Romney: Obama ‘Has Failed to Lead’ in Syria, Middle East


Oct 8, 2012 by



Romney: Obama ‘has failed to lead’ in Syria, Middle East (via AFP)

US President Barack Obama has “failed to lead in Syria” and the broader Middle East, and strains between his administration and ally Israel are emboldening Iran, White House hopeful Mitt Romney warned Monday. Making the case in a major foreign policy speech that the United States and the Middle East…



Donate to The Moderate Voice

Share This

Related Posts

Sponsors

468 ad

10 Comments

  1. slamfu

    This is all part of the conservative mindset that because we have the biggest guns we can actually control all the events that happen over there. So much of what is going on is outside of anyone’s control that Romney’s implications are dangerous and ignorant.

  2. ShannonLeee

    more rhetoric for the nitwits.

    Obama could not be more aggressive without invading yet another country.

  3. Rambie

    He’s just pandering to his base again… after jumping to the middle he’s got to throw them a bone to chew on.

  4. StockBoyLA

    “…it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office,” [Romney] said.”

    I think winding down the war in Iraq relieved a lot of the risk in the region.

    As far as foreign policy goes… clearly Romney should stick with what he knows… which is how to hide money in offshore accounts to avoid paying US taxes.

  5. EEllis

    I think winding down the war in Iraq relieved a lot of the risk in the region.

    Then you would be wrong. It may have lowered our risk, tho with the importance of the region I don’t know you can even say that, but it certainly increased the volatility.

  6. He does know Obama is our president, not theirs..

  7. Rcoutme

    Am I the only one who finds the rhetoric, “…take back the White House” to be more than a little offensive? First of all, who took it “away” in the first place? I was under the impression it was still in Washington, DC, somewhere about 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Would someone who lives in the area please go check to see what was put in its place?

    Next, if one assumes that President Obama has “taken it away, or occupied it hostily” as the rhetoric would contend, then that should be looked upon as an indirectly hostile threat to the First Family. Thus, is Romney now agitating a group of psycho’s who might attempt to attack the place?

    Whoever came up with the term, “take back the White House” has been irresponsible at best, treasonous at worst, and very toxic to our culture and society.

  8. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    “Am I the only one who finds the rhetoric, “…take back the White House” to be more than a little offensive?

    Actually you are not, RC., although I find the infamous “Take our country back” and “Real Americans” slogans even more offensive.

  9. rudi

    Funny how the VMI speech was just a rehash of the VFW speech. Both lacked any real substance, other than Obamama bad with no admission of W’s follies.
    From Larison:
    http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/234468/mitt-romneys-vapid-misleading-foreign-policy-speech

    As expected, this proved to be little more than a repetition of his standard attacks and an exceedingly vague outline of how he would proceed once in office. Foreign policy issues have become more important in the election, but the challenger still has remarkably little to contribute to the debate beyond platitudes.

  10. zephyr

    Romney is just a clueless as he’s always been. He’s just been improving his acting ability. Sadly that may be enough to impress an electorate that may be even more clueless than he is.