<$BlogRSDURL$>


Thursday, January 22, 2004

Foreign Policy 

Thinking about Democrats and foreign policy, I see that Tom Friedman equates being a "serious" Democrat with either (a) agreeing with him or (b) not being Howard Dean (although Clark, whose views are basically exactly the same, apparently is serious to Tommy).

Anyway, the following is from someone's comment at DailyKos the other day, and I think it very well sums up why Bush needn't be considered "strong" on foreign policy:
I don't think [a] lack of foreign policy credentials is such a huge detriment in the race for the nomination. Think of Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Dukakis and Dubya (his own pitiful self). None of them had an iota of experience in that area and yet the only one who lost was the jerk who was foolish enough to jump on a tank.

Okay, so we're allegedly at war with terrorism and the nation's priorities are different now, but in what sense has Bush proven himself to be adept at handling foreign affairs? Iraq is in total chaos, Israel and the Palestinians have gotten no help in stopping their endless cycle of violence, North Korea is flaunting its affinity for nuclear madness and China has stepped up its threat to annihilate Taiwan if it gives them any more lip.

Other than ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (and yet not really stabilizing that country or fully expelling Al Qaeda from its borders) and providing the world with an endless videotaped loop of one S. Hussein being groomed for nits like a zoo animal, what exactly is this administration's greatest foreign policy achievement? De-fanging Libya?
This is all true. I mean, even if Libya renounced weapons solely in response to Iraq, it's hardly like they were about to attack us, or even sponser an attack on us anymore.

|
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?