Romney didn't elaborate about what he meant with 'significant consequences.'
Romney's comments come from recent news that the Pakistani government is complicit in their stance towards terrorists. The porous boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan has resulted in a safe haven for the Taliban and Al-Qaida operatives.
It is no secret that Pakistan openly harbors terrorists. Not just the bottom rung yes-men in terrorist groups, but the head of the snake leaders of Al-Qaida; leaders named Osama Bin Laden.
Pakistan was outraged that we went into their country without prior permission to take out Bin Laden, and went so far as to accuse us of betraying their sovereignty.
If Romney is elected, will he pull all funding away from Pakistan? Billions in aid goes to Pakistan every year, money that could go into America's infrastructure; infrastructure that could generate jobs here where we need them.
Is Romney really serious about his statement? Is this more political posturing? Posturing to help boost Romney's image as a tough, future Commander in Chief? If so, what will he do compared to President Obama's strategy of doing nothing with Pakistan.
This story contains 251 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.