Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Romney's Foreign Policy Platform; Mitt in the Middle?; Mitt's Foreign Policy Gaffes; Romney Foreign Policy speech Soon; Romney Delivery speech at VMI

Aired October 08, 2012 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAROL COSTELLO, ANCHOR, "CNN NEWSROOM": "What we need is a strong third or maybe even fourth political party so we have a real choice. I will vote for Obama because, in spite of his failings, I think Obama cares more about the middle class."

Facebook.com/CarolCNN. Thanks as always for your comments and thanks for watching my show today. I am Carol Costello.

"CNN Newsroom" continues right now with Ashleigh Banfield.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, ANCHOR, "CNN NEWSROOM": Thank you very much, Carol.

Hi, everybody. It's 11:00 on the East Coast. It's 8:00 a.m. on the West Coast and here's how we begin.

The story of the hour is the "Romney doctrine," the world according to the Republican nominee for the President of the United States. Mitt Romney is laying out his foreign policy platform in just about 20 minutes from now and we've got our live cameras trained at the Virginia Military Institute.

You're going to hear him as he takes to the mike and possibly a global audience. You'll hear it right here on CNN.

You're also going to hear from our unmatched team of correspondents and analysts, all the way from D.C. to Beijing to Beirut. We have you completely covered and we are going to begin, fittingly, with our own Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

Wolf, when it comes to foreign policy credibility, the Obama camp is comparing Mitt Romney to Chevy Chase and our most recent poll shows that voters give the president a 7-point edge on world affairs.

So, here's the question. Is a challenger, any challenger, be it Mitt Romney or anyone else, obliged to do this, obliged to become the commander-in-chief like for a moment and give a foreign policy speech right before the election?

WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": Yes and Mitt Romney's been aggressively pursuing the foreign policy area because he thinks the president is vulnerable.

Yes, the President did manage to kill bin Laden on his watch, but in certain other areas, the Romney folks, if you listen to all of their national security advisers, their foreign policy advisers, they think the president's very vulnerable, especially the notion of leading from behind.

They say a Romney administration would not lead from behind, but would, rather, lead from out front and they're going to go after the President, aggressively.

You'll see this in the course of Romney's address which has been very carefully prepared, very carefully written and you certainly saw to a certain degree when Romney did his overseas trip over the summer when he went to Britain and then he went to England -- Britain then he went to Israel and then he went to Poland and the series of speeches he delivered were pretty tough on the president, even though he was reluctant to overly criticize the president while overseas.

But the message certainly came through in the interview I did with Mitt Romney in Jerusalem when he was there when we were talking about the Middle East.

So, I think you'll see a lot more of this and he thinks he's got some advantages in going after the president's record on a lot of these issues.

BANFIELD: And I recall -- specifically, since you said he'll be so careful as he words the speech today, I recall the series of gaffes on the overseas trip, as well, and to that point, Wolf, this speech today -- and we do have some of the excerpts, so I want to take a few and get your take on the differences between Mitt Romney's positions and President Obama's positions on these very specific issues, and they are the hottest issues right now in foreign policy.

Let's start with Iran. The excerpt, according to the text we've been given, Mitt Romney's going to say, and I quote, "The United States and our friends and allies will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran and will tighten the sanctions we currently have."

If you could break down for me how that differs from the president's and, specifically, that word "capability," acquiring capability, as opposed to acquiring weapons.

BLITZER: It's much closer, Romney's position, to the position that we heard articulated by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, when he drew that red line, literally, at the United Nations General Assembly.

The word capability is significant because, if you're capable of building a bomb, that doesn't mean you necessarily have a bomb, but you're capable of doing so.

Pardon?

BANFIELD: It could be years away. Capability could be years from actually acquiring a weapon. BLITZER: Or it could be years or it could be months or it could be weeks or whatever, but it's a different threshold than what the Obama administration has laid out.

When you look -- read carefully at what the president said at the General Assembly, his most recent remarks on Iran's nuclear program, he said the United States will not allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb.

I'm paraphrasing to a certain degree, but the word capability was not there. You did hear it from the Israeli prime minister, Today, you're hearing it, once again, from Mitt Romney.

Now, Mitt Romney has been vague. He's gone back-and-forth on this issue of capability. Sometimes he says it. Sometimes he doesn't. Today, he's very categorical in saying in a Romney administration Iran would not be able to have that capability of building a nuclear bomb, which is significantly different than the threshold laid out by the president.

BANFIELD: And let's talk about Syria which has been somewhat of a thorn in the side of this current sitting American president and Mr. Romney's, Governor Romney's view of Syria, there was something in these prepared remarks that we excerpted that stood out to me and I want to get your take on it.

He said or he will say, according to his prepared remarks released, "I will work with our partners to identify and organize those rebels who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need."

Now, we all know that currently the American administration is not providing arms nor are they even suggesting they're facilitating providing arms. I'm not sure whether Governor Romney is suggesting that the United States should arm the rebels, whomever the friendly rebels end up being, or whether we should ally with those who would arm rebels.

Do you get a feel for this?

BLITZER: Well, there's a whole category of rebels, the opponents to Bashar al-Assad's regime, and there are some more democratically- inclined, shall we say, who presumably would want to have a better relationship with the United States, with the West and other friendly countries in the Middle East, whether Saudi Arabia, maybe, or Qatar or some of the other countries that have been actively involved in what's going on in Syria and fomenting some of the problems against Bashar al-Assad's regime.

The great concern that the Obama administration has had and the reason why the U.S. has not sought to arm the rebels is because some of those rebels may be totally opposed to the United States, may be closer to al Qaeda, for example, than to the United States.

So, once you start arming rebels in a major way, you're not sure where those weapons are going to wind up and that's been the big concern of the Obama administration right now. How do you make sure that the weapons you provide rebels are really going to the good guys, as it were, as opposed to the potential bad guys and that's not an easy question to answer?

BANFIELD: Never. In fact, we have countless examples, Wolf, of where this has gone awry. Hold that thought for a moment, if you will, Wolf, and if you could stand by, I have a lot more questions I need to ask you.

In the meantime, as this news continues to break, I want to check in now on Mitt Romney who spent the weekend campaigning in Florida before heading to Virginia. That's where today's live event is about to take place and our national political correspondent Jim Acosta is live on the campaign trail.

They've landed. He's now in Lexington, Virginia, where that foreign policy speech is going to take place.

Jim, I understand that you've seen a few parts of the speech, as well. You've seen some of the excerpts. We've had some of them, as well.

Tell me what your feel is. When you're on the ground, are you getting a good feel for the mood of this campaign? Has it taken an about turn? Are we going to see an attack on the president, which is a campaign tactic, or are we going to see a different tactic, a statesman that wants to layout his vision for the future?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Ashleigh, I think you're going to see a couple of those things. You might see both of those things, in fact, when Mitt Romney gets out here in just a few moments from now.

You know, the Romney campaign is pretty pleased with what the American people saw at that presidential debate last week. They saw Mitt Romney going toe-to-toe with President Obama and so now is another chance they think for the American people to see Mitt Romney sort of filling out the role as commander-in-chief, laying out some of his foreign policy principles.

And then after the speech is over he's going to be meeting in a roundtable with a group of retired generals. So, again, another one of those images that the campaign would like to put out there of Mitt Romney as commander-in-chief.

But just to talk a little bit about what you and Wolf were talking about just a few moments ago, you go into these excerpts and you can take away a few different things. I was listening to a campaign conference call yesterday held by some senior Romney foreign policy adviser and, Ashleigh, you just mentioned the situation in Syria.

They were talking about this idea of providing arms to the rebels in Syria as an idea that would appeal to the left as -- to people who look at this from a humanitarian standpoint and, so, it was interesting to hear the Romney campaign talk about that issue from that standpoint.

The other thing they raised on this conference call and that you also see in those excerpts is this idea of a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We saw on that Mother Jones hidden- camera video Romney sort of throw cold water on the idea of a two- state solution.

But if you look at the excerpts, he talks about a free and democratic and prosperous Palestinian state that would stand side-by-side with an Israeli state. That is very different, at least in tone, from what we've heard Mitt Romney talk about on the campaign trail, especially during that foreign policy trip overseas when he went to Israel and talked about Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

And one other thing that we should note from the campaign conference call that we listened to yesterday, Ashleigh, Romney's senior foreign policy advisers were looking to JFK, Harry Truman, even Bill Clinton in his second term as presidents that they are looking at in terms of shaping a potential "Romney Doctrine" in the future.

