tv Ted Cruz Remarks on National Security CSPAN December 11, 2015 1:01am-2:08am EST
>> it's my honor to introduce senator cruz and senator cruz did say he'd be available to take some questions at the end of his remarks so what we will do is when he's finished he will come back up if you have a rate rate -- question measure hand and i will recognize you and do >> raise your hand wait for the microphone and state your name and affiliation. senator ted cruz from the great state of texas serves of science of transportation committee armed services the committee on rules before being elected to the united states senate receiving claims as the solicitor general and served as the nation's biggest solicitor
general and the first hispanic. he spent five years as the largest law firm and has authored more than 80 supreme court briefs with oral arguments including nine before the u.s. supreme court. he taught supreme court litigation as an adjunct professor and prior to that comd associate deputy general of the department of justice and domestic policy adviser of the 2008 was cheney campaign. he graduated with honors from princeton university and high honors from harvard law school and work for chief justice william rehnquist on the u.s. supreme court. please join me in welcoming senator cruz. [applause]
>> thank you very much. thank you ever one for coming out this morning. it's great to be with so many good friends at heritage. heritage is such a jewel in this country such a font of ideas and creative thinking and energy, energy that i believe will change the direction of this country. it's also particularly fitting that we are here today and in just a few months we will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of one of ronald reagan's most important speeches , a speech that he gave right here at this institution. initiating an endowment that led to so much good in reagan's times and our own. at that speech reagan discussed the present challenges including the threat of terrorist and in particular he talked about the
dash that the u.s. air force had just sent colonel gadhafi and libya encouraging him to give up terrorism. the corrective came in the form of a military check on his front porch. i especially liked president reagan's description of how one of his most famous appointees u.n. ambassador gene curt patrick once explained to the rest of the world what it meant to have a conservative in charge of foreign policy. first he talked about the less government approach towards terrorism. quote no nation friend or foe ally or adversary should be surprised by the events of last week. he said of the reason the deliberate -- his actions make clear his determination to protect american lives and the
world from terrorism. then he singled out in ambassador kirkpatrick and even at the start of the administration people like jeane kirkpatrick were offering pretty broad answers the rings will be different. how will the record administration change american foreign policy she was asked in 1981 at the united nations. she answered correctly. she said well, we have taken down our kick me sign him and someone said well does this mean that if the united states kicks, they will kickback packs not necessarily she said but it does mean we won't apologize. well, we haven't been apologizing. things are different and perhaps even notice. i know colonel gadhafi has.
that was reagan here at heritage 30 years ago. challenges that ronald reagan and jeane jeane kirkpatrick faced in the times are daunting. first and foremost the threat of soviet threat that many american thought could not be beaten. we were told that on an almost daily basis by elected officials by academics, by those in the media. but when the focus a determination and an unshakable belief in the greatness in our exceptional nation president reagan won the cold war. today we are facing challenging times both at home and abroad. again we face an aggressive enemy whose goal is nothing less than the eradication of our very way of life and there are many in this country who fear once again that we cannot defeat this enemy, that to even speak its
name labels them bigots. it reminds me of that line in the usual suspect. the greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince the world he didn't exist. it seems when it comes to president obama and hillary clinton radical islamic terrorism is something that just doesn't exist. but the rest of us living on terra firma living in the real world are aware that it is real, it is growing and it is profoundly dangerous. what america needs today is clearly. our enemy is radical islamic terrorism and this is an enemy they can and will be defeated. as we enter the final year of the obama administration proof for all that there is indeed a god.
[laughter] there is little hope that this president will rise to the challenge and a much greater likelihood that his successor will be dealing with an even more dangerous world than we face today. two key issues will demand the attention of our next president, keeping america safe at home and stronger abroad. ensuring both should be the basic responsibility and the first priority of any commander in chief. their recent terrorist attack on paris in san bernardino brought front and center the issue of radical islamic terrorism but the fact of the matter is problem had been festering unattended for the entire obama administration. for president obama however such issues are peripheral and best
to his core progressive agenda, an agenda that appeases their enemies before actually defending the national security interest of our great country. while the president and the secretary of state have chosen to ignore the problem and to receive from global leadership terrorist groups like isis of mobilizing carried out a string of deadly attacks around the globe. it is worth noting that the attack on san bernardino has been called the deadliest terror attack on u.s. soil since 9/11. 14 innocent lives murdered. that depiction is actually incorrect. we have had one of their terror attack on u.s. soil that took 14 months and it occurred in my home state of texas at fort hood on november 9, 2009. that life -- claimed 14 lives.
the littlest victim the unborn baby private francesca galvez was brutally murdered along with her mother as the dollhouse on shadid. the obama administration responded to this unspeakable terrorist attack by lake inlet work place violence. one of the things i'm most proud of my tenure in the senate is introducing legislation in the senate armed services committee demanding that the victims of the fort hood shooting received a purple heart and against the active opposition of the obama pentagon was pleased to earn the support of democrats or republicans on the armed services committee and we pass that legislation into law in december and april of this year. finally the purple heart was awarded to those victims.
[applause] whether it's fort hood san bernardino, or a number of others tragically from little rock to boston to garland to chattanooga president obama's approach has been to treat each one in isolation. the administration is called the perpetrators lone wolf. not to be associated with horrible groups like al qaeda or isis because they didn't receive direct orders from them. they investigate any suspect that they ignore the reality of their nations under attack. what america needs today just as we needed in the late 1970s is first a firm resolve to always protect american's freedom here
at home freedom that has made us the greatest nation on the face of the planet. second we need moral clarity that starts with defining the enemy and third, we restore america's leadership in the world for a position of strength. how did we do that? first to protect americans freedoms here at home. americans no longer feel safe in their schools, the work places where there is dates. they should not be the new standard. this is not the new normal. heidi and i have to press a school girls, heidi and caroline. they are seven and five. every time i pick them up every time i hold them in my arms i want them to be confident that they are protected from harm. a safe america search of a
secure america. it is beyond the time now to secure our border. when terrorists can simply swim across the rio grande we are doing them. when 40% of illegal immigration in our country comes from visa overstays we are inviting evil actors did game our system as is the case with one of the 9/11 hijackers. and when we are opening up our country to thousands of refugees from regions filled with terrorists, terrorists with the express intent to kill was our immigration policy ceases to be merely an economic or social issue. border security is national security. we need a president with the political will to secure the
border once and for all and i have outlined a detailed immigration plan to do just that it includes finally completing all 100 -- all 700 miles of the wall mandated by federal law that the obama administration refuses to acknowledge. tripling the border patrol, increasing fourfold the fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft in direct boots on the ground where attempted incursions occur. finishing the biometric system for our visas again mandated by federal law and again ignored by the obama administration. and put in place a strong e-verify system. it includes deporting criminal illegal aliens and that includes ending welfare benefits for those here illegally and it includes ending the indefensible practice. i will introduce legislation to
hault the refugee program from those coming from terror ridden countries, serious and particular. there is no question that humanitarian disasters horrific. millions of people have been displaced by the savage violence millions are now living in camps that play severe strains on the resources of our allies and it's natural that out of our generosity we want to help stop that and why the united states has been the largest donor to the refugee caused by a factor of 10 giving $1.2 billion of taxpayer funds, 10 times what any other nation has contributed , we cannot make a mistake of extending the same generosity to the extent of imperiling the safety and security of american citizens.
the first obligation of a commander in chief is to protect the safety and security of the united states of america. two recent episodes made clear the need for more vigilance. the first is the paris attack, which took 120 lives. we now know that one of the bombers had arrived in france under the guise of eating a refugee. it only takes one in a sea of millions to destroy our safety and detain unknown numbers of innocent lives. the second instance is fresh in the minds and hearts of people in our country. just over a week ago a muslim couple who plays their support to isis murdered 14 americans in san bernardino. the woman tashfeen malik came to this country on a fiancée visa.
her application should have set up any number of red flags including a fake address in pakistan that should have been fairly simple to track down. but they went unnoticed. yesterday it be i director james comey testified to congress that the two terrorist that had been in contact on line before she came to the country and discussed martyrdom and jihad. this appears not to be a love story between two young pious muslims but rather the deliberate infiltration by an enemy of america who came here to plot and carry out a terrorist attack on our country. this must stop. i will also note there are some
on both the right and the left who want to exploit the current crisis by calling on americans to surrender our constitutional liberties as the only way to ensure our safety. the bill of rights is altogether compatible with protecting the safety and security of american citizens. on the right there are some who have called for resurrecting the government both data collection that existed under the patriot act. more data from millions of law-abiding americans is not always better data. tens of billions of dollars of ordinary citizens didn't stop fort hood and didn't stop chattanooga. he didn't stop garland and it failed to detect the san bernardino plot. what the focus of law enforcement national security is a law-abiding citizens rather than targeting the bad guys we
missed the bad guys while violating the constitutional rights of american citizens. instead the poll data program is emblematic of the bureaucratic tendency to gather more not better information which gives government tremendous opportunity for abuse as has been displayed powerfully by lois lerner's irs. like the fable of the -- and the frog government will do what's in its nature, a mass power at the expense of the people. this week we commemorate the 74th anniversary of pearl harbor. let it be a reminder that it's also not a lack of intelligence but a lack of perception. i cosponsored the u.s. a freedom act to enable the intelligence community to find prosecuting kill the bad guys while protecting ordinary citizens
privacy. indeed under the u.s. a freedom act intelligence capabilities are enhanced. those are not my words, those are the words of james clapper the director of national intelligence as he told congress this past may. under the usa freedom act investigators have more tools to target suspected terrorists to access their phone records, to track down those with whom they communicate. under the old bulk data program all of us were presumed guilty at the outset and if the universe of phone records that could be searched was materially smaller than that -- and if usa freedom act and expanded the number of phones that can be targeted but requires first some evidence that the person's phone you are going after is connected with terrorism. we should not shy away from smarter policies that enhance our ability to target the bad
guys while protecting the rights of law-abiding server -- the citizens. in addition to those voices on the right who are suggesting sweeping citizens fourth amendment rights there are voices on the left who are taking the same approach and one is to voluntarily surrender a second amendment. both of these approaches are misguided in chief among them going after the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens as our president. with all due respect the president has not exactly back to us. we don't stop the bad guys by giving away our guns. we stop the bad guys by using our guns. let's be very clear the second amendment is not the enemy. isis is, radical islamic terrorism is, those who want to murder us are. as justice joseph story so rightly noted the second
amendment is the palladium of our liberty. these rights enable an armed citizenry to defend themselves against evil actors whether they be criminals or as we are now seeing the threat increase homegrown or migrant terrorists in our own cities. rather than stripping ordinary citizens of their constitutional liberty we should have instead a clear strategy to orderly defeat isis. and that brings me to my second in addition to protecting americans here at home the strategy to defeat the enemy begins by calling it by its name, radical islamic terrorism. on sunday the president's address to the nation he made an interesting point. he said quote for seven years i
confronted this evolving threat each morning and my intelligence briefing. and yet now he says he understands this evolving threat each day he has chosen not to deal with reality. he has chosen not to confront the actual enemy. he has chosen not to call the attack in fort hood or little rock or boston or chattanooga and active radical islamic terrorism on our own citizens, our own mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and servicemen and women. we need to take off the blinders of clinical correctness or prevent us from seeing what is right in front of us. that enemy is radical islamic terrorism and it is trying to destroy our country and our way of life. "the wall street journal" column last week peggy noonan wrote about the need for us to robustly defend our first amendment rights of free speech against the forces that are
trying to shame us into silence. it's a topic for another speech but in this context it raises the specter that americans will be labeled as bigots if they dare utter the word islam in connection with the terrorist attacks. our president refuses to do so. in fact he spent a significant portion of his sunday address as an apologist for radical islamic terror. as his attorney general loretto lynch told the gathering that after the san bernardino attack that her department would move to prosecute anyone who's quote anti-muslim rhetoric quote edged towards violence. the day after a terror attack 14 innocent lives snuffed away.
we want a president and an attorney general that standing up to this nation, not an attorney general who decrease herself the speech police for any who dare speak out against this threat. as it's been a case too often and am obama administration, we may be facing once again the weaponization of one of our own government agencies. deployed not to protect americans but to force them to submit to the obama administration's code of what is and is not acceptable speech. attorney general lentz said that's what she was the most afraid of. but we might exercise their first amendment right to speak out against this threat great how about having an attorney general who is focused on
keeping our children safe? rather than muzzling free-speech rights of americans? and in fact where are you seeing the consequences of the year stifling speech. the neighbors of syed farook and tashfeen malik reportedly found their behavior awful but didn't say anything to law enforcement because they were scared they would be accused of racial profiling. imagine how different san bernardino would have played out if the fear and political correctness did not silence the neighbors, if a phonecall had been made, if law enforcement had investigated, they discovered the abundant evidence of radicalization and an intent to wage jihad and if these two have been apprendi before they went on a murderous spree. loretta lynch's man what she
called anti-muslim rhetoric is producing at this chilling effect. and it's preventing americans from taking basic steps to protect themselves. so let's take off the blinders. it's time to say to these attacks are not isolated incidents. they are instead operating as an ideological task and the thing that unites them is their fanatical adherence to islamic supremacy the conviction that the world must submit to their form of islam or die. the evil forces present in our country. is the fbi director ported its happening each one of our 50 states. once we have identified the enemy we must do everything in our power to defeat it.
america and the world have grown more dangerous as president obama has receded from the world stage. every day goes by the united states seems weaker and the more marginal actor. increasingly dismissed as irrelevant increasingly viewed by world leaders that our president is a laughingstock. and so our third goal must be to restore america's leadership. as reagan knew well the best way to project america's leadership is by protecting and promoting america's strength and this principle should always guide our actions. the next president will have to contend with in ever worsening state of american interests around the globe. given the opportunity squandered and the enemies emboldened under president obama's launch.
our most immediate challenge comes from middle east which is what i want to talk about today. make no mistake about it this is a global problem and significant potential for conflict from the baltics to the south china sea are made ever more difficult by president obama shameful funding of our military. giving president obama's detached address to the nation on sunday night it is now a virtual circuits. the next president will have to deal with the scourge known as the islamic state and that it will not be a -- we now know for a fact that if we withdraw from middle east the radical jihad is will not be content to stay there. they're going to attack our allies in the region and beyond. and they are on the lookout for every opportunity to attack us here at home. next president will need to bring together the best civilian
and military leadership to develop an actual and real plan to utterly defeat and destroy isis, a plan that is not shackled by concerns over environmental impacts were the most restrict its rules of engagement that our armed forces have ever done. during the 15 months of president obama's failed military action against isis i have strongly advocated for concrete military plan and proposed options we may employ would include maximizing our overwhelming air attacks with a sustained coherent direct bombing campaign. instead of what we have now which is a photo op foreign-policy of a bomb here in a missile dare not actually achieving the goal of defeating isis. we should also be arming the kurds in the peshmerga who have
had considerable success against isis despite the fact that isis is fighting with american military equipment they have seized in iraq and the peshmerga are using weapons because the obama administration for political reasons refuses to arm them because it would displease baghdad. our focus should not be currying favor with baghdad better focus should be on utterly defeating the isis and the kurdish peshmerga critical boots on the ground for accomplishing that effort. beyond that he should also include the jordanian and egyptian military in which the united states has made significant investments in past decades and then above and beyond that we should do whatever is necessary or required to defeat isis.
some and of course of the political campaign of focused on the question of who's on the ground, american boots on the ground and the demonstration of strength. that is getting the deployment of military forces. this is not a game of risk where politicians move armies around. to demonstrate their machismo. instead you need a commander-in-chief that sets an object object of this is just joining isis and major land expert military judgment as a tool necessary to carry out that objective including overwhelming military power including arming the kurds in including using whatever ground troops are necessary to kill the terrorist and then come home. the issue of isis is however only one piece of a complex geopolitical landscape of the middle east and i would like to turn now to our productively approach this troubled reason --
region in a way that will approve the posture of the united states. 36 years ago last month the remarkable intellect and diplomat who i mentioned earlier gene curt patrick published an essay in commentary entitled dictatorship and doubles to end her to. it is an essay to which i recommend to everyone here today. she wrote to disprove the notion that the prime directive of american foreign policy should the quote to democratize government anytime anywhere under any circumstances. the particular target of investor kirk patrick's criticism puts the feckless and unmourned foreign-policy of our 39th president jimmy carter. convinced that democracy was in and of itself an abstract force for good the carter administration had supported the
radically liberal uprising against authoritarian governments that have been allies with the united states from latin america to the middle east. however well-intentioned president carter's efforts the results happen time and time again material damage to the national security and just to the united states. dictatorships and double standards appear at the same month that the revolutionary leader of the islamic republic of iran ayatollah khamenei seized power unopposed by the carter administration had gone on to take more than 50 hostages in the american embassy in tehran. hostage is that he hold for 444 days. investor kirkpatrick's political
caught the attention of the aspiring republicans presidential candidate. ronald reagan the tireless champion of freedom of human rights have been grappling with the issue of how to advance the american cause against the soviets when many of our potential partners were paragons of democratic -- reagan understood the dictatorship and double standards which is established liberal democracy was not the only valuable ally for america. they are rather than dust and not to be prioritized celebrated anchors are protected but if we refuse to work with countries that do not need -- meet our democratic standards were not making a rabbit in a diversion to democracy but it still helpful to advancing a larger goal of protecting our national
security then we risk fundamentally undermining those goals and so too our national security. ronald reagan absorbed those without ever losing his passionate belief in freedom. he knew the real threat was not the occasional dimestore dig tatar but rather the existential threat of a totalitarian communism which was on the mark with the stated goal of world domination. and he knew that this was not an either/or dilemma. even as he kept vital importance alliances with the philippines and south korea he used quiet diplomacy and sometimes very public diplomacy. to successfully encourage these nations to more democratic practices. would it be nice if the progress of liberal thought percy wasn't evitable linear evolution in human affairs and their freedom once achieved would be a
permanent state of affairs? indeed it would. even a cursory glance at the history of democracy and the sum 2.5 millenniums experiment was first attempted in ancient athens reveals this is far from the case. and the reality is in order to preserve and strengthen united states we cannot treat democracy promotion is an absolute directive. but rather highly desirable ideal when they can be reached most effectively through the promotion of the security in the interest of the united states. we could do worse in my opinion that adopting the reagan curt patrick philosophy. after all the proof is in the pudding and it is not an accident that when the american hostages were released on january 201981 they came home up
because president carter had allowed the islamic revolution to try and unopposed but because now have president reagan was in the white house and the ayatollah knew he was sent there. one recent case study that would have interested present reagan and ambassador kirkpatrick was the january 2011 popular uprising in tahir square that ousted mubarak. mubarak made an easy target, an aging military strongman with the grim record on human rights. the fact that he had been for 30 years a staunch ally of the united states and to key partner in securing israel. the google fueled revolution was a heady moment it seemed a 21st century rebuke to their oppression of the past.
mubarak's fall was hailed as an opportunity for egypt to chart a new and more hopeful democratic future and plans were made for a speedier election. no selections came however the results were disastrous for the united states. as mohamed morsi who had close ties with the muslim brotherhood came to power. but barack obama insisted that all that mattered was the morsi was ducey -- duly elected and for that reasons the egyptians would have to suffer under his brutal rule evo wiley started to undermine american interests, destroy the egyptian economy and allow jihadists to flow from libya into the sinai. while the second uprising in the summer of 2013 would not be the ideal way to change government we should all shudder to think what could have happened in
egypt had morsi seeing out his term. we might well face the prospect of egypt on the brink of failure unwilling or unable to protect israel's border from the radical islamic that morsi had unleashed. now under president al-sisi we have a leader aggressively fighting the terrorist in the signing in defending his border with libya and who is not afraid to call out the terrible perversion of his own cause of violence. this past summer wrote a book entitled a time for church. it not look high-profile a speech person morsi gave on january 1 of this year at cairo university. it was a speech in which he called out directly the threat of radical islamic terrorists. it was a speech in which he
called a fellow muslims to stand up against the provision, gives the evil that is radical islamic terrorism. for president morsi and president al-sisi rather president al-sisi to give this speech as a muslim leader was a demonstration of courage and resolve that was remarkable. he was quite literally putting a bounty on his own head and he did so with his eyes open fully aware that the forces of evil he was standing up against what do everything we could to murder him and yet as i discuss in the book what does it say when the president of egypt is more clear-eyed, more candid more direct more serious about defeating radical islamic terrorism than is the president of united states.
indeed at the same university cairo university president obama had spoken 2009 hundred so-called world apology tour. where he said among other things that iran has a right to nuclear power. we need a president who will stand up and unequivocally defend the national security interests of this country. another instructive episode was the 2011 nato led intervention in libya atop overpressure dictator mall market off the grady made it an easier target than mubarak to violent and repressive anti-american dictator who has sponsored vicious terrorist attacks on american interests notably the downing of pan am flight 103 over lockerbie. gadhafi also perspective to push a pursuing a covert nuclear
program that is successful with pose a grim threat to the united states. when a popular uprising occurs in the spring of 2011 it seems a no-brainer for this administration. america would come to the aid of the beleaguered rebels splash across the bay international press omission seems almost wanted to be executed with no real american sacrifice. indeed as a bomb in a stray shower and poses week quote lead from behind and the result would be the establishment of a liberal democracy in libya that would only require administrative steps such as mobilizing international support for a transitional government and bring up indication efforts. how profoundly wrong and pump
foreign-policy u.s.. as it turns out rather than being an aspiring democrat that the obama administration and their allies wanted them to be the rebels were radical jihadis with limited interest in establishing a central society while it was at the time well-known that gadhafi had abandoned his nuclear program and under the very role threat of military intervention. it was less well-known that he has begun incorporating with the united states in the fight against the same violent terrorists. that he was actively working to apprehend radical islamic terrorists to turn them over to america but once he was gone things turn for the worst. once he was gone in less than a team as they would their facilities in benghazi murdering or americans including our
ambassador. the first american ambassador killed in line of duty since the carter administration. today libya is a failed state controlled by terrorist networks that pose a significant threat to our allies egypt and who are openly plotting attacks on our allies in europe. the intervention in libya was in a word a bit jam -- a disaster an argument that republicans have to imprintable support what might have been a democratic uprising against gadhafi that the obama administration somehow botched the job in revisionist history and poor revisionist history at that. this did place in 2011 after the president cairo speech, the canceling of the missile defense battery of the czech republic. it should have been clear to any
rational observer that the obama administration was not capable of a policy that would actually defend and robustly defend the national security interest of the united states. a third example that has dragged on for more than four years is the syrian civil war. once again there is no doubt that bashar al-assad like his father was before him a bad guy who has been an ally to and at times a puppet of iran and an enemy to the united states and israel. and it may have been that the spring of 2011 there was a secular nonviolent opposition to a sob that would have made his ouster of strategic interest to the united states. by the time it was clear that they were at work.
in june of that year the economist reported after rebel groups they identified seven had significant terrorist ties. the state of affairs that made me deeply cautious about any plan to train and equip them for as bad as assad was and is radical jihadis controlling syria would be a significant turn for the worst. nothing that happened last in half years has given me any more confidence that intervention to serious -- syria's civil war is an interventionist. it's materially worse despite hundreds of millions of dollars the united states has poured into trying to identify and train the syrian opposition as isis now controls a significant portion of the country. while asaad is consolidating his position of iran and russia. quite simply we do not have the
sod in the syrian civil war. it's not fashionable these days in washington indeed it is not difficult to find politicians in washington who will thunder we must topple asaad with the same ferocity with which they thundered we must topple gadhafi, we must topple mubarak and we have seen the catastrophic results of these myopic policies. i would note that my view that we don't have a syrian civil war is shared by at least one other world leader with a clear-eyed indirect vision to what has happened. israel's prime minister netanyahu was asked when he visited washington last month why he didn't intervene in the syrian civil war and he responded simply that he would only do so if he had a clear
side which at this point he did not. he said an iranian control the sod was a disaster but so was the islamic state controlling syria. quote when two of your enemies are fighting each other i say don't strengthen one or the other. i say we can both or at least don't intervene which is what i have done. i believe today we are in a moment like munich in 1938. president obama has returned from geneva, returned to give over $100 billion to the ayatollah khamenei promising like neville chamberlain peace in our time.
history teaches anything giving hundreds of millions of dollars strengthening homicidal maniacs who intend to murder you has never worked out well. at a time of great peril we need the churchillian parity in the vision that i minister net now provides because he doesn't have the time for the clinical correctness that sell hamstrings the obama administration. think we should listen to our closest ally in the region and in the absence of a viable alternative to a soth that isn't isis i believe we should focus on the immediate and unambiguous challenge to our security which is utterly destroying isis. i understand the face of conventional wisdom that america was always promote democracy at all cost. some i consider any progression in egypt that didn't involve
more see serving out his full term as unacceptable. they might consider the terrorists domination of libya as preferable to any outcome that didn't oust the dictator gadhafi. they are proclaiming today that those who did not support aside are complicit in iranian terrorism. there will always be those who believe it is america's obligation as a free nation to convince others that we are laboring for their freedom whether they wanted or not. there will always be those who believe by insisting on anything less than our democratic ideals. we are forfeiting the moral high ground. this is to borrow ambassador kirkpatrick buss phrase is as nothing more than fusing revolution with idealism, change
with process. we did not betray the idea of america by accepting reality. ronald reagan was a single greatest liberator of human oppression that the world has ever known. he did not do it by forcing democracy on unwilling nations but by an unwavering determination to defeat -- after two terms of an obama clinton foreign-policy so disastrous it makes the carter demonstrations look good. we are in a desperate need once again for clarity. the clarity of ronald reagan's four most important words we win, they lose. we will not win by replacing dictators as unpleasant as they may be with terrorists who want
to kill us and destroy america. we can take part in the knowledge that like reagan we are not an inning freedom, we are doing what we must because the true threat is the spread of liberty is the radical islamism that is every bit as oppressive as soviet communism and while the rebels who oppose regional strongman who turn out to be jihadi are not ultimately helpful in this. there are others who are and we should be able to figure out the difference. as an investor kirk patrick wrote it may not always be easy to distinguish between democratic and totalitarian agents of change but it's also not too difficult. authentic democratic revolutionaries securing governments based on the consent of the government of the governed and believe that ordinary men are capable of using freedom knowing their own
interest in choosing leaders. a case in point is perhaps the single greatest blunder of the obama desertion one of its first in 2009 when the president ignored the green revolution in iran thereby forfeiting an opportunity to replace the radical islamist terror sponsored regime in tehran and chance death to american death to israel and pursued nuclear weapons and instead america could have stood with the peaceful secular rebellion that was crying out for support from the united states. there was a case where regime change squared up with their most pressing national need but instead of standing with the iranian people and what could have been his tear down this
wall moment, instead president obama fell silent and decided to open up negotiations with the mullahs instead. so while the so-called arab spring did not reduce a wave of flowering democracy in the middle east but rather a tsunami of chaos and addressed including a new and more feral and strain of radical islamic terrorism most sensationally embodied by isis there may be future such opportunities for the next president. we can lead by example and demonstrate the positive effects of democracy as an asset or kirkpatrick noted. it's not impossible u.s. policy could effectively encourage this process of liberalization and democratization provided the offer was made at a time when the incumbent government is
fighting for its life against violent adversaries in the proposed reforms are aimed at producing gradual change rather than to protect democracy overnight. to accomplish this policymakers who are needed to understand actual democracy have come into being. history is a better guide than good intentions. there are a number of encouraging 20 century samples of liberalization. a flourishing vibrant democracy that is his real is one of the great gifts of the last seven decades have bestowed on america we shouldn't squander it. in the cold war produced a unified democratic germany as well as a vibrant democracy of eastern europe all strategic allies and assets to the united states. we can most effectively continue this process by embracing our
own ideals, by standing unapologetically for freedom, by defending americans here in our country, by having the courage to speak with moral clarity to call evil by its name by unapologetically defending america's interest around the globe and by using the bully pulpit of the president to invite others to recognize the rights of individuals who respect them and to unite against the evil forces who seek to tear down freedom in every corner of the world. thank you. [applause]
b good morning senator. prime minister netanyahu one of your hands-on foreign-policy experiences was meeting with him and i wondered why he wanted to meet with him and what you got out of meeting him at second year banquet of "the new york times" today has a private fund-raiser speaking about to their opponents donald trump and then ben carson specifically about them and their process of controlling nuclear weapons. he said quote that's a challenging question for both of them. did you say that and if you did what did you he mean by it? >> let's start with the first question. you are right in the time is certain is that i've traveled three times to the nation of israel and it met with prime minister netanyahu multiple times both in israel and here in america. he is the leader who understands full well the threat facing both his nation but also facing america is a leader who has a clarity of vision that i think
you just asked what did i get out of meeting? each of the conversations we had we had frank and candid discussions. we talked about the threats in the three gents, the threats facing israel, the threats facing america, and the steps that need to be taken to strengthen the israeli-american friendship and fight against the enemy. in any chance we talk about the immediate development, we talked about significant discussions about syria, about iran, about radical islamic terrorism. those have dominated most of the discussions. [inaudible] >> i'm not going to comment on what i may or may not have said
at a private fundraiser. what i will say this. the course of a presidential election, the voters will make a decision about every candidate, ultimately the decision is who has the right judgment. who has the right experience and judgment to serve as commander-in-chief. everyone of us was running is been assessed by the voters under that metric. that is exactly why we have a democratic election to make that determination. [applause]. >> senator good morning, you covered all the midi strategy very well, i would like to have a mid-east question. that is, how do you perceive at this time or way at this time the possible need for a near-term, all-out strike against iran's evolving nuclear strike capability? >> it's a very good question. it is a daunting question.
this nuclear agreement with iran is nothing short of catastrophic. the consequences of this agreement, if it continues to go forward are that america will become the leading financier of radical islamic terrorists. the obama administration will become the number one financier of radical islamic terrorism, why's that? everyone understands that iran is the world's leading sponsor sponsor of terrorism. if over $100 billion flows to the ayatollah, we know to an absolute certainty that billions of those dollars will go to hamas, jihadists, has blood, throughout throughout the globe who will use those billions in the control of the american government to murder americans. i will say to every politician in the city, who did anything
less than use every ounce of their authority and ability to stop this deal, the blood of those the murdered americans be on their hands. [applause]. now, if we password to january 2017, i believe this iranian nuclear deal will accelerate iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. his so-called wrist inspection regime is laughably weak, set certain location off-limits altogether, other locations it provides an extended waiting. to notified iran before any site is inspected. other sites we rely on iran to inspect themselves. interestingly enough, iranian nuclear deal follows the same strategy the obama administration used for the irs scandal, they trusted the administration to inspect themselves. a miraculously in both instances
the inspectors discovered no wrongdoing whatsoever. i think the odds are quite significant, the next president of the united dates on jane or twentieth, 2017 will be informed that he or she has two and only two options. either acquiesce in allowing iran to acquire nuclear weapons or take direct action to prevent it. in my view, this general election poses a very simple and clear choice. i cannot wait to stand on the debate stage with hillary clinton. [applause]. to make abundantly clear that if hillary is elected, iran will acquire nuclear weapons. if i i am elected, under no circumstances will the ayatollah who chance death to america,