Republican Foreign Policy – A Return to the Bush years
The most frightening thing about sending Romney/Ryan to the White House is foreign policy. This became obvious in the speeches by McCain, Rice and Ryan. It was the same saber rattling that got us into so much trouble during the Bush years.
We are now being tested by an array of threats that are more complex, more numerous, and just as deeply and deadly as I can recall in my lifetime.
Daniel Larison points out just how ridiculous this is:
This is some of the basest and most misleading fear-mongering imaginable. Security threats to the U.S. are fewer and less dangerous than they have been in more than half a century. We all know that McCain is a hawkish interventionist who has rarely ever seen a conflict he didn’t think the U.S. should enter in one way or another, and by raising him up as one of the main speakers on the night dedicated to national security the Romney campaign indicated that it generally approves of McCain’s militarism.
Rice’s speech was nothing but an endorsement of Bush foreign policy.
and Rice took a more indirect route to hint that she favored a generally more activist U.S. abroad. She asked, “Where does America stand?” and she made it clear that she wants much more activism. As she said, “We cannot be reluctant to lead – and one cannot lead from behind.” Here as elsewhere, “leading” is synonymous with entangling the U.S. in other nations’ affairs. After spending most of the convention avoiding much discussion of foreign policy, the Romney campaign opted to promote the two people most closely identified with everything that was wrong with Bush’s foreign policy.
Ryan didn’t say much but what he did say hinted at intervention:
Wherever men and women rise up for their own freedom, they will know that the American president is on their side.
It was Bush foreign policy decisions the piled on the debt for no gain and Ryan and Romney think they can reduce the deficit with tax cuts and increased military spending.