<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  We should not leave the events of the last couple of days without mentioning Willard Romney&amp;#039;s Big Army Man Speech on Monday. Kindly Doc Maddow explained at length how he plans to increase military spending beyond even the Pentagon&amp;#039;s golden dreams of avarice ought to be a bigger deal than it has been, since it is one more reason that the Romney tax plan is a big barrel of undiluted Fail. However, I was more struck by the sheer hilarity that ensues whenever Willard gets butch and start flexing on the stump. No kidding, it&amp;#039;s like watching all those guys who believe that deriviative trading is the equivalent of hitting the beach on Saipan in your underwear. First of all, Butch Willard ain&amp;#039;t gonna take no mess from pesky furr&amp;#039;ners, and Amurka, Fk Yeah! 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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. It is? No kidding? It is going to come as some surprise to Butch Willard, but the rest of the world is not a company he can buy, load up with debt, and crush out of existence while getting rich off the proceeds. There are entire countries who would rather not be shaped by America&amp;#039;s great power. 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&amp;#039;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. So Butch Willard would rather that our troops still be slogging house-to-house in Baghdad? If so, he should say that he does. I think the American people, particularly the ones who had sons and daughters who actually did some fighting, would like to hear why.... The President is fond of saying that &amp;quot;The tide of war is receding.&amp;quot; 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. When the president took office, there were two actual wars being fought by American soldiers. Now, there is only one. I&amp;#039;d say the &amp;quot;risk of conflict&amp;quot; is rather less when there is one less war than there was before. 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. And your solution is, what exactly? Boots on the ground? Again, I would think that a family that might wind up with a member who is in those boots that are on the ground \u2014 which is to say, a family utterly unlike Butch Willard&amp;#039;s going back two generations now \u2014 might like to hear why that would be smart. Now, though, the flexing truly begins. 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. Get that, you mullahs? Butch Willard is putting you on notice. Welcome to the gun show, beeyotches! What &amp;quot;actions&amp;quot; are we talking about? He doesn&amp;#039;t need to say. He&amp;#039;s running for office, for Pete&amp;#039;s sake. And I will roll back President Obama&amp;#039;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. This is not only a lie. It&amp;#039;s a pathetic lie. The &amp;quot;cuts&amp;quot; in question are part of a budget deal agreed to by, among other people, Butch Willard&amp;#039;s own running mate. He has been reminded of this, over and over again. But, again, he&amp;#039;s got flexing to do, by handing new weapons to other people&amp;#039;s children. 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. Okay, if you&amp;#039;re keeping score at home: Point One: Missile defense is a boondoggle that will never work; Point Two: he got the &amp;quot;flexibility&amp;quot; thing with Putin from the wingnutosphere, and Point Three: Butch Willard will tell those lazy Europeans to shape up. I can hear them laughing from here. 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&amp;#039;s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets.  Loading up volatile areas with state-of-the-art weaponry. What can possibly ever go wrong with that plan?&amp;amp;lt; 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. And how long will other people&amp;#039;s children, and certainly none of your own, have to slog around the mountains in this pointless exercise until you find a transition that was both &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;successful&amp;quot;? Some of their parents, I&amp;#039;m sure, would like to know. And I know you sat out Vietnam on your ass in Paris but, seriously, did you duck the controversy as well as the war? That kind of &amp;quot;real and successful transition&amp;quot; talk got really old for a lot of people along about 1967. The simple fact is that he doesn&amp;#039;t really know anything about any of this stuff, and the malarkey they&amp;#039;re feeding him is warmed-over PNAC gruel from 1992. So he preens and flexes and hopes for the best. He is running for office, for Pete&amp;#039;s sake. In no other field is he more ridiculous, and that&amp;#039;s quite a statement, when you think about it. I mean, if the Republican party wants a fake tough guy to pretend he&amp;#039;s king of the world, why don&amp;#039;t they just go for the gold? "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a16138/romney-foreign-policy-speech-october-2012/?src=rss>