DWS: Romney’s foreign policy is “unclear,” but he would drag us back to “cowboy justice”

posted at 2:41 pm on October 22, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

On MSNBC this morning, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had some tough words for Mitt Romney’s foreign-policy stance — but, her tough words were rather oddly contradictory, for which Chuck Todd didn’t fail to call her out. Via Mediaite:

DWS: That’s why we have to keep our eye on the prize, we have to keep focusing on making sure that we can protect America from those who would do us harm, not the backwards cowboy justice that Mitt Romney would drag us back to. It’s so unclear, what Mitt Romney would do differently than President Obama, other than that…

Todd: …Wait a minute, I’m confused, you’ve just sort of said two different things. You said cowboy foreign policy, and then you said it’s not clear what he would do differently from President Obama. You just, that’s two different things.

DWS: …And that is the nature of what Mitt Romney’s focus in foreign policy has been. Who knows what, he hasn’t said what he would do differently. He has done a lot of bellicose chest-thumping, that leads you to believe that instead of what President Obama…

Todd: You think it will be a different foreign policy. Are you trying to say that it will be, or…

DWS: I’m saying I have no idea, because he has not made it clear. He has plenty of opportunity tonight to make it clear what he would do differently than President Obama. Is it that he’d take us to war in Iran, does he think that we should be engaged in more military action? He hasn’t said, he’s done a lot, he’s gone up to that line, he’s done a lot of chest-thumping, but, going to war is the last option, not the first, and Mitt Romney has flirted with the idea that that’s the direction we should go.

I think she kind of rhetorically saved herself by immediately trying to morph her “cowboy” policy comment to mean more empty chest-thumping than referring to any of Romney’s actual substantive positions, but she pretty obviously exposed Team Obama’s strategy of capitalizing on any remaining anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment by characterizing Romney as the next ‘cowboy diplomat,’ regardless of whether that’s actually true.

But, what some might incite as “bellicose chest-thumping,” others might call showing emphatic signs of strength and resolve — and displaying a ready willingness to both talk the talk and walk the walk is one of the better war-prevention methods around (“peace through strength,” anyone?). Somehow, President Obama’s policies seem to have managed to worsen our standing with both our enemies and our allies; and whatever the foreign-policy claims to fame about which he’ll boast tonight (cough cough, I wonder), the fact remains that it’s tough to lead the world, either by force or example, when our economy is ailing and our national debt is one of our greatest security threats. That is an area in which Mitt Romney most definitely excels.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Didn’t take you that long to inject the man’s race into this didn’t it? And you wonder why blacks will never accept you tea billies hate the man simply because he’s a black man occupying the “people’s” house.

HotAirLib on May 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.

Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2