Romney: US should be more assertive on world stage

[No Elephants]

Oct 8, 4:25 AM EDT

Romney: US should be more assertive on world stage

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is proposing the U.S. take a more assertive role in Syria, put conditions on aid to Egypt and tighten sanctions on Iran as he looks to use a planned foreign policy address to paint President Barack Obama as a weak leader who has limited America's influence on global affairs.

Declaring that "it's time to change course in the Middle East" and accusing Obama of "passivity," Romney plans to call Monday for the U.S. to work with other countries to arm rebels in Syria with weapons that can defeat the "tanks, helicopters and fighter jets" that make up President Bashar Assad's army.

Romney also plans to call for tougher sanctions on Iran than those already in place, and plans to say he will condition aid to Egypt on continued support for its peace treaty with neighboring Israel. He will emphasize his commitment to a two-state solution for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, a process he dismissed during a secretly videotaped fundraiser in May.

Romney plans to make the comments at a major foreign policy speech at Virginia Military Institute. His campaign released excerpts of his prepared speech in advance. Aides previewing the speech in a conference call with reporters emphasized that the Republican, who took a hawkish tone throughout the GOP primary, would outline a "mainstream" foreign policy vision.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ROMNEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-08-04-25-42

As anyone who reads the papers knows, we have been arming Syrian rebels and I am not sure what additional sanctions are left for us to put on Iran that we have not already put on Iran. Too bad the job creators of the world find it so profitable to get around the existing sanctions, though, isn't it?

Bush had negotiated a withdrawal from Iraq before leaving office and had quietly taken down our involvement in Afghanistan. Under Obama, we surged in Afghanistan and tried to renegotiate for a continued stay in Iraq, but the Iraqis refused. So, what is Romney talking about?

Is he trying to get the Administration to publicly confirm our activities vis a vis the Syrian rebels in order to help Obama against Romney? If so, shame on Romney.

Come to think of it, shame on Romney (no if). Our troops have been stop lossed more than enough already.

Meanwhile, Romney officially is a chickenhawk, having dodged the draft, like so many of his fellow Republicans of his age, while condemning Democrats for seeking an end to the Vietnam War. Because, as we all know, for the right, war, like greed, is "good." Indeed, war and greed often go hand in hand. Just ask draft dodger and Halliburton stock owner Dick Cheney. (In hindsight, good thing he dodged the draft. He probably only would have gotten high and shot up the American soldier two feet away from him anyway.)

Will the right, which has been whining about war weariness in general and our continued involvement in Afghanistan, in particular, perk up their hawkishness because of Romney;s saber rattling?

If so, fuck them twice. The lives and limbs and sanity of the troops should not depend on whether a Republican or a Democrat is acting hawkish.

[Enthusiast]

1. Obama's campaign people

need to emphasize Romney's new enthusiasm for Middle East action.

The American people are dead set against any new foreign entanglements. And the reasons are clear. The American people know that their needs are being shunted aside to meet the interests of a Neo-Con and military industrial complex oriented foreign policy. Even the Republican rank and file are growing weary of wars.

One damned thing for certain, that no one has mentioned. If we engage in another unnecessary costly war, like one with Iran, we will no longer be discussing "entitlements". Entitlements will be over for both today's and future retirees.