Mitt Romney calls for new ‘American century’ with muscular foreign policy

[alp227]

Source: Wash. Post

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Calling for a new “American century,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney laid out a muscular agenda for promoting U.S. interests abroad, saying here Friday that he would expand naval and missile defense systems and repair relationships with Israel, Mexico and other U.S. allies.

Romney said he immediately would review U.S. troop commitments in Afghanistan and would make a decision “free of politics” by surveying generals in the field, but he offered no detailed plan for withdrawing from the decade-long war there. The former Massachusetts governor sharply condemned the isolationist policies pushed by some Democrats and, increasingly, leaders of his own party.

Delivering his first major foreign policy address of his 2012 campaign, Romney said he would try to work in concert with multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. But too often, he said, they become “forums for the tantrums of tyrants.” Romney said his administration would act alone whenever necessary to protect national security interests.

“This century must be an American century,” Romney said. “In an American century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-calls-for-new-american-century-with-muscular-foreign-policy/2011/10/07/gIQABi4wSL_singlePage.html

---

In 2010, Romney published a book about this topic, No Apologies: The Case for American Greatness.

[RandySF]

1. What has Willard ever done that was muscular?

[SugarShack]

21. Anyone here remember PNAC? Romney has three staffers from that think tank board and three from new

board American Century. All Bush people. Saw it laid out...the staffers and past involvement, and heard him say multiple times...."a new american century". Say what you want but he's got the staffers from that board!!
Rachael showed the video clips...

:scared:

[The Doctor.]

32. Hey, don't be an alarmist. It's not as though they want a "New Pearl Harbor" too.

Seriously! You should know better than to think that anyone we might elect wouldn't care more about the interests of regular Americans than some terribly ambitious agenda to wreak havoc on the ME and obtain control of the oil pipelines.

Tsk, Tsk... there are no such things in Disneywor... er, I mean, the USofA.

[timtom]

42. The beauty of all this is:

This iconically states definitively who he is. He need say no more. We need listen no more.

[yurbud]

74. Bush without the charisma

[No Elephants]

44. A founder of the DLC signed the 2003 PNAC memo and then started the Progressive Policy Institute.

Stop being so 1960 partisan, willya?

Do you really want to disrupt the kleptocracy plutonomy by having drastic change every time Congress and/or the WH change hands? Well, that's what happens when you have two parties that are significantly different from each other; and rich people don't like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRkCvubUGCM

Sooooo....we're evolving into one big happy political family now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels

Get with the program.

Sheesh.

[yardwork]

66. Reccing this post.

[newspeak]

67. yeah, have to laugh at that PNAC pact

spreading democracy to the ME. Right! sure! Our government loves them some ruthless dictators, until they start thinking about their people over corporate interests.

A bunch of sociopathic greedheads advancing global corporate interest by basically "stealing" other's resources.

Romney, another CHICKENHAWK! Oh, Romney where are you going to get the money for this great "american dominance?" The people have paid enough, you fool! I see the US going down the same road as Rome, and it's not going to be pretty.

[No Elephants]

46. Self delete.

[Turborama]

59. I've been paying so little attention to the Republican race to the bottom that I didn't know that

Although I have to say that PNAC was the 1st thing that sprung to mind when In read the headline and it doesn't surprise me in the least. Thanks for the info.

I missed the Rachel segment about it, have you got a link by any chance?

[wordpix]

64. RAchel had a piece on this last night, Romney is getting the PNAC crew jump started

b/c they did such a great job starting the endless wars we now continue :puke:

[msongs]

2. launching his campaign as repub nominee against Obama today looks like nt

[pampango]

56. Indeed. And this Pew poll shows teabaggers eat this stuff up.

Teabaggers think the best way to achieve peace is through military strength rather than diplomacy by a 60-26 margin. Democrats thought diplomacy was the key by 72-20.

Only teabaggers came out in favor of even more defense spending while Democrats support cutbacks by 41-9.

Everyone, even teabaggers, support cutting back military commitments overseas. Democrats supported this most strongly: 74-23.

[whosinpower]

3. If America leads the free world....

Then the free world isn't free.

So says Wall Street. Pay up - because profit is our right.

