"Mitt Romney’s Commander in Chief Problem" By Michael Crowley at Time

[applegrove]

Mitt Romney’s Commander in Chief Problem

By Michael Crowley at Time

http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/25/mitt-romney-struggles-to-solve-his-commander-in-chief-problem/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true

"SNIP......................................

Romney’s main shortcoming is that he has no clear alternative vision on foreign policy. His primary complaint with Obama is both amorphous and unfair: Romney presents himself as a tribune for the ideals of American greatness and exceptionalism: “I am an unapologetic believer in the greatness of this country,” he said on Tuesday. “I am not ashamed of American power.” The implication is that Obama has somehow given up on America, is more interested in apologizing for it than in restoring it. But that’s not a new idea — it’s been a familiar conservative refrain for more than three years, one that hasn’t quite stuck with many people who don’t TiVo Hannity. There’s also the fact that Obama doesn’t actually talk this way about American greatness. And the small matter of his troop surge in Afghanistan, which ticked off the left, and his intervention in Libya, which infuriated the far right.

As for specifics, well, there aren’t many. On a conference call with reporters yesterday, former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs whacked Romney for talking about foreign policy in “generalities and sound bites.” In Reno, Romney did little to refute him.

Romney complained, for instance, that Obama has set a “politically timed retreat” in Afghanistan. But apart from saying he would have allowed Obama’s “surge” troops to stay in the country for one more fighting season — something unlikely to have made a decisive difference in the conflict — Romney was vague about the endgame everyone knows is coming. He didn’t say whether he believes, as he declared in a January debate, that the Taliban must be defeated outright — or whether he thinks it might be worth hammering out a political settlement. And if Romney’s goal of “a successful transition to Afghan security forces by 2014” sounds familiar, it’s because it is the same as Obama’s, with an equally arbitrary time frame.

Romney would stiffen sanctions on Iran, though there are precious few notches left on that belt to tighten. Beyond that, he promised “all the firmness, clarity and moral courage that we and our allies can gather.” Exactly how this gathering will occur — have they looked under the couch cushions? — he didn’t say. Nor was his language implying the threat of military action any more concrete than Obama’s. Romney was similarly blurry about how exactly he would deal with Russia’s brutish leaders when it comes to Syria and missile-defense deals.

........................................SNIP"

[Angry Dragon]

1. Willard has nothing .......... except your money

[Booster]

2. I was thinking the same thing. He's for and against everything. People can't possibly know what he

stands for. Mittwits - yep, fits perfectly.

[applegrove]

4. Yup. That way people are supposed to project what they want onto him.

[Gman]

3. Romney's campaign is one thing and one thing only

He's not Obama. That's what he's running on.

[NMlib]

5. Cannot wait for debates

Just saying!!!!