Barack Obama’s approach to the war on terror shows “frightening naiveté,” Mitt Romney tells Newsmax.

“Even the peaceniks of the last decade have recognized that the pre-911 thinking of the early 1990s was wrong,” Romney says. “The great majority of those who opposed the conflict in Iraq nevertheless recognize that it is a war against a radical, violent Islam. But Barack is one of the few who has still refused to speak out against radical violent Islam and jihadism.”

To suggest, as Obama has, that the way to deal with terrorists is to prosecute them “bespeaks a remarkable lack of understanding of the threat which we face,” Romney says.

Obama has said the government can crack down on terrorists “within the constraints of the Constitution.” He has said, “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

In the 1993 World Trade bombing, while some perpetrators were prosecuted, others, like Osama bin Laden, were not, Romney points out. Moreover, Romney says, since the 9/11 hijackers did not care if they were killed or sent to jail, and all died in the attack, it is foolhardy to suggest that the threat of prosecutions would be a deterrent.

“The thought that this is a criminal matter restricted to a few handfuls of individuals is completely out of touch with the reality of radical jihadism,” Romney says. “From the Phillippines to Malaysia to, of course, the Middle East to Pakistan to Nigeria — it’s a global effort, and it requires a response far different than calling up the local police department and asking the DA to prosecute them.”

Obama doesn’t get that we are in a new age, where “military might is essential,” Romney says.

“What we’re facing right now in al-Qaida and global violent jihadism is an enemy which has relatively crude weapons but highly motivated warriors,” he says. “Over the next decade or two, they will surely obtain highly sophisticated weapons with massive casualty potential. Now is the time to stop this enemy, because the consequences of ignoring them until they have massive casualty capability are almost unthinkable.”

Striking Differences Between Obama, McCain

In many respects, Romney says, Obama is the exact opposite of John McCain — not just on issues but with regard to straight talk.

“Barack Obama is appealing to the audience he thinks he needs to win,” Romney says. “Particularly during the primary, he appealed to the far left of his party, and with time you will watch him slowly but surely change his stripes and try and appeal more to the center and pretend he’s something he’s not.”

Already, Obama is re-branding himself, Romney notes.

“He said for instance he would vote against the proposed revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, particularly if it included forgiveness for the telephone companies,” Romney says. “But now he says he’ll vote for FISA, even though it includes the telephone company issue.”

Obama said he would have personal meetings with the world’s “worst dictators without precondition,” Romney says. “Now he’s trying to change the language and suggest some kind of prior deliberation would take place.”

Obama said during the primary that the D.C. handgun law was constitutional. He wanted to make handguns illegal, Romney says.

“Now he exresses approval of the Supreme Court’s decision,” Romney says.

The biggest flip has been on campaign financing.

“He was very much in favor of public financing of campaigns and said he would take public financing. Now he’s moved very much off of that commitment,” Romney observes.

“These were not changes of perception by virtue of changed circumstances over years,” Romney says. “It is instead a change in a matter of weeks.”

more:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/mitt_romney_obama/2008/06/30/108517.html

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.