Keeping the news from the public no longer matters because most are no longer able to think rationally.
As we have dumbed down education in our nation we have dumbed down America. (See 1 below.)
---
I have a close friend who is a sometime memo reader who made the simple observation that if Procter and Gamble, for instance, came out with a new product, ballyhooed its success and it did not work most thinking consumers would not repurchase it.
Yet, when it comes to politics, and most specifically this president, they seem willing to do so.
On another note, it should be evident for any fellow memo reader I have never cared for Hillary. She should have been disbarred along with her husband and I have always seen her as a opportunist.
Opportunism lends itself
It would appear she has now allowed herself to be corrupted by Obama.
---
Jordan has always been a tenuous Monarchy. Is it about to blow? (See 2 below.)
---
I am an avid reader of The Naval War College Quarterly and many years ago attended some classes at the invitation of The Sec. of The Navy. I also had a dear friend teaching there at the time.
Consequently, China's flexing its naval muscle comes as no surprise. In fact, I have, from time to time, alerted you in these memos to be watching for this. (See 3 below.)
Because we have a feckless president who has no cohesive foreign policy beyond the withdrawal of America and the circumcision of its strength, I would not be a surprised if power assertions by a host of nations begins to accelerate. Iran,China, Russia and several African nations along with a few South American ones come to mind.
Create a vacuum and it will be filled and often not as you might wish.
But,here again, most Americans are too focused on their own plight to care and/or to understand. (See 3a below.)
---
Sowell: Obama vs Obama! (See 4 below.)
And a little Axelrod background. (See 4a below.)
---
Always save the best for last so read 5 in its entirety! (See 5 below.)
----
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)
Untold Loss: Media Blackout on Military Disaster on Obama's Watch
By Kim Zigfeld
Under the leadership of Barack H. Obama, though hardly noticed by the pro-Obama mainstream media, the U.S. Marine Corps has suffered its worst air squadron catastrophe since Vietnam, and its prized VMA-211 squadron has taken its worst hit since its defense of Wake Island in World War II.
It happened on September 14, 2012, northwest of the city of Lashkar Gah in southern Afghanistan. A team of fewer than two dozen Taliban fighters attacked the USMC's massive Camp Bastion base there, killing VMA-211 squadron commander Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and destroying or permanently disabling eight of the ten top-of-the-line harrier AV-8B attack aircraft stationed under him. Out of production for more than a decade, these aircraft can never be replaced.
By the time the smoke cleared, roughly 7% of the total harrier fleet operated by the USMC had been wiped out on a single day by a small force of ground combatants whose most potent weapon was the suicide vest, one of which was used to breach the camp's perimeter fence.
Under Obama, the U.S. has taken 1,491 casualties in Afghanistan, over 70% of the total 2,121 casualties sustained since the fighting there began. Helmland Province, where Camp Bastion is located, has been the grounds for the lion's share of them, twice as many as any other region of the country. Things have gotten so bad that, in the wake of the attack on Camp Bastion, theInternational Security Assistance Force, which trains Afghan citizens to defend their country against the Islamic fanatics of the Taliban, suspended operations.
Indeed, it seems that the only possible objective of the attack that was not achieved would be the assassination of Prince Harry, who was stationed at British-administered Camp Bastion as a helicopter pilot and who was planning to celebrate his birthday the following morning. It's believed that Harry was a collateral target of the attack.
Perhaps even more impressive than the raid's results is the sophisticated planning that must have been required to carry it out. How did this band of radicals even manage to approach a highly advanced multi-national military base without being detected, much less force their way inside en masse? How were they able to attack so quickly and efficiently that, even though nearly every one of them was killed in the effort, they were able to harm the mighty leathernecks more than they had been in half a century?
National Review has speculated that they may have had high-level advice from a national military force, most likely Pakistan, warning that the attack has "heralded a shrinkage of American power and influence in the region, demoralized our allies, and emboldened our enemies." Fevered and bloodthirsty anti-U.S. riots in Pakistan recently give considerable credence to this theory.
