To begin, Mr. President or Madam President: You must honor our troops by always keeping their sacrifices in mind, limiting them to essential missions, equipping them to do their jobs, and bringing them home safely and as soon as circumstances permit.
This pretty much sums up the President's view. It is our Left that calls our troops mercenaries or losers unable to cut it in civilian life. We do limit them to essential missions, unlike Albright who famously rebuked Colin Powell by saying we needed to "use" our troops and not keep them off the battlefield. Our troops are the best equipped troops on the planet and we of course want to bring them home when we can. The problem is that Albright disagrees with our president's judgment and not that he doesn't follow this advice.
Second, you must recognize that the American flag includes both red and blue and that bipartisanship is not a four letter word. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on wisdom.
For people who like to call a war declared by a Democratic Senate and Republican House of Representatives "Bush's war," this is rich. And perhaps Albright can talk to her nutroots Left and tell them to cut out their contests to use the most insulting term for our President and their constant attacks on the President's intelligence.
Third, bear in mind that our country is exceptional because of its resources, traditions and ideals, not because we carve out exceptions for ourselves to the rules we insist that others obey; torture is not a weapon with which to fight terror; on the contrary, it has been a humiliation to us and a gift to Al Qaeda.
We do not torture, period. Calling rough questioning torture doesn't make it torture. If our Left didn't constantly allege torture with no proof, maybe that wouldn't be the common view around the world. And al Qaeda plotted their attack on 9/11 beginning under her watch in the sensitive Clinton administration. Not to mention the Cole and East African embassy bombings. What was a gift to al Qaeda was a refusal to even believe bin Laden was at war with us in the 1990s.
Fourth, understand that, to many overseas, America today is identified more with violence and arrogance than justice and liberty - more with Guantanamo than Omaha Beach. Your actions and words can change that, but you are not the only story-teller on the street (or Internet). This means that you will have to work hard to resurrect confidence in the American brand. Speak carefully; listen patiently; earn respect without assuming or demanding it; and do battle each day with the axis of evil: poverty, ignorance, and disease.
We are identified with violence because we defend ourselves and defend allies? Perhaps if our domestic Left didn't provide so many quotes for our enemies to charge this we wouldn't have a problem. The same with democracy. We've provided Iraq and Afghanistan with democracy and support Lebanon's efforts to defend their democracy. If our Left can't see this, how can people in other countries? But her "axis of evil" shows she doesn't even comprehend that we are at war. We fight these problems every day, but they are not the war. And again, the stories her side tells explain much of the hostility that does exist.
Fifth, attack Al Qaeda at its weakest point. These terrorists are not warriors but murderers who kill the unarmed, children, and Muslims. They offer no vision for the future except the sword. They should not be accused of Islamic terrorism for their crimes are profoundly un-Islamic. As president, you should make reference frequently and with favor to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.
So we just need to highlight their murdering terror and there is no need to fight al Qaeda? That explains a lot about the 1990s and the growth of al Qaeda's threat under her watch. I take it that Albright doesn't think the "real fight" is in Afghanistan since even the "good" war requires killing enemies. I figure their weak point is any portion of their bodies. Just kill them. Her call to label them as murderers in the apparent hope that they or their supporters will be shamed into peacefullness is just bizarre. The jihadis hate us. They want to kill us. Stop trying to understand their anger, and rip their hearts out. And if you believe they are terrorists and not warriors, stop trying to give the thugs we capture POW rights.
Sixth, don't allow President Bush's mistakes to dissuade you from promoting democracy. Subtract the passion for liberty from America and we would not be America. Remember, though, that democracy must evolve; it cannot be imposed. It is forged through the blending of lofty ideals with street level experience, as people dare to entrust their rights to others while gaining confidence in the rule of law.
Funny enough, democracy doesn't seem to evolve when thug rulers murder and imprison and torture because they don't entrust to the people the right to rule, choose who will rule them, or even speak their mind. That's where we've come in. Why doesn't she explain to some on the Left who complain that Iraq isn't an instant Vermont that Iraq needs time to evolve their democracy that continues to hold firm even while under attack from brutal enemies. In the end, Albright's version of promoting democracy consists of slapping a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker on your Volvo and--well, that's it. Let it evolve on its own, eh? Remember, this woman was our secretary of state!
Seventh, believe in the American people. We're not cowed by danger and we are far more willing to sacrifice than most politicians suspect, provided we're treated like adults and told the truth.
Your Leftist buddies already believe Bush promotes fear-mongering. How is that possible if we aren't cowed by danger? The problem is that the Left doesn't recognize danger. But hey, I guess Albright could consider this just my honest advice to avoid more mistakes.
