Mittens unveils his foreign policy vision today

[CountDeMoney]

Mitt Romney to tackle President Obama on Libya

LEXINGTON, Va. — Using his harshest language yet, Mitt Romney will go after President Barack Obama on Monday over the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya.

In a tough foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute here, the GOP presidential nominee will link the attacks in Benghazi — including the killing of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens — to a broader critique of Obama's foreign policy as naïve and weak.

"The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts," Romney plans to say. "They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East — a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself."

Romney's advisers say he will offer fresh details of how he'd change course in the region if he wins the White House in November. This speech is the outgrowth of an internal debate at Romney's Boston headquarters about how much time to spend on foreign policy in an election that will be decided on the economy and how forcefully to knock the president after a poorly-timed initial statement that backfired.

Besides Virginia's role as a prized swing state, campaign officials said they chose VMI as the venue because George Marshall — the former Army chief of staff during WWII who became secretary of State and then Defense during the early years of the Cold War — is an alumnus. Romney will open and close his speech with homage to Marshall, quoting Winston Churchill to praise Marshall for always fighting against "defeatism, discouragement and disillusion."

Romney advisers say Romney will try to position himself as the continuation of a bipartisan foreign policy tradition going back to Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan that emphasizes U.S. strength.

Romney special adviser Eliot Cohen said a president's job is to contextualize events overseas for the American people.

"We've gotten various excuses about Benghazi, statements that [the Obama administration] had to pull back from," he said. "But you haven't had an attempt to portray: What's going on here? How should we think about it? What should we do about it? Gov. Romney's going to do step forward and do the kind of things he would do as president — which is to lay out exactly those things."

Romney will say he believes that the attacks on Sept. 11, 2012, were "likely the work of the same forces that attacked our homeland" on Sept. 11, 2001. He'll commit Monday to "vigorously pursue" those responsible.

"This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long," Romney plans to say, according to early excerpts shared by the campaign. "No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others...and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West."

"I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States," Romney plans to say. "I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy."

Romney's decision to aggressively take on the president over Libya comes full circle after initial criticism of Obama backfired in the immediate aftermath of the North African attacks.

It arrives on the heels of the White House changing its explanation for the attacks. At first, it described them as a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video circulating on YouTube. But several high-ranking administration officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, subsequently called the attack the work of terrorists.

The Obama campaign preemptively pushed back on Romney's speech with a statement highlighting Obama's accomplishments, including ending the war in Iraq, and criticizing Romney as a gaffe-prone, war-mongering flip-flopper.

"If Mitt Romney wants to have a debate about foreign policy, we have a message for him: bring it on," said Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith. "He's erratically shifted positions on every major foreign policy issue, including intervening in Libya, which he was against before he was for...It's clear that on every measure, Mitt Romney fails the commander-in-chief test."

Romney advisers respond that the speech makes Romney look presidential and the attack is part of a broader narrative.

"It's a recognition that strength is not provocative. It's weakness that's provocative," said Romney adviser Rich Williamson, a former assistant secretary of state and a special envoy to Sudan under George W. Bush. "It's part of a larger mosaic of the failed leadership."

Williamson told reporters on a Sunday conference call that Romney believes that Obama's global approach has been too reflexive and simplistic.

"While drones and drone attacks are worthwhile and it's good to kill bad guys, you fundamentally misunderstand this struggle if you think that's an answer to it," he said. "It's not. It's just one of the tools, and the governor's going to outline a broader menu and a broader strategy and provide the American people with a clearer vision of the choice they must make on Election Day."

Romney has spoken on foreign policy, but not necessarily very clearly.

The former Massachusetts governor has delivered a spate of speeches that the campaign billed as significant: at the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, during his summer trip abroad, at the Citadel and most recently at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. In his stump speech, Romney talks a great deal about the need to show "leadership," but he rarely goes into much depth.

On Monday, Romney will outline what he'd do as president in a host of hot spots.

He would draw clearer red lines regarding Iran to stop its nuclear weapons development: "I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf the region — and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination."

As a counterweight to Iranian influence, Romney supports the arming of rebels to defeat the Syrian regime and building relationships with the insurgents so that they can eventually become allies: "I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets."

Romney will explain that America has friends and enemies, but that some exist in a gray area in between. He would make foreign aid to Egypt conditional on the new Islamist government building democratic institutions and maintaining peace with Israel.

In Afghanistan, Romney reiterates his support for a "a real and successful transition" to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014, but he keeps the door open to an indefinite U.S. military presence if the country becomes a terrorist sanctuary.

"I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders," he will say. "And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation."

Romney also explains that he supports a two-state solution in Israel. "In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew," he'll say.

Trying to link the speech to the economy, Romney promises to push hard for more trade. He criticizes Obama for not signing a new free trade agreement while president.

[CountDeMoney]

Romney Strives to Stand Apart in Global Policy

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney is intensifying his efforts to draw a sharp contrast with President Obama on national security in the presidential campaign's closing stages, portraying Mr. Obama as having mishandled the tumult in the Arab world and having left the nation exposed to a terrorist attack in Libya.

