Posted on 09/08/2011 5:39:28 PM PDT by The Bronze Titan
I have decided to post this as my own article, because everyone in the media (and blogosphere) is so focused with the "horse-race" aspect of this campaign, and the "gotcha" sound bites, that a critical moment with insightful importance during last night's debate has been shockingly overlooked (and/or ignored).
It is critical, because it relates directly to the national security and foreign policy thinking and requisite aptitude of a top-tier candidate for President of the United States.
The critical moment occurs when the questioner, in turning to Perry, diverts the debate towards a "national security" issue. At this point, I am attentive to hear what the candidate has to say national security-wise relative to the question being asked.
Simply speaking, during a debate you want to gleam some aspect of the candidate's foreign policy thinking, and how he/she would react as President relative to the issue being raised. Essentially, the question is an "opening" being provided by the questioner to the candidate for the candidate to expound on their national security / foreign policy thinking. You can either respond directly to the question at hand, or divert your response to a more pronounced aspect of your foreign policy.
What Perry does (AND doesn't do) is quite breathtaking, to the point of being scary, since it covers a huge issue in our nation's foreign policy. The question relates directly to something he wrote about in his book ("adventurism").
Perry's total lack of a coherent response to the question on such a (supposedly) important foreign policy pronouncement in his book, considering that the issue involves when to send our men/women into battle, betrays his shockingly inept ability and readiness to explain his thinking in matters of national security.
It was an odd and strange response to a very important question. Seemingly reluctant in wanting to answer the question by making a weird turn to deflect the subject matter, all the while quickly closing on the same subject matter,.
==========================================
HARRIS: Governor Perry, as we approach the 9/11 anniversary, I'd like to stick with national security for a moment. You recently said, quote, "I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism." Looking back, do you think President George W. Bush was too quick to launch military intervention without thinking through the risks?
PERRY: I was making a comment about a philosophy; I don't think America needs to be in the business of adventurism.
But let me just say something about the president of the United States. And I know he's -- he's taken lots of slings and arrows here today. But one thing that I want to say that he did do that I agree with is that he maintained the -- the chase and -- and we took out a very bad man in the form of bin Laden, and I -- and I tip my hat to him.
I give more props to those Navy SEALs that did the job, but -- and the other thing this president's done, he has proven for once and for all that government spending will not create one job. Keynesian policy and Keynesian theory is now done. We'll never have to have that experiment on America again. And I might add that he kept Gitmo open against the will of his base, and I'm glad he did that. America's safer for it.
==========================================
Here is the video of the entire debate, with a reference to the question and the response segment at the 1:17:52 time mark.
I have provided the transcript of this exchange below, and link to the entire debate transcript here.
(better viewing the video segment, since it captures the essence of how this was phrased and how it was responded to)
Here is the transcript page on the Perry comment: Page 19
I never thought I would say this, but...
get ready to defend your castle cause’ a siege is coming..
He’ll stop in all 56 states - when everyone knows there’s really 57?
Good grief, man, we’ve got the Cretin-in-Chief and his West Wing Clown show of felon/cretins.
Absolutely nothing could be worse.
Nothing.
So feggetabowdit.....
Is Perry ready to be President? The New World Order Bilderbergers think so.
Does that count as a "seige?" People are so sensitive nowadays.
I’m not a Perry fan at all, but I don’t get your point. What are you questioning?
More ready than a guy who campaigned in all 57 states.
Maybe Jim will post this crap in Breaking News for you bud.
Libya is military adventurism. No gain for the USA. But let’s keep the discussion on “Bush’s wars” right?
You assume that the question posed by some J school graduate was legitimate and represented questions in our minds? Why?
He’s way more better then 0bama ever was.
You are picking the NITS. He answered the question.
He said we shouldn’t start a war just for the “adventure” of it. Bush went into Iraq based on intelligence, perhaps faulty, but everyone knew Saddam was bad.
He took the extra time to put in more of his own observations and make points he wanted to get out.
G
It can be his religion or youth
or claiming his clothes are uncouth
So you ensuring Obama will stay
YES
What blunder?
His open boarder position and his stand on Social Security wipe him off my ballot
Almost as hugh and series as the time a m00se once bit my sister. Bronze Titan? Hah. More like Petty Nitpicker for {Romney/Paul/Obama}.
A HS debating instructor would probably have given him a D- for drifting off topic, but why would that disqualify him from being President?
Did you get tired of bashing Perry on every other post and decided to consolidate on this post ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.