Personally, I would respect a presidential candidate more if they said that any decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities would be made by them in consultation with their national security team, rather than just giving a free pass to Israel to do as they please.

I certainly recognize that Israel is a sovereign nation that retains the right to make its own decisions about war and peace within the confines of international law. But they are also a recipient of a very large amount of U.S. foreign aid, and a decision to attack Iran (particularly when it has been openly blessed by the president of the United States) will have enormous consequences for American interests in the region.

I would be more comfortable with a candidate who said, if any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities becomes necessary, the U.S. will take responsibility for it, and that Israel should cool its jets.

I don’t like Mitt Romney’s rhetoric and I don’t like his approach. There has to be some conditionality to any support of an Israeli attack on Iran, but Romney doesn’t provide any.

Romney has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t want to be critical of our foreign policy while he is traveling abroad. I don’t really have a pet peeve about that. I would not jump down his throat for being critical of some policies. But his rhetoric goes beyond criticism to actually undermining our foreign policy towards Iran. We are trying to prevent a war and Romney is urging Israel to start one.

I think that is dangerous and irresponsible and it violates his pledge to not criticize our foreign policy while he is abroad.

I also think it makes him look weak, as though he’s willing to play the role of Tony Blair to Netanyahu’s George W. Bush. Is Romney a poodle?

0 0 vote
Article Rating