Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: scarface367
There is not one word of what you quoted that Hillary could not have said. She has said it all at one time or another. Naive is the last word that could be used to describe her.

Obama could be described as naive, but it wouldn’t matter a bit. The President is not a one man band. We can only be as tough as our foreign policy establishment lets us be, as GWB has learned to his cost. Only a powerfully counter-cultural President, like RR, could deflect our policy more than a fraction and neither Giuliani nor Clinton is counter-cultural in the least.

In an election between Rudy and Hillary I have no dog in the fight. I see no grounds for choice and consequently I won’t make one. The suggestion that our foreign policy will be more muscular with Rudy at the helm is utterly unsupported by the evidence so it does nothing to sway me in Rudy’s direction.

Notice that, in the passage you cite, Rudy doesn’t call for undermining the Iranian regime, only for making it clear the we can if we get really mad. After Iran has waged war against us for 28 years, that is pretty weak beer. For every one of those 28 years gasbag politicians have been saying that Iran has to understand that we can be a dangerous enemy, and yet the Mullahs are still in place unscathed. The Mullahs have long since stopped attaching any meaning to the empty words and so have I.

If the Republican Party is foolish enough to nominate Rudy I will at least have the satisfaction of watching somebody I despise lose. Cold comfort but better than nothing.

417 posted on 12/10/2007 2:30:59 PM PST by fluffdaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies ]


To: fluffdaddy
Notice that, in the passage you cite, Rudy doesn’t call for undermining the Iranian regime, only for making it clear the we can if we get really mad.

Right, because a clear call to undermine the Iranian regime no matter what would be destabilizing to our Saudi allies. We have to be careful in dealing with the Iranians that our actions do not lead to encouraging radicals in Saudi Arabia, leading to a collapse of the royal family. With our ongoing operations in Iraq we simply do not have the manpower to take over Iran as well. Yes, we need to keep the nuclear option on the table as far as ensuring Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, due to the shifting of regional power that would occur. Giuliani has shown no intention of doing otherwise. The Democrats, not as much.

As far as completely changing our foreign policy, I see no need to. Bush has done a good job on foreign policy, even if it does somewhat stray from realism into idealism as far as spreading democracy is concerned. Giuliani approach, as he has outlined, recognizes the reality of the international scene.

As far a Hillary is concerned, read her policy outlines. Or read any other Democrat's policy outlines. They are simply too naive and operate under the failed assumption that if only we are nice our enemies will respond in kind. This is a dangerous view and would do irreparable harm to our national interest.

420 posted on 12/10/2007 3:07:07 PM PST by scarface367 (The problem is we have yet to find a cure for stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson