By Tom Kando
The Republican candidates are making mega blunders in their debates and media appearances, displaying astounding ignorance, especially in the area of foreign policy. A few examples:
In a November 2 televised interview, Herman Cain said that he was worried about “China developing nuclear capability.” His defenders say that he meant “further developing.” Hmm. To me it sounds like the man didn’t know that China has possessed nuclear bombs for nearly half a century. Oops!
Then there was Rick Perry’s widely publicized recent “oops” moment, when he forgot which three federal departments he wanted to abolish. He remembered Education and Commerce, but couldn’t come up with a third one. Others tried to help him, suggesting, “EPA maybe?” What about the Department of Energy? Perry wasn’t sure. All he could say was, “Oops!”
A few days ago, an interviewer asked Herman Cain what he thought about President Obama’s handling of Libya and Gadhafi’s ouster. Cain’s answer was incoherent. He said that he disagreed with Obama, but then added, “nope, that’s a different one...I’ve got all of this stuff twirling around in my head...” Later he explained that he favored Ronald Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength.” How helpful!
Recently, Michele Bachmann said that Hetzbollah could have bases and training camps in Cuba, clearly a preposterous notion.
A few months ago, interviewer Chris Wallace asked Herman Cain how he felt about the Palestinian “right of return” question.
Cain’s reaction: “Right of return? Right of return?” Clearly, he had never heard the term. After Wallace explained it to him, Cain said: “Yes, they should have a right to come back. I don’t think Israel has a big problem with people returning.” The man doesn’t even understand that the quarter million Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948 have meanwhile multiplied ten-fold, making right-of-return a hugely nettlesome issue.
At the latest Republican debate, Rick Santorum suggested that the US should establish better relationships with allies such as Pakistani President Musharraf. The problem is: Musharraf hasn’t been President since 2008. He lives in exile in London.
Candidate Cain has suggested that the US should punish Iran by stopping importing its oil. Problem is: we don’t import any Iranian oil.
There are too many such embarrassments to mention - from Cain referring to Uzbekistan as Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan (funny?) To Bachmann’s utterly ungrounded allegation that China is arming the Taliban, Perry’s suggestion that the US army invade Mexico to fight the drug cartels, and Mitt Romney agreeing to reset foreign aid and start at zero.
What amazes me more than these folks’ radical ideas is their international illiteracy. I almost miss Sarah Palin, who sounds like a Rhodes scholar in comparison. This would all be comical if it weren’t so dangerous. Can America afford the next President to get on-the-job training? (Some of this material is derived from articles in The Atlantic, Nov 14 and 16).
leave comment here
12 comments:
Holy excrement, Tom. God save America. Do you think these poeple know who Hungarians are and where they live and what language they speak???
Hungary?
That must be one of them old places, somewhere in Europe or in Asia. They probably speak Russian.
Tom, the Republicans should get an Emmy for being the best Reality Show of the year.
Hi Jennine, This is one of the very few blogs that I read...created by a friend of mine. Love Dad
At least there is precedent (NOT a good one!) for invading Mexico. The U.S. sent 10,000 troops into Mexico during the Woodrow Wilsom administration, to chase Pancho Villa.
Where do these froot-loops come from? (Rhetorical question.) Cain does not need protection from the Secret Service. He needs protection from the Library of Congress, to stop making such fool of himself.
You raise many excellent points in your post. But I don’t think Mitt Romney essentially saying he would do a ground-up review of America’s foreign aid budget bears any resemblance to the gaffes you list from other candidates.
I would imagine (or at least hope) that all new administrations would re-examine all discretionary programs. That doesn’t mean you’re going to end them or even change them. But you at least need to know you agree with what’s being done and decide whether to continue with it.
Thanks,folks,
good responses.
Ken is factually correct. We have invaded Mexico before.
Jeff's point is valid. Romney probably just wants to re-set the button on foreign aid, not abolish it (his statement was actually only an agreememt with Perry).
Incidentally, regarding foreign aid, Americans should know that the US is nowhere near the top, as far as per capita foreign aid expenditure is concerned. We are probably still in the top 20, and on an absolute basis, we may still be number one. Also, our foreign aid mix includes military aid, so this becomes a a complex issue.
Anyway, this is one more issue where one can see the glass as half full or half empty, depending on one's predilection.
“Can America afford the next President to get on-the-job training?” - an interesting, but irrelevant question. As we learned almost 20 years ago, when an inexperienced Arkansas governor defeated an experienced president: “It’s the economy, stupid”
Il est bien connu que le monde civilisé s'arrête aux frontières des USA pour un américain moyen . il et triste de constater qu'il en est de même pour certains leaders politiques .
Ii celà vous console , ce n'est guère mieux chez nous .
(Translation: It is well known that to the average American, the civilized world stops at the US border. It is sad to see that it is the same for some political leaders.
If it's any comfort, things are hardly better here).
Thank you for your comments, anonymous and Guy.
I suppose one could say that Clinton's presidency was a case of on-the-job-training, and it worked out fine...
As an addendum to the post: just a day or so ago, Herman Cain continued to display his ignorance when he thought that the Taliban was in Libya.
Where is Ron Paul? The only man in american politics that can put three sentences together that actually make sense. If it is ok with you guys maybe we can let him step out from under the rock where many would like him to remain. Just check out an unaired 20/20 interview with Ron Paul you can find on youtube to see where Republicans and Democrats have "gone wrong". In Chomsky´s own words: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." Give the man a chance and educate yourself!
I am all for freedom of speech.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!