RUTHFULLY YOURS

Although several presidential primary debates have been held by Republicans and Democrats, little light has been thrown on the issues, particularly in the key area of foreign policy. This shallowness is not particularly the fault of the candidates but of the formats and the moderators who often seem more bent on generating food fights than on illuminating issues. Nevertheless, recent events in Paris have only served to reiterate that 2016 is, above all, a foreign policy election and that the next president had better be ready to assume the role of commander-in-chief “on day one.”

To add some depth to the discussion, PJ Media (via this Mad Voter) submitted four foreign policy questions to a few of the leading Republican candidates. The first response is from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Please note that we formulated these questions (and Senator Cruz received them) before the ISIS attack in Paris, although the senator refers to those horrific events in one of his answers. Look for more responses to the questions from leading candidates at the Diary of a Mad Voter in the days to come.

PJM: An October 21 letter from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to its president Hassan Rouhani details nine new Iranian demands for fundamental changes to the supposedly agreed-upon Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) already unpopular with the American public. Alterations would include the immediate permanent lifting of all sanctions with no possibility of “snapback“ and abandonment of any investigation into Iran’s past nuclear activities by the IAEA, making it impossible to understand what they have done previously, rendering present inspections moot. Further, the JCPOA called for a whole series of reductions of Iran’s nuclear stockpiles by December 15 (centrifuges, enriched uranium, etc.), none of which appears to have even started. Does Obama’s vaunted Iran Deal actually exist and, if not, what should Congress do now and how would your administration deal with Iran on your election?

SENATOR CRUZ: It is increasingly clear President Obama’s nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is illegal and non-binding on future presidents. It does, however, exist. And its existence, given Tehran’s track record of clandestinely pursuing nuclear weapons, cheating on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (most recently #1929 when they tested a ballistic missile last month) and 36-year track record of implacable and violent hostility to America and our allies, especially Israel, is the single greatest national security threat faced by the United States.

A newly revealed e-mail sent by top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin in January 2013 shows that the then-outgoing secretary of state was “often confused” and had to have her schedule explained to her by staff.

Released to conservative watchdog Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request, the January 26, 2013 e-mail shows Abedin instructing Monica Hanley, another State Department aide, to remind Clinton of important calls scheduled with world leaders.

“She knows singh [sic] is at 8?” Abedin asks Hanley, referring to a scheduled 8 AM phone call with Indian’s then-prime minister, Manmohan Singh.

“She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard she had an 8am call,” Hanley replied. “Will go over with her.”

“Very imp[ortant] to do that,” Abedin replied. “She’s often confused.”

Iowa congressman Steve King, who has relished his potential to play kingmaker in this Republican presidential race, announced Monday morning that he’s endorsing Ted Cruz, providing a boost to the Texas senator’s organization ahead of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation nominating contest February 1.

In an interview shortly after his announcement, King spoke with me about the timing of his decision, the events surrounding it, and how he thinks President Cruz would deal with the illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. — Tim Alberta

Tim Alberta: Your admiration for Senator Cruz has long been apparent, and it always seemed likely that if you endorsed a candidate, it would be him. When did the decision become clear to you?

Steve King: I’ve said to people it had to be a conviction. So, the pieces began to fall into place. I started to see some of the positions that were emerging from other candidates, and I’m watching it, asking, “Who is completely consistent?” And it was Cruz all along. But I still had not come to a conviction on this, until there were two things that came together almost simultaneously: I’m watching the epic migration going on in Europe [King traveled to Europe and the Middle East last week, visiting refugee camps and discussing the migration crisis with government officials.], and then when I came home, I’m driving and hearing about the attacks in Paris. And a day or two earlier, Marco Rubio’s team was attacking Ted Cruz and alleging taht he’s for amnesty. This world is pretty topsy-turvy if Marco Rubio is equating his immigration position to Ted Cruz’s. All of that came together with a clarity. So, Friday, I knew.

I left the Republican party a long time ago for a number of reasons, one of which is that I didn’t want to be part of any organization that had Arlen Specter as a member. The man this magazine famously named “America’s worst senator” eventually bailed and hooked up with Team Jackass, but I didn’t see any real reason to come back. Still, for all the angst regarding the presidential primary and the endless largely phony us-and-them theater of base vs. establishment, I cannot remember a time since the Alex P. Keaton years when the Republican party has seemed to me so attractive.

As you may have heard, earlier this month I was a guest of the William F. Buckley Jr. program at Yale, which was the focus of some truly boneheaded protests. That was silly, and I felt a little embarrassed for the Yale kids. But at the dinner afterward, I felt a little envious of my Republican friends, especially those in Nebraska, when Senator Ben Sasse gave his talk. A very smart young man at my table — a young man not given to political crushes — said that he’d never heard a politician give a speech like that, and he was right: Senator Sasse is in possession of a living mind open to original thought, and he has spent part of his first year in the Senate thinking seriously about what the Senate really is, what it does, and what it should do. That sounds like the sort of thing that everybody in Washington ought to be doing, and maybe it is, but there isn’t to my knowledge anybody in elected office doing it with the intelligence and rigor that Senator Sasse applies to his job. My young friend seemed ready to quit his job and go to work for Senator Sasse; I didn’t blame him.

Ben Carson is the Left’s nightmare. He is smart, articulate, accomplished, humble and respectful. Growing up in a broken home and in deep poverty in inner-city Detroit, he broke the constraints of race and environment to become a world-renowned surgeon. He is religious. Politically, he is conservative. But the reason the Left detests him is because he is African-American. In their condescension toward Dr. Carson, the Left shows their racist side. The man does not adhere to the narrative the Left sells – that an African-American can only be successful with the aid and sponsorship of the state.

As Carson’s poll numbers have grown, so have the attempts to belittle his character. Supercilious soundbites by TV commentators on CNN and CNBC, and off-the-cuff statements from his competitors, especially the voluble Donald Trump who uses pugnacity when knowledge is called for, have attempted to marginalize this exceptional man. The media has denigrated his character and questioned his judgment. A patronizing Richard Cohen compared his candidacy to that of Pat Paulsen, the comedian who ran for President in 1968. On Sunday, November 7th The New York Times ran an article by Michael Barbaro titled “Candidates Stick to Script, if Not the Truth.” The article devoted five times as much space to Republicans as to Democrats. And, of the space devoted to Democrats, only 15% was devoted to Hillary Clinton, with most of the rest spent on her errant husband. Presumably this is why Mr. Cohen found the article “useful.” It did no damage to his team.

During Saturday’s debate, all three Democratic presidential candidates refused to say that the U.S. was at war with “radical Islam.” They all bobbed and weaved as they tried to follow the PC line and avoid admitting that obvious fact.

“I don’t think we’re at war with Islam, I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims, I think we’re at war with jihadists,” Hillary Clinton said. “You can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists.” She went on to urge outreach to Muslim countries — ironically, many of which recognize that perverted strains of Islam are indeed at war with them and modernity itself.

Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley were equally unwilling to say the words “radical Islam,” and Sanders went so far as to claim that climate change was the greatest threat to U.S. security.

The charade led GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to tweet out a message for the trio: “You’re all grown up now. You can do it. Three words. Ten syllables. Say it with me: ‘Radical Islamic terrorism.’”

After the debate, the Clinton camp stood its ground. Communications director Jennifer Palmieri told Yahoo News, “I think she was really clear that we don’t need to go to war. We don’t need to go to war with Islam. We’re going to war with extremists.” But CBS News debate moderator John Dickerson had made it clear he was not referring to all Muslims in his question, just “radical Islam.”

At the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was asked about her outrageous comment from 2014 that Americans must empathize with the perspective of Islamic terrorists. Her answer was rambling and incoherent.

John Dickerson: The reason I ask is that you gave a speech at Georgetown University in which you said that it was important to show– quote– respect even for one’s enemy. Trying to understand and in so far as psychologically possible empathize with their perspective and point of view. Can you explain what that means in the context of this kind of barbarism?

Hillary Clinton: I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism– it’s very hard to understand other than the lust for power, the rejection of (UNINTEL), the total disregard for human life– freedom or any other value that we know and– respect.

Gibberish, but here’s what Dickerson was asking about.

In a Georgetown talk in 2014, Hillary Clinton used the example of negotiations with the Islamic Moro Liberation Front, a vicious Islamic terrorist group allied with Al Qaeda that practices beheading, as an example of empathizing with the enemy.

Well, we did learn two things from the CBS Democratic debate Saturday night:

1. Bernie Sanders thinks climate change causes terrorism.

How this piece of magic works, he didn’t get to explain, so we can only imagine. Maybe it ‘s a hot desert wind making normal people go to extremes, as in the famous opening of Raymond Chandler’s “Red Wind”:

There was a desert wind blowing that night. It was one of those hot dry Santa Ana’s that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch. On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands’ necks. Anything can happen. You can even get a full glass of beer at a cocktail lounge.

That global warming — it will get you every time. ISIS-shmicis. Forget Islam having anything to do with it. Bernie doesn’t even want to pronounce the word. But neither, it seems, do any Democrats. I have a suggestion for them. When talking about World War II, don’t, under any circumstances, refer to our enemies as Nazis. It’s terribly un-PC. Call them National Socialists… oh, wait.

2. Hillary Clinton wants to raise the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama intends to admit to 65,000. BUT…and this is important… none are to be allowed within fifty miles of Chappaqua.

The current intramural battle over immigration policy among GOP 2016 hopefuls, a most welcome and most necessary controversy, is a useful example of why the Senate is such a tough place from which to run for president. Few senators make it — only John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama in the last 60 years — and only after short Capitol Hill stints that yield thin voting records.

The reason is clear: To be a good legislator and to move public opinion on important issues, a senator sometimes must make proposals that, taken out of context, can distort the senator’s overarching position, creating the illusion that he favors what he clearly opposes, and vice versa.

No one should know this better than Senator Marco Rubio. Yet Rubio, a major culprit when it comes to foolish immigration policy, is now straining to defend his walk on the wild side by misrepresenting the record of his rival, Senator Ted Cruz. It’s an ironic turnabout for Rubio, who recently drew plaudits for slamming another rival, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, over his misleading critique of Rubio’s Senate record.

Donald Trump called Ben Carson “pathological” several times yesterday — even comparing the pathology to child molesters — and asked “how stupid are the people of Iowa” to be favoring the neurosurgeon in polls.

In a CNN interview, Trump first said he likes Carson and gets along with him well. “I’m not bringing up anything that’s not in his book,” he said.

“And you know, when he says he went after his mother and wanted to hit her in the head with a hammer, that bothers me. I mean, that’s pretty bad. When he says he’s pathological and he says that in the book, I don’t say that. And again, I’m not saying anything. I’m not saying anything other than pathological is a very serious disease and he said he’s pathological,” Trump continued. “Somebody said he has a pathological disease. Other people said he said in the book and I haven’t seen it. I know it’s in the book — that he has got a pathological temper or temperament. That’s a big problem because you don’t cure that. That’s like, you know, I could say, they’ve say you don’t cure — as an example, a child molester, you don’t cure these people.”

“You don’t cure a child molester. There’s no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that. Now, I didn’t say it. He said it in his book. So when I hear somebody’s pathological, when somebody says, I went after my mother with — and he’s saying it about himself with a hammer and hit her in the head, I say, whoa. I never did. You never did. I don’t know anybody that ever did personally. But that’s a big statement. When he says he hit a friend of his in the face with a lock — with a padlock right in the face, I say, whoa, that’s pretty bad. And when he said he stabbed somebody with a knife but it hit a belt buckle, I know a lot about knives and belt buckles.”