Another Home Run: Romney Speech Lays Out Clear, Confident Foreign Policy Vision
Oct 8, 2012
RUSH: Another tremendous speech by Mitt Romney just now. Let me tell you something. This man is truly showing his presidential timbre. He finished right on time, just in time for this show. He didn’t go long. He didn’t speak into the beginning of this program. That’s the kind of sensitivity you look for in a leader, and Romney showed it. It was a great foreign policy speech. I tell you, it sets up the next debate between Romney and Obama on foreign policy, and there again, folks, not just on paper but in the real world, Barack Obama’s an empty suit on foreign policy.
This was rock solid today from Romney. It was presidential, it was solid, it was confident, and it’s a speech given amidst an increasingly chaotic and volatile Middle East. It was just such a great, great, great contrast. He said something very interesting. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war. That’s exactly right. You build the B-2 bomber hoping you never have to use it. This is what the left never understood and to this day never understands about the defense budget. You build all of these weapons as deterrents. National security means something. Safety, protection the American people.
You build these weapons to send a message to the rest of the world: “Don’t try it.” If you couple that with a leader in the Oval Office with the will to project American power, you have deterrence, and that is what Romney did today. He very intelligently, solidly, confidently projected American power and gave an indication of how he would do that as president. You know, Obama’s speeches, when you get to Obama speeches on foreign policy, they aren’t solutions. In fact, Obama’s speeches on anything are not solutions. In the area of foreign policy, Obama’s speeches are green lights to aggressors. Obama’s a green light. Every time he speaks, he’s a green light to our aggressors. He’s an appeaser. He blames a videotape for eight days. Today Romney blamed the terrorists.
We continue to learn so much. Do you know the day of the attack the ambassador asked for help? In addition to days leading up to the attack in Benghazi, and got none. So this upcoming foreign policy debate between Romney and Obama’s gonna be a great opportunity I think, again, folks to educate the American people about just how lax our foreign policy is, our national security apparatus is. I don’t know how far Romney wants to go into it, but there are foreign policy scandals galore he could talk about. Fast and Furious is one. The debacle in Libya. Americans are dead. Americans have died under Obama and his foreign policy. So we’ll see.
I thought it was a fabulous speech that exuded leadership. It was presidential. It was a message of peace through strength, and it was delivered with great clarity. And I love people who understand the purpose of a powerful military: deterrence. You build the bomb hoping you never have to use it. You build the B-2 bomber hoping you never have to use it. As I say, the left never understands. “Well, why would you waste the money on it, Mr. Limbaugh, if you never are going to use it? Couldn’t we better spend that money feeding the starving and quenching the thirst of the thirsty?” No. We already do that. We spend plenty money on the hungry and thirsty. We’re not short there.
You build it and you don’t use it and the left and a lot of other people think it’s a waste. You build it and don’t use it, it’s eminently successful if its existence reduces attacks. But that, again, depends on the timbre and the character and the leadership of whoever is in the Oval Office. And right now, that’s not a kind of leadership being exuded that is… I don’t even want to use the word “threatening.” We got somebody who’s sending green lights to aggressors, appeasing, giving dates certain for the end of war, when we’re gonna pull out of Afghanistan, for example.
RUSH: We have the Romney speech. I’ve got four sound bites; I want to get right to it. This was Romney. He was at VMI in Lexington, Virginia.
ROMNEY: The attack on our consulate there on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001.
ROMNEY: This latest assault can’t be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the administration has finally conceded: These attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others — especially on women and girls — who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
RUSH: Yep. It wasn’t a video. It was Al-Qaeda.
Two things at work here, just to review: A, in blaming the video Obama wants everybody to think that it was a right-wing extremist. It was a “conservative,” somebody close to Romney that was responsible for it. Remember, now, this is very important since they took out Osama Bin Laden. Part and parcel of that, the regime wants you to think, is that Al-Qaeda has been dealt with.
“There is no more Al-Qaeda.”
They always said the definition of victory in the war was getting bin Laden. That meant the end of Al-Qaeda. Well, of course Al-Qaeda is back; they’re not done away with. Al-Qaeda was responsible for the death of the ambassador, but Obama couldn’t have that known, so blame it on the filmmaker. So he’s Romney at VMI setting the record straight — clearly, passionately, and confidently. Here’s the next sample that we have for you…
ROMNEY: The relationship between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel, for example — our closest ally in the region — has suffered great strains. The president explicitly stated that his goal was to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel, and he succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.
RUSH: This is not table pounding, this is not shouting, but what he said there is highly accusatory and correct. “[E]xplicitly stated … his goal was to put ‘daylight’ between the United States and Israel, and he succeeded,” distancing us from our lone ally or our best ally in the region. He made it clear, point-blank. Here’s the next one in which he says that hope… I love this, by the way, folks. He says, “Hope is not a strategy.”
