Following is a brief correction of Romney’s VMI speech. No one could possibly correct all the mistakes and falsehoods in one evening so let me just hit a few major points.
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…
Romney fails to mention that it was his campaign that tied the protests against the video to the Bengazi attack first. If Romney honestly thinks tying the mob reaction to the video with the Bengazi murders was wrong he should apologize for doing it first, and then reiterating his mistake the next day even as he faced near universal condemnation for the initial statement.
On Iraq Romney claims:
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 Romney references here is President Obama. The President who actually reached agreement with the Iraqi government on our withdrawal was President Bush. Would a theoretical President Romney have come to office and refused to abide by the agreement reached by President Bush with the Iraqi government? That position makes sense how? Romney seems to be saying that we should still be bogged down in Iraq, and I do hope President Obama points that out in the upcoming foriegn policy debate.
Romney ignores the truth when he says:
I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military.
The defense cuts Romney refers to here are the result of the 2011 Budget Control Act. Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan voted in favor of that act, and has defended that vote as recently as mid September. Sequestration is the result of congress’ inability to reach a deal on budget cuts. The only role the president had in sequestration was signing the act, believing congress would reach a deal to avoid the cuts. In fact congress still has the ability to avoid sequestration with a budget deal. Romney would more be more accurate to point the finger of blame for the cuts on his running mate and the house Republicans who obstinately refuse to work with Democrats on a fair deal.
Romney contradicts himself when he says:
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.
This is the same Mitt Romney who had this to say to his fat cat donors about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
“[Y]ou hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it”.
“Paliestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.”
A private description of kicking the ball down the field on an insoluble problem morphs into public assurances that his election will result in an American commitment to side by side democracy and prosperity between Israel and the Palestinians. What else would you expect from someone who has proven time and time again that he has no core convictions beyond what he believes is best for him depending on the audience he is addressing at the time.