The new line that Paul Ryan is using in the wake of the attacks on US embassies or consulates in Libya and Egypt is that it’s all because Obama is so weak and that’s make our enemies think we can be attacked with impunity. Here’s what he said last week in Colorado, starting with his latest flip flop:
“Of all the things that Mitt Romney and I differ, disagree with President Obama – we need a strong military!” Ryan said. “We believe in peace through strength. We believe that when America’s military is strong, America is safer.
“These defense cuts that he is promising, these devastating defense cuts that he is promising not only undermine our peace, not only undermine our security, they compromise jobs right here,” he said.
Guess what? Obama is opposing those defense cuts too, and offering the same kind of absurd excuse. Leon Panetta has made the same argument repeatedly in arguing against the sequestration deal — which Paul Ryan not only voted for, but released a statement praising its importance:
When he voted for the sequestration deal, it was all about keeping Obama’s profligate spending under control. Now suddenly it’s about his reckless budget cutting. I guess Ryan got his very own etch-a-sketch when he joined the ticket. And now it’s all about Obama projecting weakness:
“The Budget Control Act represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy. I applaud Speaker Boehner’s leadership in stopping tax increases on job creators, rejecting President Obama’s demands for a blank check to keep borrowing, and advancing real spending cuts and controls.
“Please know that when we gut our military as the president is proposing – when we equivocate on speaking up for our values overseas, our freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom for women and women’s rights and individual rights – when we do this, we project weakness abroad,” he said. “And when we project weakness abroad, our enemies are more willing to test us, they are more brazen and our allies are less willing to trust us and that will not happen under a Mitt Romney administration because we believe in peace through strength.”
Okay, so how about during the Reagan administration, when the rates of attacks on American diplomatic outposts were 3-4 times higher than under Obama, and in some years 6 times higher?
Was Reagan projecting weakness when he vastly increased defense spending? Or are you just full of shit?