If it Were President Romney Requesting Authority to Strike …

… would your opinion change?

  1. Devereaux

    ?Why should it. ?Are there “different” facts if it was Romney.

  2. Gary The Ex-Donk

    There’s no reason it would unless you would put partisan politics ahead of the interests of the country.

    I’ll leave that to the Left.

  3. BrentB67

    Very good question. I would still say no, with some caveats because Obama and Gov. Romney are very different people:

    1. Gov. Romney is an executive leader as opposed to community ruckus rouser.

    2. President Romney would consider all the facts in detail and probably come to the conclusion that engaging in that swamp doesn’t make sense. However, if he did believe it was in our interest he would:
    3. President Romney would’ve consulted Israel, U.K., Dept. of Defense, Congress, and even perhaps Russia or China before getting in front of a microphone.
    4. President Romney after thoroughly briefing Congress would make a very coherent and humble case personally to America on why Syria would merit risking our blood and treasure.

    I am not saying that would necessarily sway my opinion, but I, and I think a lot of others would sincerely respect his position and give it serious consideration.

  4. Belt

    I second Brent’s position.  There would naturally be more trust and respect for Romney, but I would want a clear justification of why it would be in America’s interests before I supported it.

  5. Austin Murrey
    BrentB67: Very good question. I would still say no, with some caveats because Obama and Gov. Romney are very different people:

    I am not saying that would necessarily sway my opinion, but I, and I think a lot of others would sincerely respect his position and give it serious consideration. · 7 minutes ago

    I can only give one like so I’ll second this.  The problem isn’t just that the Syrian civil war is a hornet’s nest.  It’s that this administration has proven hopelessly feckless in the Middle East.

    I cannot remember one group they’ve supported that was pro-or-neutral to the U.S., or any decisions that made sense even.

    Libya – Al Qaeda linked militants

    Iran – Pro-mullah silence during the Green Revolution

    Afghanistan – engage with the “good” Taliban

    Iraq – pull out completely and leave everything to the shakey government vs. Iranian-backed insurgents

    Egypt – Support the Muslim Brotherhood, a wildly fascistic group of would-be-tyrants cloaking themselves in religion – who proved to be terribly incompetent to boot

    Why on earth would anyone trust them to get this one right?

  6. BrentB67
    Belt: I second Brent’s position.  There would naturally be more trust and respect for Romney, but I would want a clear justification of why it would be in America’s interests before I supported it. · 0 minutes ago

    Belt, my guess is that he would take a long hard look at the facts, talk to Israel and the UK and then make a brief statement about working closely with allies and monitoring the situation. He Would Not jump in front of a mic and start running off at the mouth. Thanks.

  7. Asquared

    Query, in your scenario, would President Romney have requested authority for bombing Libya and is now requesting similar authority for bombing Syria?

  8. Yudansha

    No.  I am and would be, under president Romney, opposed to intervention in Syria.

  9. No Caesar
    BrentB67: Very good question. I would still say no, with some caveats because Obama and Gov. Romney are very different people:

    1. Gov. Romney is an executive leader as opposed to community ruckus rouser.

    2. President Romney would consider all the facts in detail and probably come to the conclusion that engaging in that swamp doesn’t make sense. However, if he did believe it was in our interest he would:
    3. President Romney would’ve consulted Israel, U.K., Dept. of Defense, Congress, and even perhaps Russia or China before getting in front of a microphone.
    4. President Romney after thoroughly briefing Congress would make a very coherent and humble case personally to America on why Syria would merit risking our blood and treasure.

    I am not saying that would necessarily sway my opinion, but I, and I think a lot of others would sincerely respect his position and give it serious consideration. · 32 minutes ago

    What Brent said.

  10. DrewInWisconsin

    Duane, what kind of a response were you expecting? And what do you think of the responses you got?

  11. Copperfield

    It might.  President Romney would look at it as part of a larger global strategy and take an informed decision, having weighed many factors (ability to influence the situation, our national interests, blood & treasure, etc.).  As Brent said quite well above, he would also communicate and build support for whatever his decision. 

    I am mostly opposed to President Obama reacting because he sees it as a one-off and he has proven capricious and wholly out of his depth.  Mrs. Clinton’s “what possible difference does it make now” is probably applicable here.  As his actions are not part of a larger strategy, I fear there is little good that can come from them. 

    The President’s only global strategy seems to be to limit America’s actions and ability to act because he (as many leftists do) believes our militarism, consumerism, and nationalism are the primary factors causing conflict in the world.  Somehow, he believed that if he just withdrew America from the world, some sort of natural harmony would materialize.  If there is one axiom throughout history, it is that order must be imposed.   A President Romney would know that.   

  12. Tuck

    Of course.  At this point, I might have some reason to trust Romney’s judgement.

  13. Hartmann von Aue

    Add another “what Brent said.”  

  14. WI Con

    I thought this would have made an interesting post as well, what informs our opinion on this? How do we assign weights to the factors on this site and on  the Right.  I’d probably give it fairer consideration if it was Romney.

    Hey, this is ‘partisan’ but I really dislike (hate?) Obama and at this point don’t mind seeing him wounded in any way possible. There, I said it and it doesn’t bother me. He is a disaster for this country. I’m all about weakening him and discrediting him, his agenda, his policies and his supporters.

    Sounds bad but there it is.

  15. Percival

    No.

    A stupid idea remains a stupid idea even if a smarter person hatches it.

  16. Mollie Hemingway
    C

    Not at all. Although I’d hope that any other individual, including Romney, would have at least attempted to make a better case for war with Syria than President Obama did.

    By way of example, I supported the Afghanistan War but not the Iraq War. While I did not find the case for the Iraq War to be sufficient, it had a coherency and gameplan to it. I could disagree with those pushing for war there in good faith.

    We haven’t even come close to meeting that standard here.

  17. Duane Oyen

    I am concerned that so much of the opinion set forth on this topic right now, as the Senate debates the matter, seems to be more reaction  to Obama’s foreign policy incompetence (Iraq SOFA, Afghan temporary surge, Libya) than it is strategic analysis of the situation as it regards Iran.  I hope that we are responding to sober analyses of the real strategic circumstances of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Lebanon, and not just foreign adventures weariness.

    In general, those who are viscerally non-interventionist are staying that way, and so many others are just tired of the Middle East and war.  I’m not sure that that is a good way to make decisions that have significant strategic import.

    Tom Cotton published a decent op-ed yesterday, and this discussion of the “on the ground” situation deserves some consideration.

    I’m troubled by the “gray” situation, but also not sure that walking away sends the right message to Iran.  Assad is a puppet, period.  If Israel acts, and we are observers, we will have abdicated any right to affect anything.

  18. Bulldawg
    Yudansha: No.  I am and would be, under president Romney, opposed to intervention in Syria.

    Ditto.  But Duane, you knew that already, didn’t you?

  19. Morley Stevenson

    To the extent that trust in the executive became the deciding factor, advantage Romney.

  20. Kelly B

    All other things being equal (approach to “sell” it to the American people by sending the SOS out, the lame answers given to the Senate FR committee on Tuesday, etc)? 

    Nope.  Not in the least.  No justification sufficient to warrant throwing a rock at them has yet been offered, in my opinion.  I didn’t think Iraq was a good idea, either.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In