Foreign and Defense Policy

Dear Mitt Romney. About that WSJ piece. Part 1.

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr) (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr) (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Dear Mitt Romney,

About that WSJ piece. I don’t write to you often, I know you’re really slammed right now. But listen:

  • Events in the Middle East aren’t “disturbing.” There is a tide sweeping across the region that has the potential to change the world as we know it.
  • What’s happening there cannot be summarized as “major issues,” these are potentially cataclysmic events.
  • Sure, Obama isn’t protecting “our people or our allies.” We know that. What would you do?
  • We need “a new strategy toward the Middle East.” Damn straight. What is it?
  • We do need to restore our “credibility with Iran.” How?
  • Yes, we need to use the “full spectrum of our soft power to encourage liberty and opportunity” in the Middle East. What specific tools do you mean?
  • “[K]eeping the peace requires American strength in all of its dimensions.” So true. How?

It’s not enough to say that Barack Obama is bequeathing to his successor a world less safe, less prosperous, and less American than the one we enjoyed four years ago. Americans want to elect a man with more than simply the vision to note that his opponent stinks. What’s yours?

Please see here for part 2.

4 thoughts on “Dear Mitt Romney. About that WSJ piece. Part 1.

  1. “Americans want to elect a man with more than simply the vision to note that his opponent stinks.”

    Congratulations: you have summed up the entire Romney campaign.

    Tax policy? We need reform, but I can’t tell you WHAT reforms.
    Economic policy? Don’t worry, I’m “pro-business.” (Whatever that means)
    Entitlements? Can’t continue on the path we’re on. However, I don’t have a path to tell you about either.

    You nailed it. Watch for “Etch-a-Sketching” in the coming debates. This is where the fun REALLY begins.

  2. The whole middle east situation was invented because the Rothschilds didn’t have central banks under THEIR control in many of the middle east countries.
    It’s about CONTROL of the world’s wealth by the banksters who back BOTH sides of every war and that is how they have ended up in control of the banks in almost all the countries of the world. Once they get control of the banks, they then control the politicians and the countries’ wealth (such as oil, minerals, or whatever)

    • Granting your concerns for the sake of discussion… I have a few questions.

      1. What is the worst case scenario with the Rothschilds in control of the world’s wealth?
      2. What is the best case scenario with the Rothschilds in control of the world’s wealth?
      3. What might be done, realistically, to prevent the Rothschilds from controlling the world’s wealth, or remove such control from them?
      4. Into whose hands can such control be entrusted, to ensure that another group manages to seize so much power?
      5. Assuming it is desirable, is it possible to prevent consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of a tiny percentage of humanity? If not, is it preferable to allow such consolidation into the hands of the ‘devil you know’, rather than allow an unknown to grab hold?

  3. Romney has the same problem with the economy, and shows no inclination to remedy it. So, I doubt he’ll do any better on foreign policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>