In a speech on Monday at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney will declare that "hope is not a strategy" for dealing with the rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East or an Iran racing toward the capability to build a nuclear weapon, according to excerpts released by his campaign.

The essence of Mr. Romney's argument is that he would take the United States back to an earlier era, one that would result, as his young foreign policy director, Alex Wong, told reporters on Sunday, in "the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years."

But beyond his critique of Mr. Obama as failing to project American strength abroad, Mr. Romney has yet to fill in many of the details of how he would conduct policy toward the rest of the world, or to resolve deep ideological rifts within the Republican Party and his own foreign policy team. It is a disparate and politely fractious team of advisers that includes warring tribes of neoconservatives, traditional strong-defense conservatives and a band of self-described "realists" who believe there are limits to the degree the United States can impose its will.

Each group is vying to shape Mr. Romney's views, usually through policy papers that many of the advisers wonder if he is reading. Indeed, in a campaign that has been so intensely focused on economic issues, some of these advisers, in interviews over the past two weeks in which most insisted on anonymity, say they have engaged with him so little on issues of national security that they are uncertain what camp he would fall into, and are uncertain themselves about how he would govern.

"Would he take the lead in bombing Iran if the mullahs were getting too close to a bomb, or just back up the Israelis?" one of his senior advisers asked last week. "Would he push for peace with the Palestinians, or just live with the status quo? He's left himself a lot of wiggle room."

Indeed, while the theme Mr. Romney plans to hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by "weakness" and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran's nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama's approach.

And the speech appears to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it "mission creep and mission muddle," though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was "just no way" a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.

Mr. Romney's Monday speech calls vaguely for support of Libya's "efforts to forge a lasting government" and to pursue the "terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans." And he said he would "recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security" with Israel. But he does not say what resources he would devote to those tasks.

The shifts, a half dozen of Mr. Romney's advisers said in interviews, partly reflect the fact that the candidate himself has not deeply engaged in these issues for most of the campaign, certainly not with the enthusiasm, and instincts, he has on domestic economic issues. But they also represent continuing divisions.

Some are on the way to resolution. Over the summer, an "inner circle" of foreign policy advisers emerged, with Richard S. Williamson, a former Reagan administration official who briefly returned to government to serve President George W. Bush, playing a leading role. Another central player is Mitchell B. Reiss, the president of Washington College in Maryland and a veteran of Mr. Romney's 2008 campaign. And Jim Talent, the former Missouri senator, has taken a major role in defense strategy.

Liz Cheney, who served in the State Department during the Bush administration and is the daughter of Mr. Bush's vice president, has begun to join a weekly conference call that sporadically includes Dan Senor, who served as spokesman for the American occupation government in Iraq. Since the Republican National Convention, Mr. Senor has been assigned to the staff of Mr. Romney's running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, who in recent weeks has made Mr. Obama's foreign policy a particular target.

The foreign policy group is overseen by Kerry Healey, who served as lieutenant governor under Mr. Romney in Massachusetts. Missing from the calls are some of the better-known veterans of the Republican foreign policy wars that played out during the Bush administration and went into abeyance until the players reconvened in Mr. Romney's campaign.

The faction around John R. Bolton — the neoconservative former ambassador to the United Nations, who has made clear his distaste for working through international organizations — expressed its deep unhappiness when Robert Zoellick was appointed as a strategist for the national security transition team. Mr. Zoellick, the former president of the World Bank, who also served in the Bush administration, comes from the internationalist wing of the party; Mr. Bolton's allies deride him as moderate to a fault.

Those disputes have been shelved, at least until Nov. 7, advisers say. " 'After the election,' that's what they say in all the conference calls," one member of the team said after trying, unsuccessfully, to argue for more specificity in one of Mr. Romney's recent statements on the Middle East. He added, "They see little benefit in resuming the battles that preoccupied the Bush White House, at least for the next month."

Two of Mr. Romney's advisers said he did not seem to have the strong instincts that he has on economic issues; he resonates best, one said, to the concept of "projecting strength" and "restoring global economic growth." But he has appeared unconcerned about the widely differing views within his own campaign about whether spreading American-style freedoms in the Middle East or simply managing, and limiting, the rise of Islamist governments should be a major goal.

And that has led to some embarrassing confusion. Mr. Williamson said in an interview two weeks ago that Mr. Romney favored arming the Syrian rebels, then called back to say that, in fact, Mr. Romney favored having Arab neighbors arm them, a position fairly close to Mr. Obama's. In the speech he is to give on Monday, Mr. Romney calls for organizing "members of the opposition who share our values" and ensuring "they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets." But he stops short of saying he would provide them himself.

In a television interview two weeks ago, Mr. Romney seemed to forget his position that he would halt Iran from getting a nuclear "capability" — something it would reach long before it had a weapon — and sounded like he was in agreement with the president that he would simply stop Iran from gaining a weapon.

In the V.M.I. speech, he returns to the promise to "prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability." But he discusses primarily "new sanctions on Iran," at a moment when Mr. Obama has imposed what Republicans from the Bush administration agree are the most severe sanctions in history, and combined them with cyberattacks on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Missing from the team are the big names in establishment Republican foreign policy circles. The best known of them, Henry A. Kissinger, has endorsed Mr. Romney, but recently took a shot at his declaration that he would declare China a currency manipulator on the "first day" of a new administration. Last week, Mr. Kissinger described both presidential candidates' approach to China as "extremely deplorable."

[merithyn]

Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?

I'm really trying to understand this man's message, but I'm just not getting it.

[Fate]

After reading all of that I still don't understand how Romney's foreign policy is going to differ one iota from the President's foreign policy.

[Valmy]

As a counterweight to Iranian influence, Romney supports the arming of rebels to defeat the Syrian regime and building relationships with the insurgents so that they can eventually become allies: "I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets."

Great so we would then be ultimately responsible for whatever crazy shit these groups would do.  I would prefer helping Turkey help the insurgents but it would be disguised under the guise of NATO thus we would have more political cover.  Have Turkey shoulder the burden of Syria and it would also act a counterweight to Iranian influence.

[CountDeMoney]

Great so we would then be ultimately responsible for whatever crazy shit these groups would do.  I would prefer helping Turkey help the insurgents but it would be disguised under the guise of NATO thus we would have more political cover.  Have Turkey shoulder the burden of Syria and it would also act a counterweight to Iranian influence.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and soon to be Syria...I'm amazed how we never cease to believe that we can somehow ultimately drive these complex situations ourselves to a conclusion of our choice, like somehow they're post-war European nations we share a common heritage with.  IT'LL BE BETTER NEXT TIME PROMISE

[CountDeMoney]

'Hope is Not a Strategy': Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Address

As prepared for delivery October 8, 2012, at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, here is Mitt Romney's address on foreign policy, titled "The Mantle of Leadership."

I particularly appreciate the introduction from my good friend and tireless campaign companion, Gov. Bob McDonnell. He is showing what conservative leadership can do to build a stronger economy. Thank you also Congressman Goodlatte for joining us today. And particular thanks to Gen. Peay. I appreciate your invitation to be with you today at the Virginia Military Institute. It is a great privilege to be here at an Institution that has done so much for our nation, both in war and in peace.

For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation's defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI's sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm's way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe's rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.

General Marshall once said, "The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it." Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.

Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting "Death to America." These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.

The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

We saw all of this in Benghazi last month—but we also saw something else, something hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read, "The Ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya is sorry." They chanted "No to militias." They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, "We are not going to go from darkness to darkness."

This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people—men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers—all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.

We have seen this struggle before. It would be familiar to George Marshall. In his time, in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today's crises from becoming tomorrow's conflicts.

Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. And though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century.

This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President's policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.

I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America's great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.

[CountDeMoney]

Continued--

The relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put "daylight" between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.

Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation's capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, "Are you with us, or are you with them?"—the American President was silent.

Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.

In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.

The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.

America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.

The President is fond of saying that "The tide of war is receding." And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today—with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threating to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates— it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.

The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, "We will not forget that you forgot about us."

It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them... no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them... and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America's capability to back up our words.

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.

I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.

I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.

And I will roll back President Obama's deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.

The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.

I will make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East and beyond. I will organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results. I will rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs. And I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government—to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities... to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary... and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.

I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships and establishing new ones.

I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.

In Libya, I will support the Libyan people's efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.

In Egypt, I will use our influence—including clear conditions on our aid—to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.

In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.

Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.

There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East—and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America's friends and allies in other parts of the world as well— in Europe, where Putin's Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are "pivoting" away from them ... in Asia and across the Pacific, where China's recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region ... and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: "Where does America stand?"

I know many Americans are asking a different question: "Why us?" I know many Americans are asking whether our country today—with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war—is still capable of leading.

I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America's security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America's great influence—wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively—to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better—not perfect, but better.

Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more—more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves—that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events. Sir Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall: "He ... always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion." That is the role our friends want America to play again. And it is the role we must play.

The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America's torch alone. But it is America's duty – and honor – to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

[Valmy]

And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.

LOLZ

[Ed Anger]

America First! Time for a period of isolation.

[CountDeMoney]

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall

Pfft.  Everybody knows it's Bobby Ross.

[derspiess]

America First! Time for a period of isolation.

Works for me.

[MadImmortalMan]

Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?

I'm really trying to understand this man's message, but I'm just not getting it.

Great White Fleet v2.0

[merithyn]

Am I missing it? How does he suggest that we show our strength? Is he talking about more troops in the Middle East? If so, how do we pay for that and balance the budget?

I'm really trying to understand this man's message, but I'm just not getting it.

Great White Fleet v2.0

[Ed Anger]

Take away the whore pill money and give it to the navy.