US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney plans to declare his commitment to the notion of “a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel,” according to advance excerpts of his remarks provided by his campaign released on Sunday.
“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,” Romney is billed to say. “It is time to change course in the Middle East.”
The speech marks an attempt to soften his stance on the peace process following leaked video footage last month where the presidential candidate questioned the feasibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank.
“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, “There’s just no way.”” Romney said last month.
Romney is to make the renewed commitment in a major foreign policy speech, titled “The Mantle of Leadership”, in Lexington, Virginia late Monday evening where he intends to lay out his vision for American foreign policy. According to reports, he hopes to draw “great contrast” with that of President Barack Obama, notably on Syria, Libya and Egypt.
He is also billed to talk on the Iranian nuclear threat, where he is to warn Iran not to pursue nuclear weapon capability and said the US had to back this up “through actions, not just words.”
The speech also links the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last month to al-Qaida.
Romney is to call the attack “likely the work of the same forces that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001,” and “the deliberate work of terrorists.” This is in stark contrast to the current administration line, which says the attack was a spontaneous response to the anti-Islam movie that mocks the Prophet Muhammad.
He is billed to add: “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.”
The excerpts of the speech suggest he plans to provide unequivocal support for the rebels in Syria against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
“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.”
He anticipated that the rebels will one day lead the country and the US should align itself with them.
Romeny’s speech at the Virginia Military Institute will mark the 10th address on the topic of foreign policy since summer 2011.
That video footage may have been leaked last month, but the remarks (at a private fundraiser) were offered back in May — and they included these words:
Sounds like this attempt to “soften his stance” got an assist — between May and October — from a “former secretary of state” by name of. . . . James Baker?
It would be an honour, Yamit.
@ Michael Devolin:
Good line mind if I use it?
@ Laura:
No reason why you should if you read the transcript he really said nothing except more of the same and threw a few bones to conservatives who hold the military as a Holy cow that never stops taking, and Blue-dog Democrats who fear for their defense related jobs like Virginia. He threw the Jews a few bones, too bad they were the wrong bones and said he would like Bush and Obama support Islamists wherever they were as long as they agree to become his Islamists.
In short it was a political speech through and through with some “Sound and Fury but really signifying: not much”
If Romney, as some on this thread intimate, that he didn’t and couldn’t say what his views really are because it might cost him votes are really saying: is he Lies and the Democrats who call him a Liar are speaking the Truth. Then Obama lies as do all politicians but if we concede that they lie to us on some things, why accept other things they say is the truth?
Michael Devolin Said:
very amusing, and I agree completely. I think they found a few of those in Egypt before the MB took over too.
Romney is reminding me of the Reagan Bush years. It was 12 years of excessively high interest rates, up to 20% on mortgages and 24% on credit cards, and a dead economy, apparently except for those with the big bucks. If you had cash you were king but in a devastated economy who usually has the cash and who sets the rates? There was a lot of international stuff going on like the soviet disintegration and the Gulf War but the economy is a memory of crap. So much for another president who everyone, even obama, touts now. I left the US for the 2nd time , just before Clinton, and I apparently missed the best economic boom in decades. Then Bush came in and the deficit skyrocketed and so did big business debacles. All of those republican govts reminded me of an old perfume ad “promise them anything but give them Arpege” Arpege became synonymous with shit stink for me. Reagan was going to get the economy going, but for who? Today in reading about the Chavez win I read the following: “Carlos Julio Silva, said that whatever his faults, Chavez deserved to win for spreading the nation’s oil wealth to the poor”. I then thought about what I recently read in the CIA fact book that almost all the gains of the last few decades went to the top 20% households. I thought that although I detest Chavez’s associations Venezuelans appeared to have more trickle down from the top than we did. From my perspective we are going to be screwed whoever gets in.
“I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values…”
This is political gobbly-gook. There is absolutely nobody in Syria, whether for or against Assad, who share Western values. Romney will sooner have angels flying out of his arse than finding those certain “members who share our values” in Syria. That’s like looking for a dog in a mosque.
I agree with Ted — he MUST be cautious. Already the Obama Muslim Brotherhood sychophants are alleging that Romney is more right wing than Bush (ie, Romney’s being painted, once again, as a “war-monger”).
@ Laura:
We are all stuck with a two state solution whether we like it or not.
I don’t like much of what’s in this speech.
He knows full well there will not be a democratic, prosperous “palestinian” state living in peace with Israel as he honestly spoke about in that fundraiser. He knows such a state will be an islamic terrorist state committed to the destruction of Israel. People need to be told the truth about the “palestinians” instead of perpetuating lies and myths. If Romney fears losing support by opposing a two-state solution, then he needs to explain and make voters understand why this is not viable. He needs to explain the Jew-hatred endemic in “palestinian” society, the incitement to hatred and murder of Jews being taught to children which makes a two-state solution impossible.
In drawing “great contrast” with Obama on foreign policy, why is Israel not mentioned here? I find this disturbing. Is Romney not going to change course with regard to Israel?
Why does Romney feel the need to call the video “reprehensible”? He too is pandering to muslims. By doing so Romney perpetuates the dhimmi notion that it is a terrible thing to insult islam. Why? Why should we respect an ideology calling for our subjugation or death? Since the attacks had nothing to do with the video why even mention the video at all?
Bad idea. The “rebels” are al qaeda and the muslim brotherhood. We should stay out of Syria.
Overall, I’m not thrilled with what’s in this speech if this article is any indication.
BACK TO NEO CON ISM……TWO STATE SOLUTION ….
@ Ted Belman:
TWO-STATE CATASTROPHE?
You may be right. Romney has said in the past that he won’t propose anything without consulting with the Israeli government. And we all know what the Israeli government wants. So Romney will go for the Two State Catastrophe.
It all depends on who among his advisors Romney will listen to today. The campaign is in such flux that it’s hard to predict where the challenger will stand on some topics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ron Paul was for US hands-off the Middle East (let them kill each other if that’s what they want to do). This had support from left to right of the spectrum among his fans.
I am hoping the leaked video shows the real Romney and am treating any statements prior to the election as campaign slogans
Romney is trailing Obama 48 to 42 on foreign policy. He has to tread carefully between being more assertive and coming across as more likely to get the US into another war. He will stress that alQaeda is far from dead and buried. He has to be careful in dealing with Obama’s embrace of the MB.
Romney should support the two state solution because he’d lose support by doing otherwise. He will gain support by presenting a different vision on the other places; Libya, Egypt and Syria.
He will also make the point that Obama’s policies have given new life to al Qaeda.