[secondwind]

4. Last century was an American century also, Mitt. This century belongs to the Arabs, I'm thinking.

[MichiganVote]

5. Been there, done that. Next?

[Bosonic]

6. Isn't it China's turn

to go bankrupt whilst trying to steal the smaller childrens' lunchmoney?

[bhikkhu]

7. Do we really have to be the One Supreme Power Above All?

So far, total global supremacy has been kind of a raw deal for most of us here...I suppose Romney has an idea of how to do it and turn a profit?

For the record, I find working together with others as equal partners to be a better and more rewarding goal, whether as an individual or a nation.

[David Sky]

57. Excellent point! n/t

[tcaudilllg]

8. Screwball

[bluestateguy]

9. Obama got Osama

Thank you for playing, Mitt!

Charlie, tell our guest what consolation prizes he'll be taking home today!

[struggle4progress]

10. Sounds like he's pandering to Bill Kristol by sound-biting "Project for the New American Century"

We all remember "Project for the New American Century," don't we?

It was the rightwing thinktank that at the end of the Clinton era was calling for a "new Pearl Harbor" to unite Americans for a war on Iraq and other wars to help solidify our global dominance

If you loved the Bush era, you'll love Romney's recycled "New American Century"

[No Elephants]

47. Please see Reply 44.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. In what way does this make him different from Obama? Or is he trying to lose the "Mittens"

nickname in the GOP primary?

This election will not be won or lost on foreign policy.

[No Elephants]

48. Excellent question. Please see Reply 44.

[FarLeftFist]

12. These guys can't get over the fact that Obama is the greatest military C-I-C of the past 60 years.

[Brian Okamura]

20. Why? Because he murdered Bin Laden without a trial?

I don't call that great C-in-C stuff.

[liberaltrucker]

33. Bin Laden personally declared war on the US

And carried out that declaration on several occasions,
culminating on 9/11.

In doing so, he made himself a legitimate military
target. He was a casualty of war, not a murder victim.

[Brian Okamura]

36. Individuals can't "declare war. " Bin Laden was a criminal....

He should have been treated as such. In fact the whole thing should have been treated as a criminal matter. It did not require, for example, the invasion of a country.

[No Elephants]

52. Thank you. Nor can nations declare war on individuals. Apparently, though,

all it takes to "cloud men's minds" is a figure of speech that doesn't even mean anything, like "war on terror."

When America conquers an emotion, let me know.

Hearty welcome to DU.

[newspeak]

70. I'm with you on this.

Instead of treating OBL as a criminal, like Clinton did to the WTC parking bombing, little boots found it as a perfect excuse to go to war on a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Iraq has oil and afghanistan the pipeline that was being planned, I believe by enron before the war.

9/11, was a pearl harbor for the PNACers.

Shite, if Romney is selected then they'd probably need another pearl harbor to further their goals to make war with other ME countries. Scary thought.

[newspeak]

69. well, OBL got one thing right

if they could do small hits here and there, the US would act against the great boogeyman until we were financially spent. Of course, he must have known that our greedy politicians would feel that it was a great excuse to pay their private corporate friends excessive amounts of our money, and have some of that monies fall through the cracks, especially the FUBAR iraq crack.

Amazing how we played right into that plan.

[No Elephants]

45. LOL!

[Harry Monroe]

13. Is he calling for a do-over? Because this century really sucks so far!!

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

14. Right. Because if there is one thing this country

can afford, it is more foreign involvement.

I am sure the electorate won't mind spending their SS, medicare, college tuition, and highway funds on military spending. No problem at all.

[Hubert Flottz]

15. PNAC? He's ready to invade Iran North Korea China Pakistan

Kolley4kneeya and any place where there's oil or gas or yellow cake or freedom or democrats.

He wants to taste dead burnt babies on the roof of his mouth...he wants to Killllllllllllllllllllllllllll!1!!1!!1!!111!

Edit...KILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!111!1!!111111!

[the_chinuk]

16. Thanks, Mittens, we'll pass on this. Been there. Done that. Have the economy to show for it.

They tried a new American century once.

It's petering out after ten years. Isn't working out so well.

[No Elephants]

49. I am not so sure what is petering out and what is prevailing. Please see Reply 44.

[nobodyspecial]

17. And how are we going to pay for it?

Yeah, let's conquer the world while are own citizens starve and die in the streets. How did that work out for the Roman Empire?

[Phlem]

18. yeay!

more wars!!!!

oh mittens how you warm my heart so.

-p

[valerief]

19. Another friggin PNAC? Another Project for a New American Century? Another nine eleven? Another set

of wars? :grr:

[No Elephants]

50. Please see Reply 44.

[tropicanarose]

22. The very fact that he calls the UN talks "forums for tantrums of tyrants" speaks volumes.

[pampango]

61. The right has traditionally looked at the UN (and other multilateral organizations) with suspicion.

They're an infringement on national sovereignty, don't you know. While using your military wherever you please is the height of "doing what you want regardless of what other countries think" shows that you are a strong country with lots of "sovereignty".

[tropicanarose]

62. It is really unbelievable, isn't it? I wouldn't want to live in a world without a UN. .

[marasinghe]

23. always the biggest cowards calling for the biggest muscle. f*ing waste of mittochondrial cells. n/t

[brentspeak]

24. Sure, just as soon as just one of Mitt's five sons actually joins the military

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/questions-about-romneys-sons-and-military-service/

August 8, 2007, 7:56 pm
Questions About Romney’s Sons and Military Service

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — It is a question that Mitt Romney has gotten before on the campaign trail. Sometimes it is asked innocently; sometimes with a clear edge.

A woman at an Ask Mitt Anything forum earlier today in Iowa raised the question again, asking whether any of Mr. Romney’s five sons are serving in the military, adding pointedly, “If none of them are, how do they plan to support this war on terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?”

Although his campaign said his remarks were taken out of context, Mr. Romney’s response is drawing criticism, because he said, in part, “one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected.”

[Downwinder]

25. Call on Mitt to put Burlington clerks on full time.

[drdtroit]

26. That's what nine eleven was all about Mitt,

get with the program already!

[KeyserSoze87]

27. And this guy says he's going to balance the budget?

What a liar! If he is elected president, he'll wreck the economy even more than Bush did!

[Little Tich]

28. Mitt Romney's ideas seem unworkable to me.

His proposal to lead the free world while waving the american flag, can be seen by some as pure arrogance. This is not the way to treat allies, neither is it right to shove the flag down the throats of those who would resist his policies.

[No Elephants]

54. Workable? Who cares? How will they "play in Peoria?" That's all that matters to Mitt.

Tha man will say anything to be elected.

And soon after, he'll say the opposite, also in the hope of making himself seem more electible.


The term "empty suit" was invented for this guy. And, I'd add "empty hat," too.

I'd send him to the Wizard of Oz for a heart, a brain and a spine, yes. To the WH. noooooo.

[defendandprotect]

29. Sounds like more imperialism and a still bigger MIC budget -- ???

American leadership is over -- the corporate "first foot forward" is fascist --

and bordering on insanity -- especially re Global Warming --


Those corporate/fascists who have control of the nation are criminals stealing

everything they can before the public actually figures out Global Warming!

[Gregorian]

30. USA....USA....usa...usa... The last twitches of an empire.

While the planet is dying, these goons are focused on forced growth. Absurd. We need bright people to begin the process of slowing down the killing of the planet.

[TomCADem]

31. Code for - "I Will Invade Iran At The Earliest Opportunity."

Listen to Romney's comments on Iran. When he is elected President, will you really be surprised that when he starts a new war with Iran?

[BumRushDaShow]

63. Bingo.

Darth Cheney's work must be completed and he has chosen this one to be his apprentice.

[DallasNE]

34. Mumbo Jumbo With A Dash Of Borrow And Spend

"White flag of surrender"? What is Romney talking about with that statement. Is that what happened with bin Laden? Tora Bora was not on Obama's watch. Also, I saw neither a price tag on all of this new defense spending nor how Romney would pay for any of this. He looks like just another borrow and spend Republican in the mold of George W. Bush. I also noticed that Romney ducked the issue of the Arab Spring and what he would have done to bring about a better result. Aside from his unquantified "white flag of surrender" sound bite his only specific proposal is a 50% increase in the building of naval war ships (from 9 to 15 per year). He didn't bother to mention how these new Navy ships can be deployed in our fight against radical Islamic extremism. They certainly are worthless against domestic extremist like the guy in Norway.

The one thing we do know from past experience is that when you build these things somebody will dream up a way to use them so this probably spells more war and less security --- exactly what we don't want nor need.

[moondust]

35. The Reagan model: Military build-up.

I'm not so sure it will work this time without Evil Empire villains hiding behind every tree.

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

51. Not to worry. The WOT has kept us quite busy since St. Ronnie single

handedly ended the cold war (in the imagination of some he did, anyway)

[starroute]

37. And how will he convince China to lend us the money for this enterprise?

Or hasn't he noticed that that's the way things work these days?

But I think what we really need is to get out the word to the 'baggers that ol' Mitt is a dyed-in-the-wool Neocon. They just hates them some Neocons.

[highplainsdem]

38. Mittens' way of letting the defense industry know he'll be there for them.

[area51]

39. A "muscular foreign policy"?

WTF? What the hell does he think we've been throwing our hard-earned tax dollars on all these years? Why does he think our infrastructure is crumbling? The military has our money. Why does he think 273 people die per day due to lack of health care in the U.S.? Again, it's because the military is acting like a vacuum on our tax dollars.

[buckrogers1965]

40. New American Century

The term is a whistle call to the neocon base of supporters. http://www.newamericancentury.org">New American Century

It is a call for an American Empire to dominate the world.

Mitt might as well just say that American needs "a little elbow room."

[newspeak]

71. when he says america, he must mean the 1%ers

allowing them to gain even more wealth, while we, who are going down the shiter, will be paying (those who still can)-lives and money. Rome treated its' citizens like shite also towards the overextension. To me, it's global corporations making the dough and using our treasury and people for their own interest until we are drained and broken. A bunch of damn vampires.

[buckrogers1965]

73. The rich always forget about the french revolution.

You can't push the majority of the people into the mud for too long, before they get up and take what they need.

[dmosh42]

41. Are Mormons "conscientious objectors?

[goforit]

43. Hmmm, I wonder if China will have any thing to say.

Keep it up ya good old boys!
Yee Haw!!!

[ixion]

53. There is nothing 'great' about military might.

Zip. Zilch. Nada.

[NickB79]

55. Yeah, with what money? It might be a revelation, but we're sorta broke

In large part thanks to two PREVIOUS wars the last Repub. president got us into.

[David Sky]

58. Romney sounds like George W Bush on STEROIDS!!! Really, if W had

given a speech like that in 1999, a year and a month before the election, do you think he would have even been made the Republican nominee?

I think not! I think John semi-senile McCain would have been the nominee.

Romney sounds like Hitler on his way into the Sudetenland.

World domination, my ass! Romney just wants to pick up all the redneck male voters of the South.

[no_hypocrisy]

60. Run the deficit up to $25 trillion with this plan?

[wordpix]

65. when is Tax Dodge Mitt going to be asked about Bain's offshore accounts?

:shrug: The media are again sleeping at the switch and there's about to be a train wreck if this tax evader gets elected

[bemildred]

68. So that would make him Bush III, or Bush IV? nt

[OneAngryDemocrat]

72. Why aren't your 5 sons fighting for a cause you want other Americans to die for, Mitt?

A woman at an "Ask Mitt Anything" forum quized the Republican candidate for President in 2007 why not a single one of Mitt Romney's five sons were serving in Iraq despite all being in good health. The candidate responded by saying, "one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected."

That simply isn't good enough, sir.

I served with Btry E, 2dBn, 14thMar, 4thMarDiv, USMCR, 1985-1991.

My Joliet, Illinois, reserve unit was activated in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

When my country called, I answered.

I'm not in Iraq, today, because I oppose the immoral wars America's Republicans are always starting.

My country did NOT call: the nation's oil conglomerates and America's Islamophobes did.

If your boys support the War in Iraq from the comfort of their cozy captain chairs aboard your touring bus, the "Mitt Mobile", it would seem to me that they either believe that the war in Iraq is worthy of personal sacrifices - just not their own, or that they really don't believe that the war in Iraq is worth their own personal sacrifice.

If none of your five sons can see themselves wearing the uniform, Mister Romney, they need not serve in the uniform - they could work for KBR serving food, or drive a refueler under contract with Halliburton, or work a desk for Blackwater, or a phone bank for the USO.

Why won't any of your five boys serve, Mr. Romney?

Did you ask them to?

Why aren't THEY in Iraq, fighting for the cause you want other Americans to die for?