Other views: Slam on Obama's hope hits home

• "Hope is not a strategy" is more than a catchy line.
• Does Romney refuse to acknowledge clash between civilizations?
• But the speech could be too late.

Alan Goodman, Commentary: "Anyone who worried Romney would be overly cautious or avoid taking strong stances during his foreign policy speech Monday was proved wrong. Romney delivered a substantive critique of Obama's Middle East policy, and outlined his own strategy, including some bold positions on Syria and Afghanistan. The best sound bite of the speech, 'hope is not a strategy,' will surely be a theme the campaign hammers home between now and the election. This is more than a catchy line; it's an encapsulation of Obama's Middle East policy."

Bing West, National Review: "Like Obama, Romney refuses to acknowledge that the essential problem in the Middle East is a clash between civilizations. He points to the anti-American mobs rioting in two dozen countries as being 'under the black banner of Islamic extremism.' But he then resorts to anodyne rhetoric, claiming that 'Muslims, Christians' are standing side by side in 'a struggle between liberty and tyranny.' The intense anti-Americanism and rejection of Western values has deep roots within the Muslim religious community."

Daniel W. Drezner, Foreign Policy: "If one pushes past the overheated rhetoric, then you discover that Romney wants a lot of the same ends as Obama, a stable, peaceful and free Middle East, for example. But that's not shocking; any major party president will want the same ends. The differences are in the means through which a president will achieve those ends. And, in op-ed after op-ed, in speech after speech, Romney either elides the means altogether, mentions means that the Obama administration is already using, or just says the word 'resolve' a lot."

Charles Krauthammer,Fox News: "I'm afraid (the speech) is a little late. When American Embassies were under attack from Tunisia to Indonesia, that's when he should have given it."

Fareed Zakaria, CNN: "A President Romney would confront many of these same dilemmas and would be quite cautious, which is why, even in his rhetoric, he doesn't say we should arm the Syrian rebels. If you read that paragraph, it's quite convoluted. He says we should work with our allies and make sure that the rebels get the weapons they need, which sounded to me like he's saying we should allow the Saudis and the Qataris to provide more assistance."

Jed Lewison, Daily Kos: "Romney made just one mention of China. Compare that with 21 mentions of the Middle East, 10 of Iran, six of Israel and eight of Libya. Meanwhile, Romney only mentioned Latin America once, all but ignoring our neighbors. He only mentioned Russia once, despite having said it is America's biggest geopolitical foe. And Romney didn't even mention India at all, despite it being the world's second most populous nation."