I was amazed when I read the Pawlenty speech on the Middle East. I hadn’t expected that a former Middle Western governor, from a blue state, would have had the passion and vision to deliver one of the most impressive analyses and tough-minded policy ideas within memory. And I love the title, “No Retreat from Freedom’s Rise.”
Here are the key graphs:
We have a clear interest in seeing an end to Assad’s murderous regime. By sticking to Bashar al Assad so long, the Obama Administration has not only frustrated Syrians who are fighting for freedom—it has demonstrated strategic blindness. The governments of Iran and Syria are enemies of the United States. They are not reformers and never will be. They support each other. To weaken or replace one, is to weaken or replace the other.
AdvertisementThe fall of the Assad mafia in Damascus would weaken Hamas, which is headquartered there. It would weaken Hezbollah, which gets its arms from Iran, through Syria. And it would weaken the Iranian regime itself.
To take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic channel to bring the Assad reign of terror to an end. We need more forceful sanctions to persuade Syria’s Sunni business elite that Assad is too expensive to keep backing. We need to work with Turkey and the Arab nations and the Europeans, to further isolate the regime. And we need to encourage opponents of the regime by making our own position very clear, right now: Bashar al-Assad must go.
When he does, the mullahs of Iran will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Syria is Iran’s only Arab ally. If we peel that away, I believe it will hasten the fall of the mullahs. And that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. It’s the singular opportunity offered to the world by the brave men and women of the Arab Spring.
Who else in American public life is calling for regime change in Syria and Iran, and recognizes that bringing down the Tehran regime is “the ultimate goal we must pursue?”
He’s right, and it’s encouraging that at least someone is saying it. Perhaps some of the other candidates will see fit to start talking seriously about national security above and beyond the debt, unemployment, and so on. The country is at risk on both fronts, foreign and domestic, and our future success and survival depend on our winning on both fronts.
Meanwhile, at least Governor Pawlenty laid it out, while the administration dithers and retreats. It seems that Supreme Leader Khamenei warned Obama in a letter not to meddle in Syria to the detriment of the Assad regime. Actually he needn’t have worried. That sort of thing would cut into the golfing schedule.
If you look at the revolutions he has supported in the Middle East, and the ones he has ignored or helped tamp down, it seems that iran and its allies will be encircling Israel. Every group supported seems to have ties to Iran, Hamas, or or the Muslim Brotherhood.
It was well thought out, wasn’t it? The Q & A afterwards was very good as well. He holds his own better than anyone else I’ve seen to date, and he was better in live debate than he was giving the speech.
Too bad so many are looking for a Chris Matthews #tingle instead of content.
Pawlenty is a very serious, solid candidate. People keep gravitating to the more “charismatic” candidates such as Bachmann and Cain, but I want someone who thinks deeply about very complex issues, gathers information from a variety of sources, and who also has the purely political skills to get conservative legislation passed even in a Democrat environment. Only Pawlenty has done that.
He was way out in front of the other candidates on calling out the ethanol scam, too. Very impressive.
Agreed. I think, for now, I will be supporting Pawlenty. Until a few days ago I was an ardent supporter of Bachman until I came across this video. I hate to be single issued, but it is an important one. Someone needs to advise Ms. Bachman that her passionate support for the MEK is misplaced and is the proverbial jumping from the frying pan into the fire. She needs better foreign policy advisers (hint hint).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APxbp6SK0P8&feature=related
On another matter, I once asked you to explain Jewish support for Obama and the Democratic party in the face of such clear anti Israeli sentiment in the White House. You gave me an answer that only you as a Jew could and I dare not repeat. Well, it took a while, but I think the American Jews may have finally seen the light.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CCC173C6-27F6-4CEA-B94F-B0DB75F91846
Proves Chris Wallace’s point this past Sunday as to why he called her a flake.
She is not a flake. Anything but. Her belief in the founding concept of the United States is real and admirable. Her economic vision is sound. She has just fallen into the old trap of believing that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. That, as history has repeatedy shown, is a false and dangerous assumption. Let us not forget that UBL and his Al-Qaeda comrades were once our enemy’s enemy and, for all practical purposes, our surrogates in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. And, most recently, the Muslim Brotherhood was also an enemy of Mubarak, our friend. Ms. Bachman only needs to be tweaked a tad on foreign policy, which I wish Director Woolsey had done so in that gathering. If you wish Pol Pot with a dash of Jim Jones revisited, let the MEK take the reigns in Iran.
She is still a flake. Thank goodness we both don’t live in America to vote.
She is not a flake. She does lack organizational and management skills. She is disorganized, not flaky.
We have a lot of problems, because people do not know what words mean, so they use the wrong ones. A flake is a person who is not serious and maybe a little crazy. Think California, land of fruits and nuts and flakes.
Pawlenty, in contrast to Bachmann is very organized. He is a competent manager. He just has no punch. It is not about charisma. It is about heart. “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight; It’s the size of the fight in the dog.” Bachmann is a little dog with lots of fight. Pawlenty is a medium-sized dog with little fight.
Cain has fine organizational and management skills. He is competent, and he has fight. But he’s a little dog, lacking foreign policy knowledge. Romney is like Pawlenty. Little fight. It’s why he flip-flops.
A synthesis of Bachmann or Cain with Pawlenty would make a pretty good candidate. We need the same fight in a bigger dog.
A good, tough speech. Now, how does he get anyone else to pay attention?
I wish he was a bit more exciting. Great speech but I doubt he has any chance…
This morning, I read on Drudge Report that the administration has opened a channel of contact with the muslim brotherhood.
Unbelievable.
Bravo Pawlenty! There are lots of blind, deaf and mute people out there, but we still have hope..
The link regarding Khameni’s letter to Obama goes to an interesting website which appears to be all in Farsi (?). Is there a translation or related news story?
Arabic. I’m sure by now there are other news stories…
What is there to prevent dissidents in the region from the shores of the Meditteranean Sea, to the Hindu Kush mountains, to be aided various ways?
One way is a preparatory regime, similar to what FDR had in mind for Vietnam, as
related in “Lost Crusade: America in Vietnam” by Chester L. Cooper.
Another way is for those with deep pockets to kick in towards a strike fund so
that people can demonstrate without having to worry about how much they pay the grocer later on.
For, in all honesty, why do we have to wait for the characters inside the Beltway to change their tune regarding how the Middle East ought to be?