Laurence, I get such a kick out of the Navy Times story’s notion that the suggestion of a foreign naval base for China’s “marks a further step away from China’s avowed policy of not maintaining foreign military bases or alliances.”
The U.S. once had an “avowed policy” that forbade foreign entanglements and permanent alliances. Yet if someone in the navy had so much as lifted an eyebrow when FDR embraced “Uncle Joe” Stalin, and handed over to him 100 million Christians to suffer under fifty years of tyranny, he (and not FDR) would have been in front of a firing squad.
In 2008, Admiral Mullen and candidate Hillary Clinton both went to a certain Middle Eastern country and pledged U.S. support for “a thousand years” (Mullen) and “forever” (Hillary, during her presidential campaign, insisting that Obama agrees with her). Did Hillary, Obama, and the Admiral get the advice and consent of the Senate for their pronouncements that proclaim America a Thousand Year Ally?
Fat Chance.
May we observe, then, that the fundamental defiance of vital Constitutional protections of our peace and liberties by these officials might constitute a “further step away” from the “avowed policy” to which they swore allegiance in their oaths of office and command?
Memo to the Navy Times: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matthew 7:3)
12:06 pm on December 31, 2009
