Fred Thompson gave a great speech in London today to the Policy Exchange. A few parts should be highlighted. First he spoke of the shared history between our two countries:
We must conclude that the greatest test of leadership – in your country or mine, in this time or any other – can be simply stated. We must shape events, and not be left at their mercy. And in all things, to protect ourselves and to assure the peace, the great democracies of the world must stick together. We must be willing to make tough decisions today in order to avert bigger problems tomorrow. We must be prepared to meet threats before threats become tragedies.
[…]There are disputes of party here that are strictly British affairs. But sometimes the better points of statesmen possibly are seen more clearly at a distance.
We are profoundly grateful for the friendship of the British people, and in America we’ll always remember Mr. Blair as a gallant friend, even when it did him no good politically.
When we in the States take the measure of your leaders, their party affiliation doesn’t really count for a whole lot. It’s been this way for a while now, at every moment when it mattered. It was true in the days of Churchill and Roosevelt … of Thatcher and Reagan … and Blair and Bush.
Differences of party and domestic policy are incidental, compared to the bigger considerations that define Britain and America as allies. On both sides of the Atlantic, what matters most are the commitments we share, and the work we are called to do in common. This work is based upon the principles we hold – primarily, the right of free people to govern themselves. We also believe that the rule of law, market economies, property rights, and trade with other nations are the underpinnings of a free society.
In this great passage he spoke about how we have many shared goals and concerns, and both countries must deal with events as they intrude on our daily lives in a free democracy:
Events often have a way of intruding upon the plans of free people. As a rule, people in democratic societies prefer to take care of the business of life. They raise families. They work and they trade. They create wealth and they share it. Above all in free societies, we live by the law – and, at our best, we look after one another, too. Yet in every generation, “events” can be counted on to change the plan, sometimes in tragic ways.
Often the cause of our grief is a misplaced trust in the good intentions of others. In our dealings with other nations, people in free countries are not the type to go looking for trouble. We tend to extend our good will to other nations, assuming that it will be returned in kind. No matter how clear the signals, sometimes in history even the best of men failed to act in time to prevent the worst from happening.
The United States and the United Kingdom have learned this lesson both ways – in great evils ignored, and in great evils averted. We learned it from a World War that happened and, in the decades afterward, from the World War that didn’t happen.
And we must also realize that just because we view something through our prism, this does not mean that our other allies see the same view:
For our part, we in the United States must make a better case for our views and our actions. It is possible that things that are perfectly obvious to us may not be so obvious even to those who wish us well. We must be willing to listen and we must be willing to share our intelligence to the maximum extent appropriate.
We must be prepared to make our case not just privately, but to the people of Europe and the world in order to build political support for cooperation. The world is not stronger if America is weaker – or is perceived to be weaker. The same is true of Britain and truer still of our NATO alliance. And we must be capable of making that case.
In return, it is fair to expect that our allies will not put their trade and commercial interests above world security. It is also fair to ask that Europeans consider the consequences if they are wrong about the threat to the Western world.
Many in Europe simply have a different view from that of the United States as to the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism. They think that the threat is overblown. That despite September 11th, and July 7th and other attacks in Europe and elsewhere, America is the main target and therefore the problem is basically an American one. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq at a particular point in time resolves the matter for them. Also, they see no meaningful connection between terrorist groups and countries like Iran.
Many in Europe do have a different view, hell…many in the US do. But this does not mean we should apologize for this. We understand that the threat is real, to think otherwise after 9/11, the Cole, the embassy bombings and so on would be foolhardy. We were foolhardy up to 9/11 but we damned sure came around after that. Too bad it took this event to slap us awake.
When will the rest of the world awake?
We understand that the Western world is in an international struggle with jihadists who see this struggle as part of a conflict that has gone on for centuries, and who won’t give up until Western countries are brought to their knees. I agree with this view. I believe that the forces of civilization must work together with common purpose to defeat the terrorists who for their own twisted purposes have murdered thousands, and who are trying to acquire technology to murder millions more.
When terrorists in their video performances pledge more and bigger attacks to come, against targets in both Europe and America, these are not to be shrugged off as idle boasts. They must be taken at their word.
When the president of Iran shares his nightmare visions before cheering crowds, those are not just the fanatic’s version of an empty applause line. The only safe assumption is that he means it. If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to “wipe out” an entire nation, we should listen. We must gather our alliance, and do all in our power to make sure that such men do not gain the capability to carry out their evil ambitions.
This is called preemption. An evil act according to the left in this country, and theirs. Why should we have stopped Hitler before he started his march, we had no proof that anything nefarious was going on right?
No proof but plenty of evidence existed which told the world that Hitler needed to be stopped. Instead we appeased.
And this is the strategy the left in the country want us to practice.
A very good speech by Fred today, and he’s leading Rudy by one point in one poll. I have a feeling this man is a steam engine train just starting to get up to speed, and it will be difficult to stop him.
Check out the Q&A with him after the speech
See author page
GO FRED!!!!!
A shame that Fred’s meeting with Thatcher was private. But I guess Lady Thatcher would not want to appear to be endorsing a potential candidate.
I did put up a photo of her at the Falklands anniversary parade:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2007/06/britain-observes-25th-anniversary-of.html
When Fred says: “The United States and the United Kingdom have learned this lesson both ways — in great evils ignored, and in great evils averted. We learned it from a World War that happened and, in the decades afterward, from the World War that didn’t happen.” I wonder.
It seems so many deny the reality of the Cold War and how it sprang from the same insanity of appeasement and denial that caused WW2. We haven’t seen one indication that this mindset has changed in relation to our present conflict with Islamofascism.
I’m looking forward to Fred running. He’ll certainly make the campaign more interesting. I noticed that the Paulbots are already out there trashing him. That only makes me like him more.