Wednesday, December 21, 2011

"I like Mitt Romney on everything except his insane foreign policy..." Mitt Romney WOULD NOT Have Gone After Bin Laden!

There you have it folks! The Republican Primary is over. We can call it for Ron Paul. He is miles and miles ahead of Mitt Romney and certainly Newt Gingrich on domestic policy and every conservative Republican knows it. The only reason some of them (a number that is shrinking by the day) can't support Ron Paul is his foreign policy.

Now that it's come down to Ron Paul or Mitt Romney (and let's be honest), we can call the race for Ron Paul because it turns out that Mitt Romney isn't so much better than Paul on foreign policy after all, but Paul still remains light years (did I only say miles before?) ahead of Romney on domestic policy. To what do I refer?

Exemplary of Ron Paul's alleged disconnect with mainstream Republicans on foreign policy is how he says he would have handled the bin Laden raid. Paul took a lot of criticism this May when he said that he would have worked with Pakistan to capture bin Laden instead of acting unilaterally to kill him.

Well guess what? Even though Flip Romney is singing a different tune this election cycle and giving the answer calculated to net him the most votes, last time around, Mitt Romney said exactly what Ron Paul said this May:

Romney attacks Obama over Pakistan warning

(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.

What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa.

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail.

Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them."

Hat tip: Mediaite via Memorandum.

Sounds like Mitt Romney and Ron Paul aren't so different on foreign policy in the ways that seemingly disqualify Ron Paul in the minds of some Republicans... and that only leaves domestic issues, where Mitt Romney supported bailouts (and received them), health care mandates, and Obama's failed stimulus package. Ron Paul has firmly stood against all these policies for decades now in both word and deed.




Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page