[2ndDivisionVet]

Comments?

[GeronL]

Arrogant?

Confident! He knows what he believes and why he believes it and is not swayed by shallow pop-cultural gutterage.

This is the new definition of arrogant?

[sickoflibs]

RE:”Scott Walker is a terrific governor and an attractive candidate, but he has no foreign policy experience–unlike Reagan, who did a weekly foreign policy radio broadcast for a decade, and did his own research. Walker could persuade me that he knows what he’s doing, but I haven’t heard much from him yet. Foreign policy is too important for the next administration for us to elect a president who needs on-the-job training”

???

Lets not be ridiculous.

I wasn't going to comment until I saw this ludicrous ending.

That is an argument for Cruz as POTUS??

[pluvmantelo]

Rand Paul, who is a dumb rube isolationist of the old school and unqualified for national office

---

That should raise some hackles.

[MarMema]

Love it.

[ansel12]

Cruz knows who he is, and what he believes, and he is honest and true, Palin is like that, Reagan was like that.

They are all different, but they are all centered, and can speak to anyone about what they think, and what they believe.

I love Reagan, and one reason that I think his faith was deep, was the fact that he could remain real and humble while also being a King, Reagan had it all, his physical courage as a regionally famous life guard and as a 5 year Cavalryman, his speaking abilities, his looks, his entire life of being wonderful and most of it wealthy, yet he was always, Reagan, the man.

Cruz is similar, Cruz the genius, Cruz the famous debater, Cruz always the brightest man in the room and a wonder, but also Cruz, the simple Southern Baptist Christian.

Palin is like that.

Exceptional human beings and politicians who are Christ anchored, which keeps them grounded and focused on the goal of helping America and their fellow man, as they use their talents to enrich more than just themselves.

[samtheman]

It’s a very good analysis of Ukraine and how Israel is hurt by our stupidity in Ukraine, but I would like to hear more about how we stayed too long in Iraq.

I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq, but once we were there I think we had to stay. Obutthead pulled out and the place fell apart. In 2007 the surge actually won the war, then Obutthead handed the keys to Iran and ISIS. Is Cruz saying there should have been no surge, that we should have given it all away before 2007?

Please elaborate.

[Yaelle]

Makes me want him all the more. Decent article.

[Paulie]

Ted Cruz is a man who knows who he is and knows where he’s going. He wants America’s proper role in the world restored. Mr. Cruz understands we must once again be the land of the free; home of the brave. This is arrogance?

What would David Goldman have as Ted Cruz to be - ‘humble’ like Jimmy Carter?

I notice that Alan Dershowitz says that Mr. Cruz was the best student he had ever had at Harvard’s Law School. Just wondering - what did the faculty think of the current POTUS and FLOTUS, who supposedly attended?

[elhombrelibre]

Having convictions is not the same as being arrogant. Reagan’s beliefs were in free markets, freedom, less government, transferring power to people and not government agencies, and a foreign policy that reinvigorated containment of communism. Those were not arrogant assumptions; they were the ideals the West had strayed from since the rise of War Socialism and the Welfare State. To those who were of the opposite conviction Reagan might indeed seem arrogant, but not to those who understand the principles underpinning his values.

[Billthedrill]

We destroyed the century-long balance of power in Iraq and Syria by forcing majority rule in Iraq, and stood godfather to a perpetual Sunni-Shi’ite civil war.

Yes to the first, no to the second - really, the Sunni-Shi'ite civil war is a thousand years and more older than the United States. It would be arrogance indeed to claim a dominant piece of that toxic lineage.

Intelligence alone - and Cruz has it in spades - is insufficient to formulate a coherent policy in this most chaotic environment in, perhaps, the world. A good deal of dispassionate learning that 0bama, despite the time he's been given, has never deigned to explore will make the difference. Here the Hippocratic "first, do no harm" may well be in order.

One cannot fault Bush or what have been grossly oversimplified as "the neocons" for coming up with a grand Wilsonian plan to democratize this septic pit of longstanding hatred: despite the narrative, Bush's was essentially a reactive policy and nation-building an afterthought. It came closer to success than I ever thought that it would. But it wasn't really a part of any overarching plan, and what we now have before us is an indication that the plan, had it even ever solidified, would have failed in any case.

That does not excuse the absolute horror 0bama's malign neglect has made out of what was at best a fragile stasis, but a stasis nonetheless. What we have in ISIS and the Iranian proxies is no more than a continuation of what began with a fellow named Ali starting in the year 632. Lest we consider this an even fight, we must remember that the Shi'ites are, at best, a significant minority of the overall Muslim worldwide population, punching well out of their weight class by virtue of state level support from Iran. The Sunni as a minority control over a Shi'ite population in Iraq is a bit of an anomaly, based more on the Arab/Persian ethnic struggle than religion per se. But it's there, and if ISIS seems disproportionately powerful in all this it is, in fact, a well-funded tribal reaction to Shi'ite/Persian hegemony in a Sunni/Arab land.

In short, it's a mess, and our involvement should probably focus more on keeping Russia, China, and other interested parties from undue influence than trying to re-establish what seems, in retrospect, undue influence of our own. We're done with that, we got what we wanted (stability in the international oil economy) and if we're going to involve ourselves further it would be very nice to consider before we commit what the hell we're really after.

[Vendome]

Damn!

LOL

[matthew fuller]

"Sen. Cruz is the only candidate I who is tough, smart and arrogant enough to do the job. "

He's the only one that I want as my President.

[Yosemitest]

NOT "arrogant"!
Intelligent, and principled enough to EXPOSE the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" and the DemocRATS ... for the VILE and ANTI Constitutionalists that they ARE !

[Sun]

I love Cruz, but this bothered me from the piece:

“..Cruz is the only one to state plainly that we stayed too long in Iraq ..”

It’s when Obama pulled out our peace-keeping troops that ISIS took power.

Am I missing something?

[rrrod]

arrogant salute!

[ifinnegan]

Subterfuge article.

It isn’t really about Cruz so much as using him to propagate Putinaganda.

He had me fooled for a while.

[cripplecreek]

Well, the current resident is arrogant AND stupid.

[Tax-chick]

Marco Rubio is a bright and personable young man with an attractive message, but he is callow enough to think that Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are foreign policy sages.

Oh, snap!

LOL!

[SumProVita]

The author does not use his adjective well. Arrogant aptly describes Obama. Senator Cruz is confident. There IS a difference.

[9thLife]

The person who mistakes your gifts for arrogance will forever hate you.