We live in a dangerous world, so it is important to look at how our presidential candidates view foreign policy, and how they would be inclined to act as president. My stock broker may say that past performance is no indication of future results, but Barack Obama is not running for stock broker.
How do you critique a foreign policy record that hardly exists? He was elected to the U.S Senate in 2004, started serving his term in 2005, and began his run for president in 2006. In terms of experience, I have a high school-aged son who has logged more hours bagging groceries than Mr. Obama has had as a senator in Washington.
The loudest and clearest Mr. Obama has been is when talking about his opposition to the U.S invasion of Iraq, which was conveniently for him, a vote that occurred before his election.
When it came to a vote on classifying Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, Mr. Obama could have taken an unambiguous position by voting yes or no. Instead, he decided that demonstrating political cowardice was the better way to go and opted to avoid the vote altogether.
He insists that he will vigorously prosecute the war against Islamist terrorists, and as an example, suggests that he would invade our Pakistani allies (see my post :Between Barack and a Hard Place).
In summary, he has shown that his foreign policy positions will vary depending on their time frame. Issues that pre-date him he will second guess, issues of the present he will avoid, and issues of the future he will make worse.
How do you critique a foreign policy record that hardly exists? He was elected to the U.S Senate in 2004, started serving his term in 2005, and began his run for president in 2006. In terms of experience, I have a high school-aged son who has logged more hours bagging groceries than Mr. Obama has had as a senator in Washington.
The loudest and clearest Mr. Obama has been is when talking about his opposition to the U.S invasion of Iraq, which was conveniently for him, a vote that occurred before his election.
When it came to a vote on classifying Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, Mr. Obama could have taken an unambiguous position by voting yes or no. Instead, he decided that demonstrating political cowardice was the better way to go and opted to avoid the vote altogether.
He insists that he will vigorously prosecute the war against Islamist terrorists, and as an example, suggests that he would invade our Pakistani allies (see my post :Between Barack and a Hard Place).
In summary, he has shown that his foreign policy positions will vary depending on their time frame. Issues that pre-date him he will second guess, issues of the present he will avoid, and issues of the future he will make worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment