07/30/2012 12:48 EDT | Updated 09/29/2012 05:12 EDT

If He Shut Up, Romney Wouldn't Be Much of a Leader


A lot of sniping has been going on recently at alleged gaffes Republican Presidential contender Mitt Romney has been making.

Except it's pretty hard to pin-point where he's been wrong -- unless one subscribes to the view that when travelling overseas he should shut up, and not say anything about anything.

True, he's made a commendable point that when traveling overseas he will not say anything detrimental about the President, or comment on internal American issues concerning the November elections. Fair enough -- but why shouldn't he comment on certain international matters?

This rushed trip overseas was ostensibly to establish himself as a person who is comfortable with foreign affairs, which is pretty hard to do if you take an oath of silence on controversial issues.

For example, Romney was criticized in some quarters by stressing America's "Anglo-Saxon heritage." Some critics felt this was a gaffe that excluded the U.S. black and Latino populations, as well those whose heritage is unconnected with Britain.

What nonsense! The U.S. today exists because of its "Anglo" roots -- Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere, Washington crossing the Delaware, Valley Forge, the Declaration of Independence and all that. Far better than Barack Obama pretending there is no "special relationship" between the U.S. and Britain.

And then Romney expressed apprehension about security arrangements at the London Olympics. Holy mackerel! Everyone has expressed concern about that. Can you imagine the outrage if Romney were to utter platitudes and say how wonderful he thinks Olympic security measures are -- and then there was a terrorist incident?

He'd look like a fool. Worse, he'd look incompetent -- which he isn't.

He ran the Salt Lake City Olympics and knows a thing or two about security.

Most recently Romney's pledged American support for the state of Israel, and commented that he thought Iran with nuclear weapons would be just about the most dangerous thing in the world.

He's not alone in this view, and a case can be made that every country in the Middle East is uneasy about Iran, and what might transpire there, with or without nukes.

Again, Romney has been categorically clear that if he's elected President, the bust of Winston Churchill will return to the Oval office, from whence it was banished by Barack Obama who apparently doesn't understand the significance of Churchill in WWII.

Obama may have a lot of company among the younger generation, but the great triumphs of Churchill's wartime leadership can be summed up in the phrase that "he martialed the English language and sent it to war." Churchill's rhetoric was as important to morale and victory over Nazism, as were tanks, submarines and bombers.

As Charles Krauthammer has noted in the Washington Post, the Obama administration pretends neutrality between Britain's and Argentina's claims on the Falkland Islands --which Obama calls by its Argentinian name "Malvinas" -- but he mistakenly called them the "Maldives," which is half a world away in the Indian Ocean.

Krauthammer, who is not always right but is seldom wrong, believes Romney will

quietly inform Israeli leaders that if he wins the White House, he'll support Israel doing whatever Israel feels is necessary to ensure its own survival.

That's a switch from the present administration's nervousness. He notes: Israel "has never asked anyone to fight on its behalf, just a green light to defend itself without impediments or veiled threats from its friends."

Who can argue with that?