ROMNEY: When we look at the Middle East today, with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threatening to destabilize the region, and with violent extremists on the march — and with an American ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates — it’s clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office. I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and more prosperous Middle East allied with us. I share this hope.
But hope is not a strategy.
RUSH: Zing! Zing! Not table pounding. Not shouting and screaming. Reason, reasonable, logical, and truthful. By the way, Obama is still saying that he has defeated Al-Qaeda. That’s another reason why he’s gotta go off on a tangent and not deal with our enemies directly. Because, as far as he’s concerned, he’s wiped ’em out. “Hope is not a strategy.” Somebody better tell the Nobel Peace Prize that. They gave him a Peace Prize on the basis of “hope.” How’s that looking?
RUSH: As I listen to these Romney sound bites, it reminds me of when I was listening to the speech live. It was exactly an hour ago. When you just listen to what Romney is saying about our position in the world and how he’s saying it, and you compare it to what Obama says about our position in the world. I just can’t get over the stark contrast and the stark difference. I mean, you ask the question, “Who is more presidential? Who should be our commander-in-chief?” and the option is these two guys. I mean, there’s no comparison. It is competent, confident leadership versus rank amateur cliched liberalism. Not even informed and educated by three years on the job, just cliched liberalism.
I went out to dinner last night. I left the bunker. I’ve been cloistered. I’ve been working so hard I haven’t been going out to dinner very much. But it was a good friend’s birthday last night, and Congressman Allen West was there, by the way. You talk about a solid congressman here from south Florida. What a great man he is. He’s in a tough reelection fight down here in south Florida, his district. His campaign looks like it’s going well, but everybody just flocks to him when he speaks. He’s inspirational and he inspires confidence as well. And I get the obligatory, “What are we gonna do about the media?” questions, but they weren’t as bad last night.
There were 32 people at this dinner, and a first, not one of them quoted the New York Times to me. I actually went home not mad. Normally I go to the these things and at least five people will complain to me about the New York Times and ask me what we’re gonna do. And last night not one person. That’s progress! At least for me. But there wasn’t nearly the panic last night that there’s been in other campaigns or previously this year. The mood was much better, and the people at this dinner were all us. And what I said to a number of people last night, I said, “One of the things that you’ve probably noticed about the media coverage of this campaign that bugs you and you might not have been able to nail down why, other than the bias, but it’s this. The media is treating Obama like a candidate, not an incumbent.” He has no record. He has no performance. There is no reflection whatsoever.
Everything about Obama in the coverage is still rooted in the fact that he’s just a candidate. So he gets away with all this hopey feely changey stuff, this philosophical stuff that, well, I don’t know that he is getting away with it, with the electorate. That’s the key. But the media is trying to help him get away with it. Romney, on the other hand, is being treated as the president. Romney’s getting the incumbent treatment from the media, and Obama is getting treated as a candidate. When you listen to these two guys, and when the choice we have is these two guys, when you listen to him speak on foreign policy, even after 3-1/2 years, all Obama can say is, “Osama’s dead and GM’s alive.”
But this Benghazi attack, the death of our ambassador and the other three Americans, folks, this is incompetence on parade. It’s a disaster waiting to happen again and again and again, because we don’t have anybody who knows what they’re doing. We don’t have anybody who believes that national security actually means something. We have somebody instead who thinks that this country’s been wrong in the execution and even the acquisition of its superpower status. When Obama speaks on foreign policy, it literally is a green light to our enemies. There certainly isn’t any deterrence in Obama. Obama’s not deterring anybody. He’s not deterring the Iranians. He’s not deterring Al-Qaeda. And that is evidenced by the attacks in Libya and the protests in Cairo and the accompanying protests in the rest of the Middle East.
The entire Arab Spring was mischaracterized from day one as an outbreak of Obamaism. Freedom elections, Democratic elections, it was nothing of the sort. It was the Muslim Brotherhood figuring that they had free rein. If not an ally in the White House, they certainly had somebody that wasn’t gonna do anything about it, and the odds were that he would be on their side because he would turn that event into something advantageous to him as a campaign event, rather than something that’s a serious foreign policy and national security issue. Everything that happens in the Middle East is a national security issue, in addition to foreign policy. And it’s all treated as though it’s just the next event in a long list of events that need to be spun as campaign events.
