed, the future source of oil (not that I am claiming it is oil-rich myself)? Don't you want the US involved in oil-rich areas?

As for Obama having to answer for the attacks, he has addressed them and there is an investigation still going on. Seems waiting till all the facts before making any final answers/explanations is a good idea.

But your guy Romney flubbed up BIGTIME on this very issue -- the one issue he should have had Obama at a disadvantage. He Claimed Obama didn't mention that this was a terrorist attack until 14 days later at the UN; both Obama and the moderator corrected him on this: Obama called it a terrorist attack the very next day in a Rose Garden speech/press conference. YOUR MAN WAS SCHOOLED AND LOOKED LIKE A FOOL.


Romney demonstrated beyond any doubt that he is a clueless, ignorant twit when it comes to current events and US foreign policy. He thought he had caught Obama in a "gotcha" moment and he ended up making himself the butt of this exchange.





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join