Flip Flopping On Foreign Policy
Flip flopping on foreign policy just to score political points puts America’s security at risk.
Connect: Keeping America safe and secure is the most important responsibility of our Commander-In-Chief.
Define: A politician who flip flops around on America’s affairs abroad just to score political points at home puts our nation's security at risk.
Differentiate: Adjusting strategy to reflect America's best interests is one thing. It’s another for a politician to flip flop around on our troops, diplomats, and nation just to advance his own self-interest.
Illustrate: Romney used to say peace in the Middle East is impossible, we should ignore Libya, and leave Afghanistan. But now he's saying the opposite so he can attack the President politically.
Remind: Romney also says Russia is America's biggest enemy, goes on overseas tours where he insults our nation's allies, and fumbled the Libya crisis so badly that even Republicans called him reckless and incompetent.
Warn: Flip-flopping around just for political convenience isn't a foreign policy -- it's a political strategy that puts American lives in jeopardy. We can't afford a flip-flopper in charge of America's national security.
ATTACKS AND RESPONSES
ATTACK: "Obama won't crack down on China but Romney will."
- Since when is Romney concerned about getting tough on China? This is the politician whose expertise is making Wall Street investors very rich sending American jobs overseas.
- It's the big multinational corporations that profit off the current situation with China -- so we need leaders who can stand up to the powerful corporate interests. And that's why cracking down on China would mean cracking down on Mitt Romney.
- On the other hand, President Obama just filed a trade action against China for undermining America's auto industry -- just like he stood up for the auto makers when Romney said let Detroit go bankrupt instead.
ATTACK: "We’re less safe under Obama."
- Due to President Obama's leadership, bin Laden is gone and Al Qaeda is on the run. So President Obama is handling our national security just fine, thanks.
- As Commander-in-Chief, Obama is making the tough and decisive calls that keep us safe -- weakening our enemies around the globe, strengthening our alliances, and focusing on 21st century threats.
- On the other hand, Mitt Romney said we shouldn't go after bin Laden, thinks that Russia is America's number one enemy, and fumbled his last foreign policy incident so badly he got called out as reckless and incompetent by other Republicans.
- Here's what we should really worry about: Flip flopping around on America’s foreign affairs just to score political points at home -- that puts America’s security and American lives at risk.
- We're dealing with these sequester cuts because Congressional Republicans -- including Paul Ryan -- refuse to put the military before millionaires and end tax breaks for the richest 2%. They admit to it -- even Sen. Graham said "my party has their fingerprints all over it."
- Now they're claiming that the amount we were spending at the height of the Iraq war is too low today. Instead Romney wants to help Republicans in Congress renege on their word and ignore their own spending limits so they can bring pork home to their campaign donors.
- The world has changed, and so have the tools we need. Let's remember it was the whole-of-government counterterrorism approach -- combining military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, financial, legal and civilian tools -- that brought hundreds of terrorists to justice.
- So let's enact smarter defense spending cuts that keep us focused on 21st century threats. It's in our strategic interests to build the leaner, more agile force that our military leaders want.
FACTS: The U.S. defense budget is six times that of China's and equal to that of more than the next 17 highest spending countries combined. If the "trigger" spending reductions go through, the Pentagon budget would return to 2007 levels -- a time when we were paying for two major wars.
- Politicians who want to keep our troops in Iraq forever have zero credibility on Iraq. And let's remember that Romney is surrounded by Bush advisors who pushed us into Iraq by getting the facts wrong and pressuring us to go to war in the first place.
- Iraq is America's partner in the region, but the Iraqis are capable of governing and defending themselves. Iraq is now a free and independent democracy.
- Our troops did their job in Iraq. That's why they’ve come home and we're sending our diplomats and military trainers instead to help the Iraqis keep their country and the region safe and stable.
- Responsibly ending the Iraq War allows us to renew our focus on the fight against terrorism and rebuilding America's economic strength. That makes us stronger around the world.
FACTS: It was under President Bush in 2008 when U.S. and Iraqi officials agreed that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2011. Our top military commanders have also affirmed that Iraqi security forces are capable of protecting their country on their own.
We develop messaging by aggregating, analyzing and distilling polling, tested messaging, and expert recommendations, and monitoring the media to identify what is and isn't working. See here for some of the experts and organizations we draw on.
Posted in - Foreign Policy - National Security - 2012 Elections