Posted By Blackfive • [October 09, 2012]
Here's a rundown of what the big news agencies think about Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech:
FoxNews loves it (I'm shocked)...
The NY Times blasts it (again, I'm shocked)...
...He said he would toughen sanctions on Iran. If he intends to go beyond what Mr. Obama is already doing with international support, he should say so and spell it out. Otherwise, the only room he leaves to the right of Mr. Obama’s policy is to wage war on Iran — a catastrophically foolish idea that most Americans recognize as folly.
Mr. Romney repeated an outright lie about Mr. Obama’s military spending policy to make himself appear more concerned about America’s defense. He accused Mr. Obama of favoring “deep and arbitrary cuts” to the military when, in fact, those cuts, if they happen, were mandated by a deal demanded by the Republicans to end their trumped-up crisis over the debt ceiling.
One good piece of news is that on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Romney has remodified his position one more time. After telling a private donor party during his primary campaign that “this is going to remain an unsolved problem,” he now endorses a two-state solution, although he never suggests how he would go about this.
Americans deserve an intensive, textured and honest discussion on foreign policy. They did not get it on Monday. Mr. Obama should respond, forcefully, to Mr. Romney on these issues, even before their next debate on Oct. 16, which will include issues of foreign affairs.
The WashPo likes it...
AFTER REPEATEDLY FUMBLING on foreign policy during his campaign, Mitt Romney delivered Monday a coherent and forceful critique of President Obama’s handling of the upheavals in the Middle East. Arguing that a fateful struggle is playing out across the region, he said the United States is “missing an historic opportunity” because of Mr. Obama’s failure to more aggressively support liberal forces against dictators and Islamic extremists. “It is the responsibility of our president to use America’s great power to shape history — not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events,” Mr. Romney said.
Worst, Mr. Obama has stood by — or pursued feckless diplomatic
initiatives — while Syria has descended into a maelstrom of massacres,
opening the way to a sectarian civil war that could spread across the
In all, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Romney, like Mr.
Obama, is avoiding the embrace of a more robust Mideast policy out of
fear of offending voters weary of international conflict or of dividing
his own advisers. Mr. Obama’s campaign released a new ad calling Mr.
Romney’s foreign policy “reckless.” In fact, this was a too-cautious
response to a too-cautious policy.
And the Wall St. Journal mostly likes it...
...The speech is an important moment as a window on Mr. Romney's principles and instincts as Commander in Chief. Within half an hour of delivery, President Obama's surrogates were portraying the Republican as erratic, uninformed and dangerous—supposedly George W. Bush with better diction. Yet the man who took the VMI stage came off as serious, pragmatic and cautious, possibly to a fault.
His broad strokes offered a welcome contrast to Mr. Obama's view that America must defer to other nations to win global favor. Mr. Romney recognized the electorate's understandable war fatigue, but he still made a case for the world's only superpower to reassert its leadership, most of all in the Middle East.
In advocating a robust role for the U.S. overseas, Mr. Romney is placing himself in a long bipartisan tradition from Truman to Bush, while comparing Mr. Obama to Jimmy Carter in Presidential weakness. Foreign policy won't decide this election, but voters should be pleased that the Republican has forcefully made a case for renewed American leadership in the world.