Eighth, reward honesty, not flattery; the advisers you need most are those who will be unafraid to warn you when you are about to go astray.This is just anti-Bush propaganda because she believes that since Bush doesn't follow her particular advice he must not be getting honest advice. There's lots of advice out there. Albright pretends like advice is labeled "good" and "bad" and all you have to do is adopt the good advice. The world doesn't work that way. Bush has led us. He's made mistakes. But he hasn't wavered in winning the Iraq War and I can only hope that our next president will be as steadfast in the face of idiots such as Albright who wouldn't know good advice if it bit them in the ass.
Ninth, learn from the past, but don't rely on historical clichés to dictate future actions. The world never stops in the same place twice. Not every enemy is Hitler and intelligent acts of diplomacy should not be confused with appeasement.
One word: Vietnam. Go talk to your Lefty friends about historical cliches. And if you ever had an intelligent act of diplomacy perhaps we could explore its similarities and differences to appeasement. How did that Agreed Framework with North Korea negotiated in the sensitive decade work out? How did those negotiations with the Palestinians work out? And just how did those apologies to Iran convince the mullahs to become reasonable? Appeasement would be a step up from her foreign policy. At least appeasement assumed that at some point enemies would be sated and stop demanding more. Her diplomacy seemed to be perpetual retreat with no logical stopping point.
Finally, forget Mt. Rushmore; if you are to leave the White House with your head held high, you must be ever mindful of your own capacity for error and that the voters, not God, made you president. Greatness doesn't come by pursuing greatness; it comes through the steady application of intelligence, guts and nerve to the pursuit of honorable ends.
Our President is doing just fine. And our objectives are honorable. He can leave with his head held high. He's done his duty and upheld his oath to protect us. Go speak to President Clinton about his errors that accumulated through our holiday from history. His lip-biting sensitivity didn't keep bin Laden from planning his 9/11 attack and didn't get us much allied help--other than the British--in the 1998 Desert Fox attack on Iraq. Nor did the international community bless the Kosovo War. Heck, his war even managed to blow up the Chinese embassy in Serbia. Albright has nerve, I'll admit. But guts and intelligence? Not so much.
So those are Albright's ten commandments that she brings down to we mere mortals.
Good grief, Albright is an idiot unworthy to run a post office in a medium-sized town. She has no idea how to relate to fellow Americans let alone foreigners. This was just a hit piece on President Bush filled with the bad reasoning and flight from reality that made her our worst secretary of state in my lifetime.
I feel cheated out of an hour of my life just addressing her pointless article. May she never ever sit in a government office again.
UPDATE: Let me cite a past post of mine that applies to this call for a better American foreign policy to regain the respect of the world:
“A Backlash to ‘Bully’ America” (Posted February 14, 2004)
I’m getting tired of reading stories like this. The title is “A Backlash to ‘bully’ America” in the Christian Science Monitor. The first sentence sets the tone:
Rarely in history has a country been as powerful as the United States is today. And that may be taking a toll on the rest of the world.
The article says that our rivals worry about our dominance and that their common concerns have become more focused and unified. Even our traditional allies and friends fear our dominance. And of course, some developing countries “complain that they are too often bullied by the US” (they throw in the Europeans too, thank goodness!). Our ongoing operations in Iraq are one cause and even the Kosovo War is a sore point.
The litany of our sins follows rapidly.
Latin American countries are upset about our actions to support the Colombian government.
Our allies are upset at national missile defense.
The US has rejected popular international initiatives like the international criminal court, nuclear weapons test bans, and a proposal to ban landmines.
Then the author hauls out a national security expert from the US Institute for Peace:
“You can get away with unilateralism for only the briefest of times,” he says. “You can’t have it both ways—pushing for greater globalization but not supporting things like an international criminal court or the United Nations”
Another expert chimes in:
One of the most important things the next president will have to do is strengthen our alliances and explain to other countries why our presence is needed around the world.
The complaints are old and the article says nothing new.
And I know the article can’t be right. It simply can’t be.
I know this because it was published September 14, 2000.
We all know that having other nations upset with us is all due to the current administration. I mean, in September 2000, we’d had nearly eight years of a multilateral-loving, UN-appeasing, lip-biting, apology-prone, compassionate, sophisticated, Euro-friendly administration.
Sorry. I couldn’t resist. I ran across the old article while cleaning out my office this week.
If you search by date or title, you’ll get the link to the article online. Sorry, it requires subscription or payment to get in.
Ah, the good old days when we were loved… /END OLD POST/
Pity Madeleine Albright wasn't around then to implement her ten commandments, eh? Oh, and I corrected a formatting error that originally lumped the 7th and 8th utterings together in one paragraph.
