Reply With Quote
yeah, right, america has never dictated to other countries.
Ouch!
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...xN2Q3MDM=#more
A Timid Advocate of Freedom
President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.
By Mitt Romney
At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.
In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.
The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.
Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.
Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.
Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.
yeah, right, america has never dictated to other countries.
I don't think that's the point, do you?
Example: So you think we should NOT dictate Iran's nuclear policy?
All this for me is like thinking that a heroic grimace is indispensable for statecraft. If we hold our mouths just right, maybe the Iranians will do what we want.
Romney does have nice hair and chiseled Republican good looks. Too bad he is an airhead and opportunistic. Out of consideration for surviving family I'll not remark again on the distinct decline of culture, humor and manners at NR since the 1970's, but note it briefly here for the record.
For whatever reason, your reference of NR is not ringing a bell as an acronym...
National Review
Thank you, kind sir. I guess I should read a byline every now and then.
No prob.
All they can do now is just reprint Bill Buckley in every issue.
This is a great example of how you start off a powder puff piece.
I would say I stopped reading this with this sentence, but I really stopped at
"by Mitt Romney".
I'll get around to reading the whole thing at some point, but I know that I will probably find a partisan hit piece with little worth commenting on. As it is, I don't have the time now to spend on reading Republican cool-aid.
Oh yeah!
I see what you did there.
Delicious irony... mmm with a side order of confirmation bias sauce.
Kind of like when the Bush Bot collective at National Review's "The Corner" named "Brazil" one of their their 25 most conservative movies.
I you not.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 04-21-2009 at 02:38 PM.
I'm thinking of spending another $40 million so Republicans can question my religion
by Mitt Romney
So according to the resident libs, the "Blame America" Tour was okay. When will you wake up? When the next buildings are smoldering ruins?
Romney is one of the few GOPers who could at least pull the party in the direction of greater personal, as well as economic, freedom. The problem is, there's always an opening for a social conservative (ie Huckabee) to show up. One would think that after the last two federal election cycles the notion of the evangelicals as an overwhelming political force has been disproven. Rove really misread that when he thought he had built a majority political coalition for a generation (hence Bush significantly expanding an en lement program). A true majority would center around greater liberty in all facets of life in today's USofA. One might dare call it libertarian.
Oh, I don't know. Our economy is on fire right now. That seems much more momentous to me.
The meme that Obama is projecting weakness abroad is counterbalanced by US action in Iraq, AfPak and Somalia.
Are you ok with the drone attacks in Pakistan, CS?
Despite what some might think of Mitt Romney, at least he didn't start off his op-ed by saying Obama had a great week because he got a Portuguese water dog.
Do you even read past the hook, Darrin? There's not much very much in your recent posts to support that you do.
Right, he started off his 2012 campaign by attacking Obama.
Rather predictable, but in your own entertaining way you completely missed it.
I did read the entire article "Obama Derangement Syndrome" that RandomGuy posted, and, afterward, I wished I could have the last five minutes of my life back.
EDIT> And, I never attacked the source, I just thought it was a poorly worded opening paragraph. I'm en led to my opinion, no?
As it stands, the GOP candidate in 2012 will be running on the more efficient management of unprecedented government intervention (ie Jindal). Big government conservatism is not the electoral seller Rove thought it was, however. Romney's probably the only candidate who could articulate some kind of alternative vision. His time has come and gone, IMO. Then again, the last GOP nominee was essentially a progressive Republican who idolized TR and who locked up the nomination due to a weak field, his courageous personal history, and his willingness to rattle the saber. The problem seems to be that the powers that be deem the Reagan coalition an electoral winner here almost three decades later.
Sure. Lack of reading can limit the reach of your remarks, is all. No biggie.
Everything before this made sense to me. Can you gloss this for me please?
National security conservatives, social conservatives, and economic conservatives. I guess you could place the so-called "Reagan Democrats" in one of the first two groups.
I guess it's more generally referred to as the "Reagan Revolution." Remember how every GOP candidate fell over themselves in the debates to embrace the 40th POTUS? Of course, the amusing thing was the one candidate who was a charter member of said 'revolution' was deemed to be the most heretical Republican.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
