-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
There is a remarkable piece in today’s Washington Post by the paper’s Ruth Marcus.
Titled “Romney Owes an Apology,” it’s a stunning example of leftist appeasement that exhibits precisely the reasons appeasers from Neville Chamberlain to Jimmy Carter always wind up getting their nations in trouble.
Ms. Marcus is upset that Governor Romney has previously described President Obama in this fashion:
“There are anti-American fires burning all across the globe; President Obama’s words are like kindling to them.”
This, says Marcus, is a “falsehood.”
Then she linked — seriously — to a timeline of events that emphasize — hello? — exactly how dumbfounding not to mention naïve is Marcus’s reading of events.
Marcus triumphantly quotes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this way:
“Let me be clear,” Hillary Clinton’s statement said. “There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
What Marcus deliberately leaves out, of course, is the apologetic sentence that preceded those words. The full Clinton quote reads like this:
“Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
In other words, Clinton begins her statement by doing precisely what drew Romney’s ire in the first place. She apologizes to a group of Islamic fanatics by trying to say “By the way…really…we’re so sorry…we really believe in religious tolerance…we’re not anti-Muslim. Honest. Please don’t be mad at us. We like you.”
Is Marcus truly that naïve that she doesn’t understand the signal of weakness statements like Clinton’s send to American enemies who are, as always, probing for weakness in the American leadership? Does she not understand why, years ago, no less than Osama Bin Laden famously said of America: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”
Answer: Yes, Ruth Marcus, like liberals everywhere, really is that naive.
The idea of America as the weak horse plays perfectly with statements like those not only first issued by the Cairo Embassy — but by the words and actions of both Secretary Clinton and President Obama. These people are telegraphing — OK, make that texting — weakness to the world.
Marcus’s column is exactly the famous rationale behind Neville Chamberlain’s perpetual annoyance with Winston Churchill. If he could just get Churchill to shut up, Chamberlain believed, things would just be fine with Herr Hitler.
Marcus ends her column by saying, “There is something disgraceful happening here…”
Marcus is right. There is something disgraceful happening here. But it isn’t Mitt Romney’s Reaganesque willingness to stand up for freedom.
It’s Ruth Marcus’s inability to understand that weakness leads inevitably to disaster.
Should Mitt Romney apologize?
Of course not.
What Mitt Romney should do is press the point — just as Ronald Reagan pressed the very same point against Jimmy Carter.
What Mitt Romney needs to do is get on with winning this election — before a government that thinks like Ruth Marcus brings on complete disaster.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/09/14/will-the-irresponsible-ruth-ma
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike W| 9.14.12 @ 11:11AM
Obama's weakness didn't lead to the disaster in Lybia. Obama's foolish decision to support al Qaeda in the revolution last year is what caused the disaster. Hillary ("we came, we saw, he died") Clinton has direct responsibilty for the death of her employees.
Teflon93 | 9.14.12 @ 11:50AM
She takes no responsibility for the male employees, only the women in her club. More drinks!
Teflon93 | 9.14.12 @ 11:49AM
Romney first needs to figure out what he believes.
Anti-Statist| 9.14.12 @ 1:27PM
Romney has not been the problem with the Islamists. Yet.
It's all on Obama for now.
Ralph Gizzip| 9.14.12 @ 12:01PM
Unfortunately, I think it's going to take some drastic action on the part of the US Gov't to turn the tide on Islamic Jihad against the West. Sadly, I don't believe the American public has to stomach to accommodate it.
You'll notice that the Russians and Chinese don't have much trouble with jihadists. Why is that? The jihadists know that retribution will be swift and strong. The Russian and Chinese governments don't have to kowtow to their general population like our government does so our government has to be cognizant of the Code Pinks, etc. when dealing with these murderous thugs.
Personally, I'd be just as happy if our government did what needed to be done to deal with these people and not say a word. "Osama bin Laden's dead? Cool! Thanks to whoever did it." That should have been our official response.
Anti-Statist| 9.14.12 @ 1:27PM
Ralph,
I agree with you, and in my opinion we're past the point of half-measures.
It's now a them or us decision, both can not exist on earth. Freedom as we know it or the worst degree of totalitarianism known to mankind on the other.
There's no middle ground; the Islamists won't agree to live and let live.
MarshallH| 9.14.12 @ 12:24PM
So from Clinton's statement "Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation." you view it as "She apologizes to a group of Islamic fanatics." Really? Where is the apology is that statement. By definition an apology is "expression of regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another." You further trash her statement paraphrasing her disrespectfully "By the way…really…we're so sorry…we really believe in religious tolerance…we're not anti-Muslim. Honest. Please don't be mad at us. We like you." This type of journalism is wrong on so many levels. Very destructive.
Stan Redmond| 9.14.12 @ 2:45PM
I have said many times. One of the most insulting things in Arab society (very tribal) is to talk ill of your own family or tribe to another family or tribe. You will instantly lose any and all respect. You and your entire family and tribe are seen as weak. It is something the Obama administration does constantly. Obama showed he is on his knees with his shameful Cairo speech. Bowing to the Saudi King didn't help either. Obama shows he has no respect for his own country. Why would anyone else respect his country either?
RESET RESET RESET. Big red buttons with reset, STAT!