Marco Rubio delivered a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution today that was heavy on deceptive attacks against President Obama. But the most notable thing about Rubio's speech was what he didn't say: The remarks were tellingly short on praise for Mitt Romney's foreign policy plans.
That's because there's nothing to praise. Rubio knows Romney has been on every side of the key foreign policy challenges facing our country today. He's failed to outline a coherent vision for America's place in the world or construct any concrete plans to enhance our security or strengthen our alliances.
Just look at Romney’s foreign policy positions and statements over the years:
Afghanistan: Romney has criticized the President’s proposal to responsibly withdraw our troops, implying that he would leave them there indefinitely. And he has refused to say what he would do as President in Afghanistan beyond “deferring to the generals.”
Iran: Romney said in 2007 that he would defer to his lawyers before considering military action. And now he is advocating for “crippling sanctions” and keeping a military option on the table—all things the President has already done. Although he has criticized the President’s approach in Iran, he has failed to say what he would do differently, or if he believes there is still time for diplomacy to work.
Osama bin Laden: Romney said it wasn’t worth “moving heaven and earth” to catch him and he even criticized President Obama for making it clear that he would take out al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan.
Muammar Qaddafi: Romney flip-flopped on removing Qaddafi, first attacking President Obama for intervening in Libya and then celebrating it as Libyan rebels took Tripoli with the help of US and allied forces.
With a record of statements like that, is it any surprise why Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio are focused on distorting the president’s record?