The attack was only one aspect, of course, of a recent wave of horrifying attacks on the United States by Islamic radicals, motivated purportedly by the display of an American-made film on YouTube that trashed them. With so many bold claims from the Obama administration about conciliation in the Middle East over the past four years, one might have hoped that its denizens could not be motivated to such bloodletting by the mere existence of an obscure internet movie with dubious ties to the U.S. But as with so many features of Obama's rule, his Middle East gambit has been exposed as total failure. Americans have seen their influence diminish considerably, but they have not reaped the benefits of the policies of appeasement Obama has followed -- namely, a reduction in poisonous bile directed at them by the fanatics.
The same must also be said of Obama's policy in Afghanistan. Despite his campaign promises, U.S. casualties have soared rather than falling, and the hand held by the Taliban has strengthened, not weakened. Obama said he would achieve disengagement with honor, but instead he has escalated the violence and carnage without improving our strategic position, and it is clear now that if the Taliban fighters can achieve victories like the one in Camp Bastion against the mighty alliance led by the U.S., then the feeble Afghan army has no chance against it and will surely descend into chaos if the U.S. leaves the field. Then we can expect the terrorist camps to spring right back, targeting the new tower rising over Ground Zero in New York City and many others besides.
And the same can be said of Obama's policy in Iraq. No less a friend of Obama's than the New York Times was forced to admit in a recent article that Obama has fallen "frustratingly short" on his withdrawal objectives in Iraq. He has failed to create a stable successor government, failed to establish security patrol oversight, and failed to establish a training program for Iraqi security forces. The NYT itself admits that the MSM has largely ignored these failures and that Obama has attempted to sweep them under the carpet. The NYT admits that Iraq is now "less stable domestically and less reliable internationally" than Obama promised it would be. And of course, Obama didn't keep his promise to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of last year, so the U.S. is getting the worst of all possible worlds.
Moreover, Obama's policy of appeasement towards Russia hasn't stopped the Putin dictatorship from continuing to side with our enemies throughout the Middle East. That's because Obama failed to understand the fundamental dichotomy of interests between Russia and the U.S. Russia wants discord in the Middle East, and the rising oil prices that result from it, so that Russian oil exports generate more cash. The U.S. wants peace in the Middle East and low oil prices. Obama's relaxed attitude toward Russia has only left Putin with a free hand to liquidate American friends and values in Russia (USAID was just kicked out of the country, a bone-crushing slight to Obama) while giving the U.S. nothing of value in return.
The upcoming presidential debates will give Mitt Romney the opportunity to hold Obama's feet to the fires burning because of his reckless and failed foreign policy. Obama's record abroad is just as disastrous as his economic record at home, but so far Romney has not done enough to make Americans confront Obama's record. He ought to ask Americans whether they are prepared to tolerate more disasters like the one in Lashkar Gah, to watch American power fade and American values be trampled along with our flag under the feet of those who wish us ill. He ought to offer them the chance to once again make America a great beacon light of hope for those who struggle against oppression around the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Jordan on the brink: Muslim Brothers mobilize for King Abdullah’s overthrow
Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood has given King Abdullah II notice that he has until October to bow to their demand to transform the Hashemite Kingdom into a constitutional monarchy or face Arab Spring street pressure for his abdication.
Middle East sources report Israeli and Saudi intelligence watchers are becoming increasingly concerned about the approaching climax of the conflict in Amman between Islamists and the throne .
For Israel, an upheaval in Jordan bodes the tightening of the Islamist noose around its borders – Egypt and Libya to the south and Syria to the north, with unpredictable consequences with regard to Jordan’s Palestinian population.
Saudi Arabia, already threatened by Iranian aggression, fears the oil kingdom may be next in line if its northern neighbor is crushed under the marching feet of the “Arab Spring.”
The oil kingdom’s royal rulers are reported to have belatedly woken up to the peril and are in a panic. They realize that their preoccupation with helping Syrian rebels overthrow Bashar Assad misdirected their attention from the enemies lurking at their own door. Thousands of articles in the Arab press in the past year have predicted that after the Muslim Brotherhood seizes power in Damascus, Amman would be next in its sights followed by Riyadh.
The latest analysis of the plight closing in on the Jordanian monarch is outlined below:
1. He could bow to the main Muslim Brotherhood’s demand by submitting to the kingdom’s transition to a constitutional monarchy and the transfer of executive power to an MB-led government by means of the electoral reforms for which the Brothers have been pushing for years. In Jordan as in Egypt, the Brothers hope for a two-third majority in a free election.
2. He could stand up to the Brotherhood’s demands and order his security, intelligence and military forces to crack down on the opposition. This course carries the risk of plunging Jordan into the carnage of civil war among the diverse segments of the population. The biggest dangers come from the Bedouin tribes, whose traditional allegiance to the Hashemite throne has weakened in recent years, and the Palestinians who form 60 percent of the population.
3. He could seek to negotiate a compromise through various brokers. Our sources report that several attempts at mediation have been ventured of late, but got nowhere because the Muslim Brotherhood sent its most radical leaders to the table and they left very little margin for compromise.
According to sources at the royal court, Abdullah will very soon meet with MB leaders for a personal appeal for calm after years of heated debate. Most observers believe that he has left it too late and by now the Muslim Brotherhood has got the bit between its teeth.
Indeed, according to an internal memorandum leaked to the Al-Hayat newspaper, the MB has already set a date for mass demonstrations against the King to start on Oct. 10 and ordered its members to go to work at once to mobilize at least 50,000 demonstrators for daily protests against the king and the royal family until he bows to their will.
The memorandum states: “Every member must be dedicated to communicate with his relatives, close friends, acquaintances, fellow employees and various Islamic groups and patriots…” It calls for the formation of “hotbeds to… focus on the participation of groups affiliated with universities, schools and women’s organizations.” Protesters are also advised on tactics for overcoming a security crackdown.
Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood has therefore moved forward from opposition propaganda, debating and political pressure to activism against the throne.
Both Jordanian camps are anxiously watching to see which way the wind blows in the White House.
President Barack Obama has a balancing act to resolve: On the one hand, the Jordanian king has long been a staunch American ally and friend, its mainstay in many regional crises. On the other, Obama regards the Muslim Brotherhood as the linchpin of his external policy of outreach to the Muslim world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)China carrier a show of force as Japan tension festers
By Kiyoshi Takenaka and Terril Yue Jones
TOKYO/BEIJING (Reuters) - China sent its first aircraft carrier into formal service on Tuesday amid a tense maritime dispute with Japan, a show of naval force that could worry its neighbors.
China's Ministry of Defense said the newly named Liaoning aircraft carrier would "raise the overall operational strength of the Chinese navy" and help Beijing to "effectively protect national sovereignty, security and development interests".
In fact, the aircraft carrier, refitted from a ship bought from Ukraine, will have a limited role, mostly for training and testing ahead of the possible launch of China's first domestically built carriers after 2015, analysts say.
But China cast the formal handing over of the carrier to its navy as a triumphant show of national strength -- at a time of bitter tensions with neighboring Japan over islands claimed by both sides.
Sino-Japanese relations deteriorated sharply this month after Japan bought the East China Sea islands, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, from their private owner, sparking anti-Japan protests across China.
"China will never tolerate any bilateral actions by Japan that harm Chinese territorial sovereignty," Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun said on Tuesday. "Japan must banish illusions, undertake searching reflection and use concrete actions to amend its errors, returning to the consensus and understandings reached between our two countries' leaders."
The risks of military confrontation are scant, but political tensions between Asia's two biggest economies could fester.
For the Chinese navy, the addition of carriers has been a priority as it builds a force capable of deploying far from the Chinese mainland.
China this month warned the United States, with President Barack Obama's "pivot" to Asia, not to get involved in separate territorial disputes in the South China Sea between China and U.S. allies such as the Philippines.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in turn urged China and its Southeast Asian neighbors to resolve disputes "without coercion, without intimidation, without threats and certainly without the use of force".
The timing of the carrier launch might be associated with China's efforts to build up patriotic unity ahead of a Communist Party congress that will install a new generation of top leaders as early as next month.
Narushige Michishita, a security expert at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo, said he thought the timing had nothing to do with the islands dispute.
"NOT CUTTING EDGE"
"China is taking another step to boost its strategic naval capability," he said. "If they come to have an operational aircraft carrier, for the time being we are not super-concerned about the direct implications for the military balance between the U.S. and Japan on the one hand, and China on the other. This is still not cutting edge."
The East China Sea tensions with Japan have been complicated by the entry of Taiwan, the self-ruled island that Beijing calls an illegitimate breakaway, which also lays claim to the islands.
Japanese Coast Guard vessels fired water cannon to turn away about 40 Taiwan fishing boats and 12 Taiwan Coast Guard vessels on Tuesday.
Japan protested to Taiwan, a day after it lodged a complaint with China over what it said was a similar intrusion by Chinese boats.
Taiwan has friendly ties with Japan, but the two sides have long squabbled over fishing rights in the area. China and Taiwan both argue they have inherited China's historic sovereignty over the islands.
Japan's top diplomat, Vice Foreign Minister Chikao Kawai, was in Beijing for a meeting with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun in a bid to ease tensions between Asia's two biggest economies.
The flare-up in tension comes at a time when both China and Japan confront domestic political pressures. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's government faces an election in months, adding pressure on him not to look weak on China.
China's Communist Party is preoccupied with the leadership turnover, with President Hu Jintao due to step down.
(Additional reporting by Linda Sieg in Tokyo and Sui-Lee Wee in Beijing; Editing by Nick Macfie)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3a)
|
By Barry RubinIt is amazing how events in international affairs that would have been easily and accurately understood decades ago are now surrounded by obfuscation and misunderstanding. Such is the case with Libya and the U.S. role there. Forget Obama's Cairo speech and all that bowing, apologizing, appeasing, and empathy. All of it is meaningless now.
The facts are clear. Along with its NATO allies, the United States helped overthrow the dictatorship of Muammar Qadhafi in Libya and installed a new regime. This government, non-Islamist, technocratic, and led by defected old regime politicians or former exiles, won the election and is now in power.
What does this mean? Simple. Libya is now a U.S. client state. In the eyes of many Arabs and Muslims—especially the radicals but not just them—Libya is now an American puppet state. Most important of all it is not an Islamist Sharia state. The revolutionaries—a group including the Muslim Brotherhood, radical small groups, and the local al-Qaida affiliates--want to change that situation.
How do you do that? One way is to attack the regime’s institutions, including raiding police stations to get weapons. Another way is to assassinate officials. A tempting way to build popular support is to murder Americans.
The killing of the ambassador and five other Americans (a Foreign Service reserve officer, two bodyguards, and two Marines) has nothing to do with a video made in California. It has everything to do with the Libyan Islamist revolution. This revolution will go on for years and will become increasingly bloodier. It is nothing short of amazing that U.S. leaders don’t seem to recognize this.
Let’s sum it up in a slogan:
Bush occupied Iraq and Afghanistan; Obama occupied Libya and killed Usama bin Ladin. Have no doubt that the revolutionaries—including the Muslim Brotherhood—and a lot of others view Obama as just as bad as Bush. Obama’s attempts at appeasement have further convinced them that America is finished and easily bullied. In his speech of September 2010 calling for revolution in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad al-Badi explicitly said that.
In Iraq, a combination of factors has defused the situation directly, though resentments born years ago still are part of the package of genuinely popular but also Jihadi-stimulated anti-Americanism. The surge won the war and the long-planned withdrawal was implemented by Obama. A government exists which is hardly a model of democracy but sufficiently stable for the foreseeable future. The Sunni have basically given up trying to take over the country; the central government accepts the Kurds having a de facto state in the north. A lot of people are still being murdered by terrorism.
Afghanistan, because it isn’t an Arab country, has a relatively small impact in the Arabic-speaking world and eventually the U.S. forces will withdraw from there as well. The Taliban, treacherously aided by forces including official government agencies in Pakistan, will go on trying to overthrow the U.S.-sponsored government and might succeed. But that’s a problem for the future.
