Romney: It’s time for the U.S. to put an end to Assad’s regime
“The Assad regime’s massacre of civilians in Haoula—many of them young children—is horrific,” Romney said in a prepared statement. “After nearly a year and a half of slaughter, it is far past time for the United States to begin to lead and put an end to the Assad regime. President Obama can no longer ignore calls from congressional leaders in both parties to take more assertive steps. The Annan ‘peace’ plan—which President Obama still supports—has merely granted the Assad regime more time to execute its military onslaught. The United States should work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves. The bloodshed in Haoula makes clear that our goal must be a new Syrian government, one that contributes to peace and stability in the Middle East and that truly represents the brave Syrian people.”
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
Well, you can tell what this guy is going to be doing as president – same as Bush – more war, more welfare, more regulation, more inflation. Count on it.
rickv404 on May 27, 2012 at 1:29 PM
And here we go again.
lowandslow on May 27, 2012 at 1:31 PM
What’s the point of replacing one murderer with another murderer?
El_Terrible on May 27, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Really? Are you related to DWS or just a RP supporter?
VegasRick on May 27, 2012 at 1:34 PM
“Bush’s Wars” were signed off on by many Democrats, including our current “Secretary of State”.
Sorry, but I liked the rickv403 model better. Much funnier.
Del Dolemonte on May 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM
Looks like Bolton is rubbing off on him
thebrokenrattle on May 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM
While obviously Assad and his regime must be stopped and removed, the problem lies in the aftermath. Unless we are absolutely committed to crushing Syria militarily, occupying the country and imposing our values on them, we will fail and it will cost us lives and treasure. This will never happen. But it still leaves the dilemma of what to do. And a potentially nuclear Iran and Hezbollah does not make things simpler.
This was the failure of Iraq. We are so afraid of offending Muslims and not wanting to give the image of being conquerers and occupiers that we make up these half-assed rules of engagement that invite insurgents to kill GI’s. The other problem is this idiotic notion of a “war on terror.” We’re not fighting the tools of war; we’re supposed to be fighting the ideology that uses those tools. And that is called ISLAM, both as a religion and as a culture.
Rixon on May 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM
So you anticipating an Oblamer victory?
hillsoftx on May 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM
I do not understand why bho hasn’t done something about assad? bho went into libya and egypt to help the people there but will not help those in syria? Just wonder why bho picks and chooses who he wants to deal with when it comes to the rop type countries?
L
letget on May 27, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Romney, STFU.
It’s the economy, stupid — not more American treasure (and possibly blood) spent on ditching an Allawite regime for an even more radical Suni Muslim one.
Mitchell Heisman on May 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM
I have a friend (really! I do have a friend) who has been saying for decades we should never invade a country that troubles us. And certainly no nation building kind of crap. Just bomb them into the stone age, especially their leaders. Tell them we’re ready to do it again next time they annoy us. Not only would it be cheaper and more effective, but in the long run perversely they’d wind up loving us for it. I’m beginning to think he’s right.
Fenris on May 27, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Oh no…
rndmusrnm on May 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM
I’m not saying we prop the Allawite’s up and of course we should speak out against atrocities, but that is it.
Let them sort it out. Or if the Arab League wants to get involved and so some peacekeeping/peacemaking, have at ‘er. American forces should be used when there is a clear American interest at steak, or at the very least, a compelling humanitarian one that America can actually improve.
There’s no reason to think a change of regime is necessarily going to be a change for the better, even humanitarian-wise.
Mitchell Heisman on May 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM
lol @ “steak” — mmm … come to think of it, I should head out to the pub for brunch.
Mitchell Heisman on May 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM
I don’t care what Assad does to its citizens. You can’t stop arabs from massacring each other. What I care about is how Assad and Syria threaten our allies in the region – and that has little to do with assad, specifically, since the next step up in the wave of pan-islamism sweeping over the pan-arabism is not a good one. Mittens needs to get a brain on this. If he wants to do anything he should concentrate on helping to destroy the Syrian proxies in Lebanon and getting rid of hezbollah. Assad’s pathetic regime and syria’s pathetic citizenry are not our problem. Only syria’s actions outside of syria concern us, at all, and getting rid of assad won’t improve that situation one iota. Syria will switch totalitarian regimes on its own.
Calm down Mittens and take a breather. If you want to talk about Syria, then talk about how the Dems committed criminal acts when they tried to run their own little foreign policy (while Bush was President) in that pathetic hugging of Assad. You want to talk about Assad? Talk about how the dems supported that turd every step of the way (not unlike the fact that the left – the global left – were among the biggest boosters and supporters of Q’Daffy).
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM
Meanwhile, SCOAMF prepares for the October surprise non-surprise.
Rixon on May 27, 2012 at 1:58 PM
this is horrendously stupid and will backlash against Romney in a big way, all of the conservative grasroots blogs, whether it be weaselzippers, or gateway pundit,all acknowledge the fact that the opposition is comprised of sunni radical terrorists, allied to either al-qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, the problem with Assad is not that he is a bad guy, it’s who wants to replace him, stupid decision on Romney’s part, the only idiots clamoring for action to help the “rebels” on the republican side are perennial RINO idiots MCcain and Lindsey Graham, and both are reviled within the republican party. If Romney is intent on being a mocked and reviled figure by grassroots conservatives leading up to the presidential election than be my guest, first the ” Russia is our enemy” idiotic statement, now this…. FFS!!
golembythehudson on May 27, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Sure, get rid of Assad, then what will you replace the “rebels” with when they start massacring the Christians and Alawites?
Think this through to the logical conclusion, Mr. Romney.
Rebar on May 27, 2012 at 2:03 PM
Another war?! I hope Obama blasts Romney with his own message!
lester on May 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM
This is what happens when you get advice from John Bolton.
lester on May 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Yep.
Mitchell Heisman on May 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM
lester
How is Obama any different?
rob verdi on May 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM
The difference is he hasn’t started any trillion dollar wars.
lester on May 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM
He hasn’t stopped them either.
Sure, get rid of Assad, then what will you replace the “rebels” with when they start massacring the Christians and Alawites?
We’re gonna have to fight the “rebels” anyway. Might as well take out Assad as well. Bloodbathers all.
thebrokenrattle on May 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Lester, first of all Romney isn’t saying anything that Obama’s administration isn’t trying to push re: regime change.
Second, since when was Code Pink against wars because of how expensive they were?
Hypocrite much?
Anyway, someone get Rand Paul to get Romrom to focus on America and not Syria.
MeatHeadinCA on May 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Why must we fight these rebels?
MeatHeadinCA on May 27, 2012 at 2:21 PM
We’re gonna have to fight the “rebels” anyway. Might as well take out Assad as well. Bloodbathers all.
thebrokenrattle on May 27, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Better formatted
thebrokenrattle on May 27, 2012 at 2:22 PM
we don’t know the full cost of Libya, or how much it will cost us down the road, remember everyone thought it was a swell idea for Charlie Wilson to fund the mujahadeen of Afghanistan, that decision has cost us 3,000 American lives and tens of thousands more chronically ill, not to mention thousands of dead soldiers and probably close to a trillion in Afghanistan as well.
The leadership in Libya is compromised of sunni al-qaeda members, they looted almost 10,000 anti-aircraft missiles, can you even comprehend the stupidity of allowing al-qaeda to posses that?, it will grind air-travel to a halt in the next few years when it’s smuggled to Europe or America. Libya is a disaster in the making.
golembythehudson on May 27, 2012 at 2:23 PM
Neither did Bush. We fought the wars we had to fight – sadly we didn’t fight them viciously enough. But Bush went through Congress on the way to war. That’s why all the dem sh!theads spent the whole the 2008 primary either forgetting how they voted in Congress or just trying to lie about it (though lies are natural to the left and often have little to do with any particular circumstances).
But the Dog-Eater did violate the Constitution (and deserve to be impeached) for taking America to war without even bothering with our Congress, instead turning over American forces to France and the UN. That is about the worst thing anyone can do and Barky should have found himself donning an orange jumpsuit for that one.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Oh lester,
BOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
rob verdi on May 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Wow Willy McDole must surely give the neo-cons a huge hard one …
Trade Warz with China … Fights with Russia … Fights with Iran … Fights with Syria …
Did I miss something? Oh – and he’ll do all this while he’s giving us tax cuts and a new health care system!
LOL.
Only a fool …
HondaV65 on May 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM
And the Dog-Eating Retard’s FURTHER criminal act of releasing oil from the SPR to cover up his illegal war in Libya (which was the defense of his SPR call) was even worse, and another criminal act by the retard.
Even worse, the time to bomb Libya was when Al-Megrahi landed in Tripoli. That was the point at which the US military should have bombed the living sh!t out of that place … but Barky was also complicit in getting the terrorist released to live at home (another act for which Barky should ahve seen the inside of a jail cell for a very long time).
Keep trying to defend the Dog-Eating Retard. Eventually you might find something he’s done that hasn’t been inept, stupid, anti-American or criminal. Eventually … but I wouldn’t hold my breath for something substantial. LOL.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Only a fool …
HondaV65on May 27, 2012 at 2:29 PMYour new name suits you.
VegasRick on May 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Hmm, I wonder who’s putting that bug in his ear?
Flora Duh on May 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM
mittens is an idiot
NOMITTNOBAMA 2012!
Pragmatic on May 27, 2012 at 2:39 PM
IN fairness to Romney, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking here, work with international partners to end the Assad regime, its a textbook talking point devoid of any actual policy.
rob verdi on May 27, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Then why attack Obama in his statement if they’re after the same thing? Or was this just political posturing and cheap shots?
I don’t know, you have friends there? Go ask them.
As long as Bolton is whispering in Romney’s ears that would be of no use.
lester on May 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM
Romney just lost a lot of points in my eyes. What exactly does he want to do? Install thoses sunni terrorists like Obama did in Libya. Why don’t these so called genoius politicians think something through to the very end. First figure out exactly what goal you want to acheive. Then create a plan to acheive it. Then make speeches and statements that aligns with your plan.
Otherwise people like me will think that Romney wants to install Christian hating sunni terrorists as govenment in Syria.
CoolAir on May 27, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Oh come on, and replace him with who? Romney didn’t even have to say anything about this, Iran yes, but not Syria. We’re sick of the Arab street over here, we don’t trust them and frankly, we don’t like them because they want to kill us.
Daemonocracy on May 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Another one who still has no life. It is an epidemic.
CW on May 27, 2012 at 3:02 PM
Could it be?In politics really?
Yes what we should do is use you and your posts as guide …. oh wait…no lets try Obama and his henchman…errr wait….just forget it.
Really too funny…you complaining about posturing and cheap shots. If it weren’t for those things you would rarely post.
CW on May 27, 2012 at 3:08 PM
Although I am skeptical of any intervention, to see Assad killed after all the US soldiers and Iraqi’s he helped kill would be awfully sweet.
rob verdi on May 27, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Drones in syria and iran. Stop f’ing around with these folks.
VegasRick on May 27, 2012 at 3:23 PM
All Islamists are a threat to Israel first and then to the US. They’ll never stop killing anyone in their way of the Little Satan and the Great Satan, no matter if it’s Bashir Assad or the smallest little Syrian child.
thebrokenrattle on May 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Please no. We won’t attack with everything we got so we shouldn’t even fight. 100% or nothing. I am tired of spending money just kinda fighting.
ArkyDore on May 27, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Assad is secular bad.
His replacements are very likely to be Islamist worse.
Stick with manageable secular bad over unmanageable Islamist worse.
And shut up about this side issue.
IT’S THE ECONOMY, MR. NOT-SUPPOSED-TO-BE-STUPID!
profitsbeard on May 27, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Why? Because CNN has sent some reporters in to cover it.
Newsflash: there’s a lot of bad stuff going down in a lot of other countries.
This is ludicrously shallow and pander-tastic.
CorporatePiggy on May 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM
I’m cynical enough to believe Romney is opining thusly on foreign affairs because it looks presidential. Foreign policy is what Presidents get to do, comparatively unhindered by Congress. Americans are used to foreign policy activism (typically with a moralistic tone) from chief executives, and there’s no percentage in a candidate staying mum. Obama tends to behave more like a Continental diplomat . This is Romney’s chance to be unFrench – or at least to be a Sarko kind of Continental.
Seth Halpern on May 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Tell us who did start any “trillion dollar wars”.
And before you answer, please remember all of the Democrats who signed off on the war in Iraq, including our current “Secretary of State”.
F-
Del Dolemonte on May 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM
“You called?” – lester on May 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM
Del Dolemonte on May 27, 2012 at 4:19 PM