Here, I’ll answer my own question:
CRUZ: I think we stayed too long and we got far too involved in nation-building. It is not our job to turn foreign nations into — we shouldn’t be trying to turn Iraq into Switzerland. What we should be doing if there are people who pose a clear and present danger to our national security, and I believe ISIS qualifies as that, then the objective should be taking out that threat.
Precious little to go on there. Kind of a throw-away line. And BTW, this bit — “What we should be doing if there are people who pose a clear and present danger to our national security, and I believe ISIS qualifies as that, then the objective should be taking out that threat” — that’s exactly what George W Bush thought he was doing, taking out a clear-and-present-danger threat.
I like Ted Cruz, but this article goes way too far in calling him a foreign policy genius. Sounds to me like he’s groping for solutions in a very tough world, just like many other highly patriotic Americans (which Cruz is one of) are doing.
As for Reagan, he wasn’t just a genius, he had HUGE qualifications in 1980, qualifications that aren’t matched by any candidate today in any party. That’s just a fact, and not a criticism of Cruz.
I support the fight to penetrate into the heart of the Muslim world.
But I will wait for the nuances of Cruz to unfold during the next year.
Cruz is sharp as a whip, and he knows to not engage in arguments about every action and decision that is in the past, and not his own.
Don’t let them drag you down into eternal arguments about the past.
The liberals don't care about rhetoric. They ignore it.
Cruz understands that. He'll go for action that makes a difference, not some soundbite that will get ignored.
I don't expect that you were going to vote for Cruz anyway.
That's ok. People like me, and I will continue to volunteer and send real money to the Cruz campaign.
/johnny