As for bin Ladin, obviously his death is a cause for al-Qaida to seek revenge. But, of course, they’d be attacking Americans and U.S. installations even if he was still alive. It’s a myth that al-Qaida has been defeated. Precisely because it is so decentralized, the group’s local affiliates are quite active in North Africa, Yemen, Egypt (especially the Sinai Peninsula for the first time ever), the Gaza Strip, and increasingly in Syria.
Others who are not al-Qaida and never saw bin Ladin as their leader will opportunistically use the U.S. killing of the September 11 architect to stir up anger. They will also use inevitable periodic incidents like this You-Tube video. There will always be more such incidents. Jihadis are surfing the Internet looking for some obscure incident or writing to promote. That’s what happened with the video, which some of them translated into Arabic and widely circulated. And when there is no real such incident the revolutionaries will fabricate one, as they have been doing against Israel for decades.
Aside from everything else, Libya has two special factors. First, it is beset by tribalism and regionalism which create a complex web of conflicts. Despite its oil wealth, this factor makes Libya extremely hard to govern. Some tribal and regionalist forces will remain interest groups; others will adopt a revolutionary Islamist ideology. There is no way of resolving these issues. Any Libyan government will have to go for massive repression—which Qadhafi did and the current government won’t—or engage in a constant juggling game.
In Iraq, a major plus for achieving a stable regime was the common interest of Shias—though they quarreled endlessly among themselves—in sticking together to keep the Sunnis from massacring them and reclaiming power. The Kurds, while claiming autonomy, were also a stabilizing force. No such powerful political glue exists in Libya.
Second, the regime is very badly infiltrated—far more than Iraq or Afghanistan—by revolutionary Islamist elements. Extremists did a lot of the fighting against Qadhafi and picked up a lot of arms. One of the most popular and important army commanders is the former head of the Libyan al-Qaida affiliate. Anything that the U.S. government tells its Libyan counterparts—where the ambassador or embassy staff is located, for example—will quickly be passed on to the terrorists.
Of course there are many Libyans, probably a majority, who don’t want a radical Sharia state. Some of them attacked the headquarters of an Islamist militia they blamed for killing the Americans and forced out the radicals. “I am sorry, America,” one man said. “This is the real Libya.” But like those who are more moderate in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq such people have a real fight on their hands and they are not necessarily the better organized, better-armed side.
All of this is a nightmare. The United States is only at the start of a nasty conflict in Libya which is going to be very anti-American. It is shocking that there is so little recognition of that fact and an apparently sincere belief that all the problems there are due to a You-Tube video. Having a big problem is bad enough; refusing to recognize that one has a bad problem is potentially fatal. Note: Remember the old argument that the Arab-Israel or Israel-Palestinian conflict was the centerpiece of the region; all the Arabs cared about, and what they judged the West by? Now there are a dozen other issues more important to the extent that this cannot even be hidden by the Western mass media and "experts."
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)--Obama Versus Obama
Many voters will be comparing Mitt Romney with Barack Obama between now and election day. But what might be even more revealing would be comparing Obama with Obama. There is a big contrast between Obama based on his rhetoric ("Obama 1") and Obama based on his record ("Obama 2").
For example, during the 2008 election campaign, Obama 1 spoke of "opening up and creating more transparency in government," so that government spending plans would be posted on the Internet for days before they passed into legislation. After he was elected president, Obama said, "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."
This Obama 1 sounds like a very good fellow. No wonder so many people voted for him.
But then there is Obama 2. He passed a mammoth ObamaCare bill so fast that even members of Congress didn't have time to read it, much less the general public. It was by no means posted on the Internet for days before the vote, as promised.
The Constitution of the United States requires transparency as well. When people are nominated by a President to become Cabinet members, the Constitution requires that they be confirmed by the Senate before they can take office, so that facts about them can become known before they are given the powers of their offices.
Although President Obama complied with this requirement when he appointed Cabinet members, he also made other appointments to powerful positions created by Executive Orders -- people aptly called "czars" for the vast, unchecked powers they wielded, in some cases greater than the powers exercised by Cabinet members.
These "czars" never had to be confirmed by the Senate, and so had no public vetting before acquiring their powers. We had unknown and unaccountable rulers placed over us.
Another aspect of transparency was the Constitution's requirement that Congress pass a budget every year. The Democratically controlled Senate during the Obama administration has not passed a budget for three consecutive years.
Passing a budget makes the administration tell the public what it will pay for, what it will have to cut to reduce the deficit -- and how big the deficit will be if they don't cut anything. By not even passing a budget, Obama 2 and his party are in effect saying to the public, "It is none of your business." Transparency?
In his oath of office, Barack Obama swore to see that the laws are faithfully executed, as all Presidents do. But that was Obama 1. Once in the White House, Obama 2 proceeded to explicitly waive the enforcement of laws he didn't agree with.
The immigration laws are a classic example. Failing to get Congress to pass some version of amnesty, Obama 2 simply issued an Executive Order exempting certain classes of illegal immigrants from the immigration laws on the books.
Too many people have gotten sucked into a discussion of whether it is a good or a bad thing for people brought into the country as children to be exempted. But the whole reason for Constitutional government is to have all three branches of government agree on what the laws of the land shall be.
Obama 2 has decided instead that if Congress doesn't do what he wants, he will do it by himself through Executive Orders.
If any President can unilaterally change the law, we are not likely to have the same freedom under rule by presidential fiat as under Constitutional government. This is especially dangerous in a President's second term, when he need no longer have to consider what the voters want. With a couple more Supreme Court appointments he can permanently change the very nature of American government.
One of the most dangerous examples of a lack of transparency was inadvertently revealed last March when Obama 2, unaware that a microphone was on, told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that, after he is reelected, and never has to face the voters again, he will have the "flexibility" to make a deal with Russia on missile defense systems.
In other words, Obama will be able to make a deal with a country that has been America's most implacable and most formidable adversary for more than half a century -- a deal he couldn't make if the voters knew about it before the election. Think about that chilling prospect, and what it reveals about the real Obama.
4a)For those of you who may not know who David Axelrod is ------- he is the power in the background in the current White House
"The next time you see David Axelrod on TV or listen to him on a radio talk show defending Obama, remember who he is – and why he’s a clear and present danger to our freedoms.
Obama adviser Axelrod grew up in a home with a mother who worked for PM – a paper used by Stalinists in New York to push the political agenda of the U.S.S.R.
In the mid-1970s, Axelrod was noticed by David Canter and Don Rose. Canter’s father was a lifelong Communist who was invited to visit the Soviet Union in 1932.
Rose was a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam – a Communist front group – and worked for the Students for a Democratic Society – another Communist organization.
Canter and Rose mentored Axelrod to become a ruthless political operative – but they first helped him become a political writer for the Chicago Tribune – a move that launched his career.
Axelrod has since become an unprincipled political hatchet man who has a well-known reputation for being “ferocious,” and who uses “venom” to attack his political opponents. Others have described him as using “brass knuckles” to “bludgeon” his foes. After all, it’s the Chicago Way of politics.
When Obama ran for the Senate in 2004, Axelrod served as his chief advisor. Obama brags that he and Axelrod “share a basic worldview.” Axelrod agrees: “He’s not just a client. He’s a very good friend of mine. We share a worldview.”
That worldview is clearly Marxist. They hate capitalism, hate private property, hate successful businessmen, hate Christianity and seek to “redistribute” the wealth from the creators of businesses to the “workers.” Stalin would be proud of their work.
If Obama gets four more years, he’ll finish off America as a free enterprise system and the hope of the free world. He and Axelrod will have achieved their goal of destroying the greatest producer of wealth and human freedom in the history of the world."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)--Editor's note: Mitt Romney delivers an address Tuesday to the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. Here's an advance copy—as interpreted by your columnist:
A Foreign Policy for Mitt
What the Republican candidate might say Tuesday in New York.
By Bet Stephens
Thank you, President Clinton. Thank you for being a true believer in American exceptionalism. Thank you for being a president who worked with a Republican Congress to balance our budgets and end welfare as we knew it. Thank you for building on the work of your Republican predecessor to expand free trade and bring millions of jobs to America. Thank you for using American power to rescue the people of the Balkans against a butcher in Belgrade—even when the U.N. and Russia tried to get in your way.
And, by the way, thanks for that line about my "sterling business career."
Ladies and gentlemen, you all know the choice we make on election day will count not just for the next four years, but for the next 40.
AFP/Getty Images
US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
You know how much the choice will count here in America. It will decide whether we have socialized medicine or a marketplace of medical solutions. It will decide whether our economy creates companies like Staples or like Solyndra. It will decide whether we take advantage of our untapped domestic energy resources, or continue to outsource our energy future to OPEC while we tilt at windmills here at home. It will decide whether we'll be a low-tax country that makes investments for the future, or a high-tax country paying interest on the ever-growing debts of our past.
But the choice Americans make in November will count far beyond America's shores.
It's no secret that we're in a world of crises. Europe's economic woes seem to have no end in sight—even if they are a lesson in plain sight of what happens to countries that favor entitlements over entrepreneurs. In the Middle East, Islamist governments are trafficking in illiberal ideas that, as we saw two weeks ago, can have tragic consequences for Americans. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have squandered the sacrifices of our troops with withdrawals and timetables intended to suit political convenience, not strategic necessity. In the Far East, we see a bullying regime in Beijing trying to lay claim to entire seas at the expense of democratic allies like Japan and the Philippines.
And in Russia, Vladimir Putin thinks being a manly man means throwing three young punk rockers into prison. But I say Mr. Putin has the courage of a pussy cat next to these gallant ladies.
Above all else is the challenge of Iran. President Clinton, when you were in the White House you said a nuclear Iran was unacceptable. President Bush said it was unacceptable. And President Obama calls it unacceptable as well. But Iran doesn't think we mean it. They think they can tiptoe across the nuclear finish line while we squabble publicly with Israel over how and when to stop them.
So the questions we face with Iran are these: Will we allow Tehran to flout the will of three U.S. presidents and get away with it? Should a regime that can take a stone in its right hand to execute a defenseless woman be given a nuclear weapon in its left hand to use likewise against Israel or, someday, us?
The right response begins by communicating our purposes with unmistakable clarity. Let the leaders of Iran know that on the day I become president their choices will narrow to two: Either they abandon their nuclear program, immediately and completely, or we will make them abandon it. Nobody wants a third Middle Eastern war. But much less do we want the Third World War we would risk if Iran gained nuclear weapons.
The right response also requires standing for our principles. I deplore slanders against any religious faith—believe me, I know whereof I speak. But as president of the United States I will stand above all for American principles, beginning with the right of free speech. And I will not apologize for that right under the foolish and dishonorable assumption that we can pacify our enemies by joining in their denunciations of acts of free speech.
And speaking of principles, one of mine is that friends come first. So we will not try to appease the Russians at the expense of the Poles, or the Egyptians at the expense of Israelis, or the Chinese at the expense of anybody.
So clarity, principle—and then there's credibility. As my running mate Paul Ryan has said, our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course. "To provide for the common defence" is a constitutional duty of government. And yet with each passing year, entitlements take up a larger share, and defense a smaller one, of our federal budget.
In Europe, they had a solution to this problem—and it was called the United States. But who has our back? The U.N.?
Make no mistake: As we debate our budgets, our adversaries in Tehran and Moscow and Beijing are looking for every gap in our defenses, every strain in our alliances and every sign of weakness in our will. And they are awaiting opportunities to exploit all three.
When I'm president, they won't find those opportunities. I know it is a heavy burden for America to be the world's policeman. But far heavier would be our burden if we were to forsake that role. Because we are not a disinterested party when it comes to securing democracy against despotism, civilization against barbarism, and order and fair play against the rule of the jungle.
Ladies and gentlemen, when President Kennedy said we would pay any price and bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty, he was telling us not to expect to have it easy. Greatness never is. But neither is America a country that has ever chosen the easy road. We're not about to begin now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment