ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on October 9, 2012

Was that what the U.S. wanted? Hell, NO!

Yesterday (10/08/12), at the Virginia Military Institute, Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election in the United States, launched a fierce attack on President Barack Obama and called it his foreign policy speech.

He blamed him for the Arab Spring, which everybody thought was people fighting for their freedom in the 21st Millennium in North Africa, the Iran nuclear program and everything bad going on in the world today, but the kitchen sink being thrown in.

He crossed and mixed his topics in such a way that the recent Benghazi attack on the U.S. consulate there (and not the embassy in the capital of Libya, Tripoli) was a by product of the overall Obama foreign policy.

Though, many people knew that the Benghazi attack was rather unfortunate, as it was the city in which the overthrow of a brutal dictator of Libya, Muammar Gadhafi, started; and if not for the intervention of Obama, who foresaw the slaughter of million of Libyans, and with U.S. NATO allies to put a stop to it, there would have been such a carnage of immeasurable proportions.

Therefore it was unusual for that attack to have happened there; however, to make a political fodder of it would be unforgiven, as four Americans, including the Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, died in the line of duty on behalf of the U.S.

The speech was full of statements that needed serious considerations, but it was also designed to display a bunch of promises before he, Romney, became president, if he would be, and to dazzle them (promises) before military cadets, of all people.

It was hardly the practice for a candidate to make a foreign policy speech, when an election was still pending; and to use that to berate a sitting president was just plain scurrilous.

Regarding the rest of the world, nobody knew what the future would bring, but it seemed that Romney was taking the opportunity to draw a gruesome picture of what would take place, if he was not picked as president, and that things would look pretty bad for the U.S. under anybody else, including Obama, of course.

He hinged on leadership and said that Obama was "leading from behind"; and that phrase was the most misleading statement of all time, because there was no shortage of leadership, when it came to world affairs on Obama's part, as he has always been on top of issues before they became public.

He mentioned that Obama's outlook on the world at large was based on hope, and that hope was not a strategy. He, Romney, would do things differently, but he failed to say how he would do them; however, leadership without caution was what he had in mind.

For example, he would stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by bombing suspected sites to appease Israel. Good; but that could also start WW lll. Yet, was that where the U.S. wanted to go?

He would also tell other countries what to do, as being the right things, in his opinion; however, that would be impossible, as he would be talking to sovereign nations, who would not stand for any kind of dictatorship.

Besides, he has already made enemies with Russia and China, from his recent remarks; and when he was in the United Kingdom last Summer he annoyed the Mayor of London. European countries were cooperating with Obama in their financial crises, and Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc., all liked Obama.

He, Romney, has no friends, except perhaps for Israel and Poland; and so, how would the aforementioned countries react to him? It would always be in the negative. The resultant would be a confused world, and that was what Romney was going to get the U.S. into with his new brand of leadership.

Obama, on the other hand, has a cool head and the tenacity to bring those countries together through diplomacy and friendship, and if there should be any type of war, they would join forces to eliminate the culprit, in the name of world peace. In other words, he (Obama) would not go it alone and say that he was leading the world, militarily or otherwise.

That was (and is) the leadership he, Obama, would, and has been providing, since he became president of the U.S.; and that would be preferable to a foolhardy kind of leadership, whose consequences would not be revealed until too late, by Romney.

That was what he was feeding to the young minds at the Virginia Military Institute yesterday; a leadership fraught with danger and ineptitude; but that would never make America strong.

Clarity of mind was what was required of a true leader in a dangerous world that laid ahead; with nuclear proliferation becoming common place, whether one liked it or not.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • American View profile image

      American View 5 years ago from Plano, Texas

      "It was hardly the practice for a candidate to make a foreign policy speech, when an election was still pending; and to use that to berate a sitting president was just plain scurrilous."

      And the Democrats did not do that to George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon? Please, they were relentless and made most of their attacks up.

    • Petra Vlah profile image

      Petra Vlah 5 years ago from Los Angeles

      I am surprised Romney did not blame Obama for sinking the Titanic, but wait and see, there is still time