BANFIELD: Believe those are Democrats.

ACOSTA: So, you know, last week a lot of people were talking -- that's right. That's right and, last week, Ashleigh, you heard a lot of pundits on the right and left saying, well, maybe Mitt Romney is moving to the middle on domestic policy issues. Perhaps we'll see a little bit of that today in the foreign policy realm.

BANFIELD: Right. All right, Jim Acosta, stand by, if you will. Thank you for that, as the crowd begins to build hint you, all eyes on Romney's speech this morning and the president for his part couldn't be farther away. He's out West.

And not necessarily speaking -- well, he might be speaking to some. He's drumming up money, campaign cash from A-listers and big-money donors.

Our White House correspondent Brianna Keilar is live now with us. He is looking to about $10 million to the $181 million that he raised last month, but he still needs to be in those battleground states, too.

So, what's the plan of attack? I know you've got to have money to get to those states, but how's he going to sort of re-jig this?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, he needs the money and I will tell you, Ashleigh, tomorrow he is going to Ohio which is a key battleground state where he's doing better in the polls than Mitt Romney, so he'll be trying to shore up that vote.

But the other thing he's doing today, besides just raising money, is dedicating a memorial to Caesar Chavez, a Latino icon, founder of the United Farm Workers, and he's doing this in California which is obviously a "blue state" that you assume he has pretty well shored up, but when you do something like this, there is a political calculation in this, obviously.

He needs the Latino vote. It does tend to go for the Democrat over a Republican candidate by more than 2-to-1, but it is a growing voter bloc. It's key in states like Nevada, Virginia, Florida, even North Carolina, so there's also that going on as he fundraises, Ashleigh. BANFIELD: And, before I get to the foreign policy issue which I definitely want to get to, considering that's the theme of the day, first, I want to get to the debate because he finally sort of has come out publicly, or at least in front of that audience that has now become public.

He's made fun of his debate performance, but he did it in front of 6,000 people. How did that go over?

KEILAR: It did go over pretty well, obviously. He was in front of a ton of supporters, but this was the first time and this is why it's interesting. He was talking about his lackluster debate performance.

Here is what he said. This was last night in L.A. at a fundraiser, a concert before thousands of his supporters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These guys and everybody here is incredible professionals. They're such great friends and they just perform flawlessly night after night. I can't always say the same.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: So, funny there, Ashleigh, but, as you know, this is very serious stuff. Mitt Romney has enjoyed a bump in the polls following his debate performance and, President Obama, there is a lot of pressure for him to deliver next week when he is in New York at the debate on foreign policy.

And, of course, pressure, as well, on Vice President Joe Biden who will have his debate against Paul Ryan in Kentucky this week.

BANFIELD: All right, Brianna Keilar, we're going to talk about his foreign policy plans a little later on in the program. In the meantime, thank you for that.

And you can stay tuned as well. World is watching closely who is going to be the next American president. Make no mistake. It's not just you and me watching these speeches.

We're going to go to South Africa where some people there are offering a bit of advice for the next president of our union.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My message for the presidential candidates is, if you take an interest in Africa, take an interest in green issues in Africa. Have a look at what's happening with our water supplies and education and things like that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you want to be the president of the United States of America, be sure because it's not an easy job. When you get that position, make it count.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would prefer Barack Obama, but it's not my right to vote. It is the American citizens rights to vote and I respect their choice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have no doubt that Romney is better for Israel. He doesn't have the preconceived notions that, if he is not friendly to Israel, he will win over the Arab world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Some reaction from Jerusalem, two men sharing their thoughts on the upcoming U.S. election.

Why would we listen? Because today it's all about foreign policy.

Mitt Romney's foreign policy trip was this summer. Do you remember it? Because Romney's campaign is kind of hoping you're going to forget about a lot of widely criticized missteps and, instead, focus on the criticism that he is getting ready just in the next few moments to level at President Obama over these countries on your screen, and the escalating violence and the tensions right across the Arab world.

These images, essentially, lay out Romney's foreign policy speech at a glance. That includes the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. You can expect that Romney will jab at that potential foreign policy Achilles heel for President Obama.

And you're about to hear it directly from Romney himself. We've got a live picture once again. We're waiting on the governor at the Virginia Military Institute, he likely back stage getting ready to take the stage at any moment, which is why we also have all of our producers and our reporters around the world at CNN, waiting and watching this alongside of you to bring you the context and the perspective.

And that's Wolf Blitzer, too, our guide through the political landscape.

So, this is what's so fascinating, Wolf. Now, that there is cable news, 24/7, and a veritable cacophony of talk when it comes to these things, we've already had the excerpts sent to us from Governor Romney's camp and we already had a pre-buttal delivered to us from the president's camp.

So, it's a foreign-policy offensive at a glance before we even get the original speech and I just want to quote something that the president's camp has set out, fascinating.

"To date, all Mitt Romney has offered is bluster and platitudes. He's radically shifted positions on every major foreign policy issue, including intervening in Libya which he was against before he was for."

What I find fascinating about that, it almost sounds like the attack on John Kerry, the flip-flopping attack. Is this something that the president is going to be able to seize upon and try to use the same attack that Republicans did to Democrats when John Kerry was trying to become president that they can now spin right back around and use "flip-flopper?"

BLITZER: Right. They would love to do that and the question is, in that third and final presidential debate between the president and Mitt Romney, will the president really go on the offensive unlike the first debate?

Will he really go after Mitt Romney on some of these foreign policy issues. Remember, that third and final presidential debate is close to be entirely devoted to national security and foreign policy.

The next presidential debate, the town hall meeting, that our own Candy Crowley is going to be moderating, that's going to be on domestic issues, other issues. Presumably somebody wants to ask a foreign policy question, they can, but that the third debate will be strictly foreign policy.

As a result, Romney is preparing for the second, especially that third debate, right now and I think the speech that he is delivering today is part of that.

In delivering a major foreign policy address like he is today, laying out his vision for the United States around the world during the Romney administration, he really has to beef up on a lot of these issues.

And, while he has a lot of experience on domestic economic issues, a lot of the social issues, obviously the political issues, his experience in national security and foreign policy is not vast.

So, he's got to really bone up on this and this is an area where the Obama administration thinks that the president will have a lot of advantages going into that third and final debate.

But, first of all, let's get through this speech that he is going to be delivering today. I've gone through the excerpts, as have you, Ashleigh. I'm a lot more interested now to see what they didn't give us in the excerpts, what else will he say, and we'll obviously be able to dissect that in the aftermath of this speech.

BANFIELD: OK. Stand by if you would, Mr. Blitzer.

I want to bring in Hala Gorani who has covered the international scene for CNN for a very long time. When it comes to how the rest of the world is going to be viewing this speech and I suppose my first question should be, will they?

But I really want to get from your perspective, Hala, whether this speech essentially needs to be a speech only for America or, without question, needs to be a speech for the rest of the world because he could be locked into it if he becomes president.

HALA GORANI, CORRESPONDENT, CNN INTERNATIONAL: Yeah, he could be either -- been some contradictions in what he said, for instance, in that leaked video versus what he's expected to say about the Israeli- Palestinian peace process and whether or not he enthusiastically supports the two-state solution.

I think what people are most interested in are some of the things he will say about Syria, Ashleigh, because that is the burning question, as far as the Arab world is concerned right.

And we've heard and I heard you discuss with Wolf Blitzer a little bit earlier, some of the things he said, that the rebels who share the values of the United States need to be identified in order to facilitate -- I'm paraphrasing -- facilitate arming them.

And, as you mentioned there, it is unclear whether he supports directly arming the rebels with U.S. arms or working with partners such as Gulf states to arm the rebels through borders such as the Turkish border, so, I think people will be listen for that.

I think people will also be listening for what they won't hear, necessarily, in this speech. One of the foreign policy components that is very unpopular in certain parts of the world has been, in fact, intensified under the Obama administration and those are drone strikes against the suspected terrorist targets.

Both campaigns seem to agree on the fact that the use of drones against those targets is something that serves American policy interests. However, as far as our American audience is concerned, in parts of the world like Pakistan, like Yemen, you can imagine, other parts of the Arab world, this is not seen as something that is good coming out of America or that helps its image.

So, I think people will be listening for what they will expect, but also for what might be absent as well, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Hala, I want you to listen with me, if you would. I want to indulge you in a sound bite that we have from Mitt Romney with respect to Spain.

And it may have been considered an innocuous comment to those here in America, but t went over like lead zeppelin in Spain. Let me play it and then I'll ask you on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We're now spending 42 percent of our economy on government.

I don't want to go down the path to Spain. I want to go down the path of growth that puts Americans to work with more money coming in because they're working.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BANFIELD: All right, Hala, I don't want the path of ...

GORANI: Didn't go down well. No.

BANFIELD: I can imagine it would seem offensive, but here's the question when it comes to his words versus the president's words. The president, everyone hangs on every syllable or consonant of the president's speeches. Mitt Romney, does he have more latitude or is he under the same kind of microscope overseas?

GORANI: No, he's not under the same kind of microscope, but some of the things that he's said in the past before that comment about Spain, for instance, about the Palestinians and how Israelis are somehow implying culturally business-minded whereas the Palestinians are not, some of the things he said regarding Russia, for instance, that it's America's number one geopolitical foe.

Those have been framed in the foreign press and in other countries outside of the United States as gaffes by someone who is not experienced in foreign policy and that is absolutely how he has viewed in some parts of the world at this stage.

Now, he's making the political calculation that it helps him to come out and attack Barack Obama on foreign policy and perhaps, over the weeks and months that he's had the opportunity to frame rhetorically how he's going to approach this, will go down a little bit better.

But with that Spain comment, it is something that didn't go down very well, as well as with other things he said about other European countries and, so, we're going to have to see.

I think what Wolf said is very true. We have to listen to this speech and dissect it and see what tone and exactly what words he uses in the next few minutes.

BANFIELD: I know I feel like we're jumping the gun, but they sent us the excerpts in advance, so we get this opportunity.

Hala, if you'd stand by for a second, my friend, thank you.

Our foreign affairs correspondent, Jill Dougherty, is also standing by at the State Department. Clearly, Jill, where you are all ears and eyes will be on this speech. This is so critical to the State Department's work.

It's one thing, as I mentioned to Hala, to be a candidate and to be able to give a speech. It's quite another to be the president because your words are critical at that very moment and can set off any kind of array of problems.

Let me ask you about Mitt Romney and his comments when it comes to the duty of America. These are some of the things that he's expected to say in these excerpts that he has sent to the press.

And this one stood out to me and I'm wondering if it stood out stands out to you. "I believe the leader of the free world has a duty to use America's great influence to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict and make the world a better place, not perfect, but better."

That sounds great here in America. My thought is that the State Department would cringe and think, you know, we're going to have to mitigate that somewhat overseas when it comes to our interests and our interests alone.

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Ashleigh, I think you have to look at that word "shape events." You know, if you look at the world, the United States can to a certain extent shape some events.

But there is a lot going on that the United States realistically cannot shape. There are forces at work in the world that are simply motivated by the people in various countries and, so, this idea that -- you know, even that phrase, "the free world," to me has kind of a Cold-War feeling to it.

And, yes, when the world was divided in half between the Soviet Union and the U.S., maybe there was more that the U.S. could do, but right now, it's a really complicated and complex mix.

And especially economically, I think it's going to be very interesting to listen to what he says economically because, right now, that's the kind of the name of the game, energy policy, economics, et cetera.

So, talking about the United States leading, we have to hear the specifics. What specifically should the United States do that isn't being done right now?

BANFIELD: All right, Jill Dougherty, stand by if you will.

We're watching the clock and we're also watching those live cameras at the Virginia Military Institute because that's where Governor Romney is expected any moment to take the microphone and to deliver this extraordinarily important foreign policy speech.

It's certainly long-awaited and there are a lot of eyes and ears that ready to hear what he has to say, more than just the examines that we've been able to play.

So stand by. We'll take a quick break and we'll be back right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: A live picture for you now at the Virginia Military Institute where any moment now the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is going to deliver his remarks, what's being billed as a major foreign policy speech. The governor of Virginia doing some of the preamble and working with the crowd until the governor shows up. In fact, he is about 10 minutes late by our clock, which during the campaign means absolutely nothing. Let me tell you that. Wolf Blitzer has been with me throughout, with commentary on the advanced comments and excerpts that we have been given by the Romney campaign.

And, Wolf, I want to ask you specifically about another element of the speech that stood out to me. I want to get your take on it. This has to do with Governor Romney's foreign policy position when it comes to Israel and a Palestinian state. and whether there could be a side-by- side state. He says, "I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel."

That sounds pretty concrete, like there is a committed effort to making progress on Mideast peace. However, at that very controversial fundraising event where the famous 47 percent comments came out, May 17th, the hidden camera remarks during the same fundraising event, this was made about his foreign policy thoughts when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian state.

Let me play that for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: The Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. So what you do is you move things along the best way you can and you hope for some degree of stability and what you recognize is that it is going to remain and we I can the bowel down the field and hopefully something will happen to resolve it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Tape comes back to haunt you at all time, and kicking the can or the ball down the road doesn't sound like today's comments of recommitting America to this goal. How can he -- I don't want to say Etch-a-Sketch. I don't think that's what he's going to do. How can he accommodate for the comments a few months ago?

BLITZER: If you listen to what the advisers, working closely with them on this particular aspect of the foreign policy, say, they say that for all practical purposes, the Obama administration has given up on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. They came in with huge expectations, George Mitchell, the former U.S. Senator, who negotiated the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. He was brought in to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and that didn't work out well, as all of us know, for a variety of reasons, and since then, the Obama administration has done very little if anything to revive. And there hasn't been much effort to get the peace talks back on track.

What Romney is trying to do is say, if he comes in, he will work on that area, knowing that it is not easy and knowing there is problems, and knowing that there are Palestinians, and he will refer to the Palestinians, for example, Hamas and Gaza and others, who are unwilling to accept Israel under any conditions. Having said that, there will be other Palestinians who presumably will be ready to start the peace process and see if anything can happen down the road.

But, as you know, Ashleigh, all of us that covered this area, and you and I were in Israel covering the story 10 years ago, you know, this is a problem for a long time, presumably a problem for a long time down the road. The point I think that Romney is trying to make is he will try to do something about it as the Obama administration for all practical purposes at least now seems to have given up on it.

BANFIELD: Yes. And videotape becomes problematic for Democrats and Republicans alike. Anybody on the campaign trail will tell you they have to be very careful. You can't just Etch-a-Sketch constantly. No matter what party you belong to.

Wolf, stand by, if you will.

I want to bring in our Pentagon correspondent, Chris Lawrence, also standing by and watching what we're about to hear very carefully.

Chris, obviously Afghanistan is a massive issue. The president's policy is to withdraw soldiers by 2014. Mitt Romney has made comments about how he would view the withdrawal of soldiers and it is somewhat more nuanced, suggesting that he would work more with the generals and the boots on the ground now to assess the situation before making a final decision but we just had a report in the "New York Times" within the last week that looked really dire about the situation there, almost as though it is just a failure. It is done. We can't get peace with the Taliban and may end up having to lead just like the soviets did in '89. That cannot bode well for the folks that work in your building and listen to what we're hearing from Mitt Romney today.

CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: You're talking about the negotiations with the Taliban, seeming to collapse at least in the short-term, Ashleigh. That depends -- the reaction depends on who you talked to in the pentagon and some people were never all that bullish on the talks to begin with and didn't see a lot of hope there. The Obama administration was out front saying that they were in direct consultations and had put a lot in there.

And I guess we see Mitt Romney arriving now --

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Yes, Chris, I will jump in now, if you wouldn't mind, as he comes to the podium and thanks the governor of Virginia. He will begin his address to a packed house.

And obviously, as I said before, all eyes, all ears, because this is a pivot in the campaign, foreign policy on the agenda, first and foremost for the first time.

ROMNEY: Thanks for the warm welcome. And I particularly appreciate the introduction by my good friend and tireless campaign companion, Governor Bob McDonnell. We traveled the state time and time again, and he goes all over the country helping me. He is also showing in Virginia what conservative leadership can do to build a stronger economy. Thank you also to Congressman Goodlatte for joining us today. I appreciate his service and leadership.

And particular thanks to General P. I appreciate his invitation to be with you today at the Virginia Military Institute.

It is a privilege to be at an institution like this that has done so much for our nation both in times of war and times of peace. For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, warriors and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation's defense, just as many are doing in Afghanistan and other lands.

Since September 11th, attacks many of the VMI sons and daughters have defended America. And I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates who are right now serving in harm's way. May God bless all who serve and all who have served.

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished perhaps than General George Marshall, the chief of staff of the Army, who became the secretary of state and secretary of defense, who helped vanquish fascism and then plan Europe's rescuer from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war. General Marshall once said, quote, "The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it." Those words were true in his time, and they are true in our time.

Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead, murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that clearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America, and he is right. We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots and nearly two dozen other countries, most in the Middle East and also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked and our flag burned and many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs shouting death to America. These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of 9/11.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown worse and what this calls in America to do. These are the right questions. I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events and to share with you and to share with all Americans my vision for a freer, more prosperous and peaceful world.

The attacking should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle playing out across the broader Middle East in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. The fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself. The attack on our consulate there on September 11th, 2012, was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001.

This latest assault can't be blamed on a republic, hence I believe video insulting Islam despite the administration's attempts to INS request of that for so long. As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially on women and girls who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West. We saw all of this in Benghazi last month and we also saw something else. Something hopeful.

After the attack on our consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya is sorry." They chanted no to militias, no to militias. They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound, and then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, we are not going to go from darkness to darkness.

This is a struggle that's now shaken the entire Middle East. It is a struggle of millions and millions of people, men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians, and non-believers, all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom and opportunity and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that's been unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran and the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen and in the fights for liberty in Iran and Afghanistan and now in Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.

We have seen this struggle before and it would be familiar to General George Marshall and in his time the actions of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately we had leaders of courage and vision that knew that America had to support friends who shared our values and prevent today's crisis from becoming tomorrow's conflicts. Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to the responsibilities as the leader of the free world.

We helped our friends to build and sustain free society and free markets. We defended our friends and ourselves from our common enemies. We led. We led, and though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century. This is what makes America exceptional. It is not only the character of our country. It is also the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership, a history that's been written by patriots of both parties. This is America at its best. It is the standard by which we measure every president, as well as anyone who wishes to be president.

Unfortunately, this president's policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. 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 our responsibility and the responsibility of the president to use America's greatest power to shape history, not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.

Unfortunately, that's exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama. The relationship between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, for example, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The president explicitly stated his goal was to put daylight between the United States and Israel and he succeeded.

This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East. Iran has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability and never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and us, and has never acted less deterred by America as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in our nation's capital. Yet when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out are you with us or are you with them, the American president was silent.

Across the greater Middle East, as the joy borne from the downfall of dictators has given way the painstaking work of building capable security forces and growing economies and developing effective democratic institutions, the president has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need. In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a re- insurgent al Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been under mined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence.

The president has tried. He tried. He also failed. To secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains. The president has also 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.

America can take pride in the blow that is our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on al Qaeda, in Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. Al Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq and now Syria, and other extremists gained ground across the region.

Drones are important tools in our fight but no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East. The president is fond of saying that the tide of war is receding, and I want to believe him as much as anyone else. When we look at the Middle East today, with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threatening to destabilize the region, and 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.

I know the president hoped for a safer, freer, and more prosperous Middle East allied with us. I shared this hope. Hope is not a strategy. We can't support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds. When our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership but of passivity.

The greater tragedy of it all is we're missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East, friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists and evil tyrants and angry mobs that seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people that could be our friends feel that our president is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, we will not forget that you forgot about us.

It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles. America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose, and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them. No enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them. No one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America's capability to back up our words.

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 attack forces in both the eastern Mediterranean and the gulf, and I will 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 there are nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated. I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security. The world must never see any daylight between our two nations. I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the gulf, and I will roll back President Obama'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. The size of our Navy is at

The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I'll restore our Navy to the size need fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I'll implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats, and on this will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin, and I'll keep the greatest alliance in military history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only three of the 28 NATO nations have met this benchmark. I'll make further reforms for our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, for free enterprise and greater trade to the Middle East and beyond. I'll organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and on to produce results. I'll rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs, and I'll make it clear to the recipients of our aid in return for material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government. The rights of all their citizens, including women and minorities to insure space for civil society, free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.

I'll champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The president has not signed one free trade agreement. I'll work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships, and establishing new ones. I'll support friends around the Middle East that support our values and need help defending them.

In Libya, I'll support the Libyan people's efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them. I'll vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed our fellow Americans.

In Egypt, I'll use our influence, including clear conditions on our aid to urge the new government to represent al Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel, and we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulation on their aid.

In Syria, I'll work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition that share our values and then insure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks and helicopters and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously through our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran.

It's important to develop influence for the heart of the country that sits at the Middle East. In Afghanistan, you'll pursue a real and successful transfer through Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with this decision in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war, but the route to 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. I'll evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders, and I will affirm that my duty is not to protect my political prospects, but to protect the security of the nation.

Finally, I'll recommit America to the goal of a democratic prosperous Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue the president has failed. And what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the U.N. only a new president will bring the chance to begin anew. There's a longing for American leadership in the Middle East, and it's not unique to that region. In Asia and across the Pacific, where China's recent assertiveness is sending chills throughout that region, and here where our neighbors in Latin America want to reduce the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepened ties with the United States on trade and energy and security.

In all these places, the question is asked, where does America stand? I know many Americans are asking a different question. Why us? I know many Americans are asking whether our country today with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years of war is still capable of leading. I believe that if America doesn't lead, others will. Others who don't share our interests and our values, and the world would grow darker for our friends and for us. America's security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years.

I'm running for president because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty to our citizens and to our friends everywhere to use America's great influence wisely, with salinity and without false pride, but also firmly and truly to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, make the world better, not perfect, but better.

Our friends and allies across the globe don't want less American leadership. They want more, more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, more of our assistance and building free societies and thriving economies.

So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of human kind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves. That we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power and to lead the course of human events. Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall, he always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion. That's the role our friends want America to play again, and it's the role we must play.

The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror and war and economic calamity. It's our duty to steer it out of the path of freedom and peace and prosperity. The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It's not America's torch alone, but it is America's duty and honor to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.

Thank you so much for your participation in this great charge. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

BANFIELD: His seventh foreign policy speech but billed as a major. Joining me now, Fareed Zakaria, the host of "GPS."

Clearly, with so much territory covered, you really have to dig through it to find out what's different, what's new, what stands out.

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, GPS: It's a strong speech. Tough on rhetoric in terms of the attacks on the Obama administration. But this really just one policy disagreement, which is that Romney says the Syrian rebels should be armed. And I put it in a passive voice because he doesn't say the United States should arm them. They should be armed. That's it. So even though it sounds very tough, this is the new moderate Mitt.

BANFIELD: The new moderate Mitt. With less than a minute to go, Fareed, I want to get your take. I listen to your program every week and you often to the foreign policy crisis we're seeing now as their problem, not something that we can mitigate necessarily with our edicts or speeches, but it's really something that is born of an issue there. It's long, long in coming. And it is something that is their angst, not necessarily because of us.

BANFIELD: I think you'd see this most with regard to the Arab Spring. Romney says we should be much more aggressive on the Arab Spring in shaping it. Well, you know, that's going to be very difficult. It really is about them, not about us. What's going on in Egypt and Tunisia. And you can say the Obama people should have been more assertive here or less assertive there. The truth is we actually -- this is a world historical change taking place in the Middle East. We're bystanders. We're well wishers. There isn't much we can do, which is why when Romney is asked for specifics on what he would do in Egypt or even Libya, he says he would work with the government of Libya to find the guys that murdered our ambassador. Well, obviously that's what the Obama administration is doing.

ZAKARIA: You have a lot of fodder for your weekend show, so we'll be watching it.

And also for Suzanne Malveaux's show, which is up and coming.

Thank you for taking the time to be on our program today.

ZAKARIA: It's a pleasure.

BANFIELD: Fareed Zakaria.