When you listen to these two men speak, and you’ve heard three of the sound bites, I hope you get to see the whole thing in its entirety at some point, Romney’s speech, there’s no comparison when you listen to the two, as to who is more presidential and who should be our commander-in-chief with the choice that we have between these two guys. I don’t know if Romney was using a prompter. Somebody sent me a picture. Yeah, it looks like he had a prompter. There’s a prompter there. There’s a real cool picture taken from what would be high center field of Romney at the podium and the way the cadets are assembled in the hall at VMI, but I do see two prompters there. But Obama, I don’t even think there’s any leadership there. He’s just occupying the office. We’re treading water while we try to redefine what the purpose of the United States’ role in the world is. And it clearly is a different role.
With Barack Obama, the United States is not the solution to the world’s problems. In fact, as far as Obama’s concerned, we may be the problem more often than we’re the solution. That’s unacceptable. But it’s not the case with Romney. With Romney, we are the solution. We will lead from the front, not from behind, as we get with Obama. And it’s clear to me as I listen to this that Romney believes what he’s saying. As we closer to all this, the debate focuses people, and Romney’s leadership, executive leadership competence is shining through now, be it the way he talked about domestic policy, the economy and the debate, and now this foreign policy speech today. There’s another great line from the speech. It’s coming up in this sound bite. Let’s see if you pick it out. Let’s play his next sound bite. The first purpose of our military is to prevent war, but there is a great line in this sound bite.
ROMNEY: I’ll roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I’ll make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war. The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I’ll restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I’ll implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2% of their GDP to security spending. Today only three of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
RUSH: So did you hear the line? “On this, there will be no ‘flexibility’ with Vladimir Putin.” Now, you and I all get it. But understand: There are a whole lot of people out there… “Obama phooooooooone!” “What about Romney?” “He suck!” Still, there are a lot of people who have no idea what that reference means if they hear it. What it’s in reference to is that there was a G7, G8, G20, whatever meeting.
Obama didn’t realize the mike was live (or he might have and not cared, who knows?), and he’s talking with the diminutive Medvedev, who is Putin’s puppet. And he told old Dmitry — Dmitry’s sitting there, Obama’s sitting there, and Obama said to Dmitry — “Look, Dmitry, you tell Vladimir I’ll have a lot more flexibility on these nukes after the election.” It was widely reported.
What it meant was: “Look, tell Vlad to back off! You tell him be patient. I’ll get rid of these things after I’m elected. I can’t do it right now. I gotta get reelected first,” and Dmitry nodded, apparently understanding. The translation was, “Look, Dmitry, you go back and tell Vladimir I’ll fold after the election. You get what you want after the election, but I can’t do it right now.”
Obama’s said he wants to disarm. He wants to get rid of our nukes. The Russians will not. The Iranians will not. The ChiComs will not. And I don’t buy this business that Obama believes if we “show leadership” by getting rid of ours, that the rest of the world will follow. The reason is, we’re not a threat. We’re not the bad guys, which is something Obama does not get, doesn’t conceive, can’t understand or refuses to.
The other people are the bad guys.
And if they see us get rid of the nukes, all they do is salivate, rub their hands together in glee. And we become less a threat. There will be less that we’ll be able to do to stop them should they choose to use theirs or move forward.
RUSH: One other observation about the Romney foreign policy speech. The Washington Post ran a prebuttal of Romney’s speech yesterday. It’s “Obama Camp Prebuts Romney Foreign Policy Speech.” Want to hear what they said? Here’s what the Obama campaign said in advance of the Romney speech that happened an hour ago. Quote: “We’re not going to be lectured by someone who’s been an unmitigated disaster on foreign policy every time he’s dipped his toe in the foreign policy waters.
“Just as a refresher, this is the same guy who when he went overseas on his trip, the only person who has offended Europe more is probably Chevy Chase.” Now, this is a riff on all those “gaffes” that Romney had on his three-country trip, and there were no gaffes. The first gaffe was he supposedly insulted the UK on their security preparations to the Olympics. It wasn’t a gaffe. There weren’t any gaffes. He didn’t make any gaffes.
Folks, I have to tell you: If you listen to this Romney speech on foreign policy, it is such a refreshing thing. We finally have somebody who talks about America’s role in the world in a positive way, America’s moral and military role in the world. It’s been 3-1/2 years since we’ve heard this country spoken of in the way Romney spoke of it, the way we always used to hear. It didn’t matter who the president was, even Bill Clinton.
I don’t know about Woodrow Wilson. But every previous president, when it came to foreign policy, the United States was it. Now, we mighta had people making friends with the Soviets and this kind of thing. But we never had somebody speak of this country as Obama has, or apologize for this country as Obama has, or run around the world claiming that we lead the world and torture and all this stupid silly stuff.
So this speech from Romney was presidential in the sense that it was what we’ve all been used to hearing, those of you old enough to have a lot of perspective on this. It was just… It was really the old cliche: A breath of fresh air. It was more than that. It was a reminder of just how far gone we are, how detached we’ve become as a country under Obama.