If foreign policy and the war on terrorism were your primary concerns, for whom should you vote? Loren Thompson, an officer at the Lexington Instutute, which has several former Republican office holders in its ranks
argues that Obama’s foreign policy views are similar to McCain’s, except for Iraq, and where they differ, especially with regard to Iraq, make more sense than McCain’s. In addition, one should note that Obama has more experience in foreign and defense affairs through his committee work than Clinton does. And besides, the Bush administration demonstrates that experience does not lead to competence. To prove that she is man enough for the job, Clinton is likely to be more aggressive and violent than will be good for the country. Since terrorism is a self-limiting activity, the most important thing is to limit the damage it does before it expires. For that reason, controlling weapons of mass destruction and countering their proliferation is the most important task before us. Accomplishing that task will require a disposition to talk to all sorts of people and build alliances. Of the three candidates still in the race, Obama has shown the greatest inclination to undertake that kind of work.
I dropped in to NLT after reading Peggy Noonan at the WSJ. What a depressing election for a conservative Republican.
Reading Thompson, I would be encouraged, except that what he is saying is true of Obama is not clear in what Obama says today. The 2002 speech Thompson quotes gripped my mind because that is roughly what I was saying about the Iraq invasion back then. Hence, it sounds good to me. I thought getting Saddam meant being stuck with the headless tar-baby of Iraq. Once in, how would we get out with any honor; we KNEW would be stuck there for a long time. As a conservative, I was worried that such a war would take an undesirable political toll on the Republican Party (not to mention America.) I thought we would lose the next election over the Iraq issue. It was a good thing the Democrats ran Kerry.
What worries me now about this matter is that the promise of a sound foreign policy (as I understand it) is not what I am hearing from Obama. The Obama that Thompson is writing about is not reflected in his campaign rhetoric and these promises he makes today mean something.
Of course, whoever becomes president will be forced to deal with the world as it really is, not as it "ought" to be. Maybe the left would trust Obama to be doing the right thing when he comes to grips with the sticky spot we find ourselves in; I mean Iraq and all over the world. If he is realistic, and at the rate the race is going I surely hope he is, then we will see his rhetorical skills put to the test when he has to say things his supporters are not going to want to hear.
I don't think Obama is willing to say anything that his listeners don't want to hear. And, in case you've missed this fact, the folks we're worried about DON'T believe in REAL discussion, negotiation or compromise AT ALL. It's accept their way or die.
No, I haven't missed it. I work at a community college, for the time being.
But is Obama willing to put American security on the line to please those dreaming listeners? This article suggests that his audacity of hope is tempered by an understanding of American foreign policy. How could he manage that if he becomes president?
I don't believe Thompson because Obama's foreign policy advisers don't fit the picture Thompson is drawing. Anthony Lake, Samantha Powers....
"Obama has shown the greatest inclination to undertake that kind of work."
Um....I don't think so. Nice try though. Come back and play again and bring your "hopeful" and "audacious" attitude.