• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

When the foreign ministers from a gaggle of irrelevant countries in Europe and the Third World agreed to the general terms of the Kyoto “global warming” treaty, liberal newspapers screamed that the Bush administration was pursuing an “isolationist” position. They complained that we were not being sensitive to the needs of our “neighbors” or the aspirations of Third-World countries.

That’s garbage.

I don’t want a president who is more concerned about the feelings of foreign countries than the protection of America’s vital strategic interests. The Kyoto treaty is fatally flawed. America’s acceptance of its terms would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. It is not the job of the American president to sacrifice American jobs and wealth to make foreigners feel good.

What we must never forget is that we just finished an eight-year period with a traitor to America’s interests as president. As a result, the world has forgotten what it means to have an American president who will put America first.

When President Bush said that he was going to push forward with a national missile defense, countries that do not have the economic or technical capability to develop such a system howled. They said that building the NMD system would start a new arms race. They said that it would upset the Russians, the Chinese and our European allies. So what!

The job of the president of the United States is to protect the citizens of the United States. We are not paying him to worry about the feelings of other countries.

If we look at the political actions of those who have howled the loudest about the NMD, we see something interesting. When they think that a political action is in their best interest, they do what they want to do and don’t give a hoot about what America or anyone else says. Because they are obeying the most fundamental rule of nationhood: Protect your nation’s interests first.

The purpose of the NMD is simple. To make sure that no nation can attack America with intercontinental ballistic missiles. The only way such a defensive system could spark a new arms race is because some countries want to preserve their current ability to strike America at will. Why, I ask, should the president of the United States want to continue America’s vulnerability to missile attack one day longer than necessary?

Earlier this week, Former President Carter said that he opposed the NMD initiative because it was wrong and technologically impossible. Well, what do we expect from a “president” who allowed Americans to be held hostage in Iran for more than 400 days. Once a coward, always a coward, I guess. I tell you this: I don’t want another coward as president of the United States.

Let me be blunt. All arguments about the technological impossibility of a NMD system are pure rubbish. The issue is not whether such a system can be invented. The issue is who will be the first to invent such a system.

Those who say that an NMD system is technologically impossible remind me of what the head of the United States Patent Office said in December 1899 as the 19th century was coming to an end. He proclaimed, in all seriousness, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

Former President Carter wasn’t content to remind the world that he was and is a coward. He also complained that President Bush was being too conservative. Carter said that he had hoped that Bush would govern as a “moderate” once elected.

Well, that shows the moral bankruptcy of Democrats. Because what Carter really said is that he had expected President Bush to say whatever he had to say to get elected and then do what he darn well wanted to do after being elected.

Well, I’m happy that President Bush is teaching the world that some American politicians will say what they mean and mean what they say during a campaign. I don’t know about you, but that is really refreshing.

So the next time a foreign nation complains about what President Bush is doing, all you have to do is ask one question. Ask if the president is putting America’s interests first. I bet you’ll find that in every single case, the answer is yes. And that is exactly how it should be.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.