Last night's first official 2012 Republican debate exposed one major flaw in Herman Cain's appeal, one I've blogged about before, his complete lack of understanding of our War on Terror and what his foreign policy would be if elected, or even nominated to take on President Obama next November.
On the War in Afghanistan he didn't answer the question straight forward, but deferred to unknown "experts" who would know more about the fight. He did not support releasing the picture of Osama bin Laden and he didn't answer the question on what his position on Libya, or Syria is.
I don't know about most of America, but I will vote every four years to elect the President of the United States, who has an idea of what he stands for on foreign policy, not unknown experts who are unaccountable to the electorate. Isn't that just another phrase for czars? We don't need another President with no plan.
Herman Cain is likable, but he's not electable or knowledgeable.
What say you?
You are wrong. I'd rather Obama or any president, like they tend to do, rely on experts like our men in uniform and their generals to convey the facts and make recommendations rather than having an established businessman like Cain or a harvard student / community organizer like Obama make decisions on national security without considering recommendations from the experts. Instead of Cain giving the generic answers most politicians would give, he gave the right one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anonymous. You don't spout rhetoric without knowing ALL the facts. i.e. Closing down Gitmo, Police Acting Stupidly. Cain is the best candidate so far.
ReplyDeleteCain is a terrible candidate anyone who thinks otherwise needs to unplug fox news for a few minutes and think for themselves. the proper candidate should have at least somewhat of a chance of beating the incumbent and cain wouldn't have a chance at all.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, please explain why. Point me to the site that will show Cain's weakness. He sounds good. What am I missing?
ReplyDeleteAbout the "war on terror" (I refuse to dignify such a silly concept with capital lettering):
ReplyDelete"President George W. Bush called his response to the al Qaeda attacks of September 11 the Global War on Terror. If he had called the response a war on radical Islam, he would have alienated allies in the Islamic World that the United States badly needed. If he had called it a war on al Qaeda, he would have precluded attacking terrorists who were not part of that specific group. Bush tried to finesse this problem with a semantic sleight of hand, but this left him open to political and strategic confusion.
President Obama dropped the term war on terror, and rightly so. Imagine if, after Pearl Harbor, an attack that relied on aircraft carriers, President Roosevelt had declared a global war on naval aviation. By focusing on terrorism instead of al Qaeda or radical Islam, Bush elevated a specific kind of assault to a position that shaped American global strategy, which left the United States strategically off-balance.
Obama may have clarified the nomenclature, but he left in place a significant portion of the imbalance, which is an obsession with the threat of terrorist attacks. As we consider presidential options in the coming decade, it appears imperative that we clear up just how much of a threat terrorism actually presents and what that threat means for U.S. policy"
-
George Friedman
The Next Decade - Where We’ve Been… and Where We’re Going
---
With the passing of a terrorist icon, perhaps now the United States can re-balance its foreign strategy. While the Middle East will remain important, it is this blogger’s hope that we can rethink our obsession with the region and begin to focus on bigger issues - like the re-emergence of the former Soviet empire under Russia and its growing influence in Germany.
If you haven’t read The Next Decade - Where We’ve Been… and Where We’re Going - I would strongly recommend picking up a copy. You can also have a look at large portions of the text via Google Books.
We need some foreign policy from the guy- if he won’t stop Iran from getting the bomb, I’m not interested
ReplyDeleteOnly Bolton and Trump said what I wanted to hear on that.
Other issues pale in comparison imo… did you see Ahmedinijad wants to chair OPEC?
If that happened and he gets his nukes, other issues will seem frivilous, imo… it’s like Reagan said “If we dont’ win the Cold War” we won’t need to talk about domestic/Constitutional issues anymore
Iran is my #1 hot button issue, and can't hand the wheel to a candidate who won’t bomb these 7th Century savages if necessary… just don’t want to see Bibi Nethanyahu have to do our work for us