Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech Monday was filled with tough talk and slams of President Barack Obama’s leadership — but little of the clarity Romney has vowed to bring to the Oval Office.
Analysts reviewing what the Republican nominee said in what his campaign billed as a major foreign policy address weren’t impressed. The speech, they say, was much like Romney’s previous swings at laying out a foreign policy: couched in broad ideology and big ambitions and lacking the specifics for how he’d bring any of them about.
Shocking! A Romney position speech that lack practical specifics! Gosh, that never happens.
So while Romney was using the speech to capitalize on the momentum he had from his strong debate performance and the Obama administration’s vulnerabilities on the Libya attacks, foreign policy experts say the speech was vague at best, and reflected some confusion of ideas.
“There’s absolutely nothing in this speech. This is a repackaging of language that has been a staple of Romney’s campaign since he threw his hat in the ring,” said James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations. “If Romney has a foreign policy strategy, he still has not told us what it is. The governor is very fond of saying hope is not a strategy, but that cuts both ways. He didn’t answer two key questions: what he would do differently and why we should expect what he would to work.”
The one thing Romney would do differently according to the speech is most likely start a war with Iran (after putting troops in Syria first) and as to how it would work, well...it wouldn't work. But of course, Mitt can't actually say that. If you thought the Romney budget was going to be a disaster before, throw another trillion dollar plus war or three into the mix and see what happens to our debt.
Mitt may have won last week, but this one's already shaping up to be a disaster as usual.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment