English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I suspect few readers will disagree when I say that not one of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democratic, has yet articulated a compelling campaign theme. All favor security. Not one opposes prosperity. Each promises to protect Social Security and improve health care. Voters can be forgiven if they are not overwhelmed.

Let me offer a different approach on the off-chance that some candidate might find it useful: Tell voters the hard truth — and challenge them.

In particular, tell them we are at a critical moment in our nation’s history: A dangerous enemy is waging an unconventional war against us. We are just beginning to learn how to defend ourselves. Remind them that this enemy has been underestimated by presidents and lawmakers of both parties many times, over many years.

Tell them, too, that fighting this enemy is a burden that history is asking the current generation of Americans to bear. We must do this for future generations — as past generations fought for us.

Say frankly that if we don’t have the stomach for a long and difficult war, we will be defeated by movements that are more determined than we are — and more ruthless than we can ever imagine becoming.

It is rare for politicians to talk this way. But it is not unprecedented. In 1940, Hitler’s armies were wiping off the map one European nation after another. In Britain, many people believed the wisest course was not to fight the Nazis but to negotiate a diplomatic settlement, to address the legitimate grievances of the German people.

On May 13, 1940 Winston Churchill entered the House of Commons for the first time as British Prime Minister. Next to him was Neville Chamberlain, the outgoing PM. Chamberlain was greeted with cheers. Churchill was not.

Churchill didn’t tell the officials and the public what they wanted to hear. He told them what they needed to hear: that it would be both wrong and unproductive to attempt to appease tyrants.

He famously said: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.”

It is possible the current conflict will be less lethal than World War II. But it will last longer — it already has. What policy would a Churchillian presidential candidate adopt? Churchill said: “You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.”

Any candidate supporting this approach would have only disdain for such groups as MoveOn.org which this week accused General David Petraeus of “betrayal” for refusing to accept defeat in the Battle of Iraq

After Gen. Petraeus’s initial testimony, both the Washington Post and the Washington Times headlined his support for troop reductions next year. But, by definition, a “surge” subsides. Petraeus has always intended to transfer responsibility for security to Iraqis — he just wants to decide when and where, based on conditions on the ground, not legislation passed in Washington.

The New York Times, whose editorial page views are hardly distinguishable from those of MoveOn.org, was closer to identifying the news in Petraeus’ report. Its top story: “Petraeus Warns Against Quick Pullback in Iraq.” It should not require a Churchill to see that if American forces leave Iraq precipitously, America’s enemies will fill the vacuum. And Iraqis who have been fighting with us will be slaughtered. People around the world will get the joke: To be America’s friend is more perilous than to be America’s enemy.

The real news in Petraeus’s testimony: Americans troops have been beating al-Qaeda in Iraq and, as that job gets done, it is Iranian-backed militias that are becoming the main problem that needs to be eliminated. The regime in Tehran wants Iraq as its colony. It doesn’t want Iraq to be an America ally in the war with Militant Islamism.

On several occasions over the past three decades, Tehran has sent murderers to kill Americans. On none of those occasion has the United States responded forcefully. The mullahs are betting there will be no break with that precedent — not by the current occupant of the Oval Office and not by whoever replaces him in 2009.

I suspect more than a few Americans would vote for a candidate who tells us the mullahs are dead wrong.

2007-09-14 10:08:55 · 11 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2 in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

boy you havent been paying attention have you

ron paul has been telling america the hard truth scince 1976

vote ron paul 08
the only wasted vote is for the status quo
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

2007-09-14 10:19:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

The President is privy to a lot of information that most folks on Y!A do not have. Whether you like him or not, it would unwise to ignore advice such as this. Suppose there is some information that is not generally known that, once it is known to the new president, causes them to say: "Oh." Suppose they have demagogued for months and now have to eat their words. Not an auspicious beginning to their presidency. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Dems take the presidency back. How long will that president be given to withdraw all the troops before there is as much whining we currently have? A month? Three? A Year? Their first term of office (thats four years for you non-Americans)? Let's hope that the next president will have the wisdom and fortitude to do the right thing, whatever that may be.

2016-05-19 21:32:38 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

I personally would like a Presidential candidate to say to the following:
Listen up, everybody!
When (not if) I become president, the following will happen.
Terrorist attacks against America, and anywhere else will stop. Period.
You have your grievances, and you will have just one month after I become President to air them. We will then sit down with open minds and respectfully discuss them. If possible, and if your grievances are based on facts, we will solve the problem and eliminate the grievance. (Here I will specifically refer to Israel. Although I think the creation of the state of Israel is the main reason for a lot of the hatred and violence in the Middle East, destroying it is not an option. Israel and their neighbours have to find a way of co-existing. Israel will be given the role of 'peacemaker' in the region. Or no more financial or military aid for them.)
Now comes the part where you all listen very carefully.
If, after our meetings, there are any more terrorist attacks, you will be hunted down and a harsh form of justice will be exacted. You, and your families will be exterminated. More attacks, and we will wipe out your villages, cities and countries. We have the power to do it. And nobody is going to stop us.
So, get your grievances ready, and be prepared to solve them with open minds, OR ELSE!
My legacy to the world will be peace and prosperity.

2007-09-14 10:47:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I think that the President of the United States is just that. The President of the United States, not President of the World. Many topics we cannot reach, because most are in. In their room, in their private space. Topics like, suicide, helping a child suffering from divorced parents, helping a child who doesn't know who his dad was, street repair, street cleaning, litter removal, more trash containers in site to put the litter, attention to the lonely, water cleanliness, park safety, private car rides for the handicapped.

2013-09-19 13:51:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

First off the candidate you speak of would have to be willing to get hung for speaking the truth which is unheard of in our government. He might as well address some other issues like legalizing hemp for industrial production, I know I am sick of kissing the oil mans azs.

Sonojudan

"If our government last another 20 years in its current state I will sh!T myself."

2007-09-14 10:22:41 · answer #5 · answered by thesonojudan 2 · 1 1

The only real reason for becoming a candidate is to obtain more media coverage, gain approval ratings, and to spend and receive hopefully tons of cash.
There was no need to wright this much, most who answer won't bother to read it.

2007-09-14 10:48:47 · answer #6 · answered by Mark F 5 · 0 1

Nope

2015-09-19 02:55:31 · answer #7 · answered by eric 1 · 0 0

Ahhhh LOL I see you beat me to the Townhall.com post. I read that this morning and I agree.

Additionally:
They need to talk about what the Quran teaches. They need to talk about The Muslim Brotherhood and the Holyland Foundation trial in Dallas...

2007-09-14 10:29:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I agree, that Fred Thompson is the closest you can get to someone patriotic and truthful.

2007-09-14 10:20:25 · answer #9 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 1 2

Your best bet is Fred Thompson for president.

2007-09-14 10:17:04 · answer #10 · answered by Fred Head 4 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers