Posted on 11/06/2011 11:33:55 AM PST by smoothsailing
November 3, 2011
Alan Caruba
It can be argued that domestic affairs are a president's top priority, but the Constitution expressly puts the chief executive in charge of setting and conducting foreign affairs. It is therefore essential to know if the candidate who wants to be president has a reasonable knowledge of events around the world.
On Tuesday evening I watched an edition of Fox News Bret Beir's Special Report where Herman Cain was "center chair" as the usual members of the panel got a chance to quiz him and, after he attempted to dispose of the charges of sexual harassment unleashed against him, syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer asked a question that dealt with foreign policy.
What would Cain do if Iran was going to unleash an attack on the U.S.? Cain gave a rambling, unspecific answer except to say he'd order an Aegis destroyer into the Persian Gulf to let Iran know he was serious, mentioning something about the use by Iran of missiles. It was distressingly clear that Cain had no more idea what he would do than he had regarding other potential foreign policy questions.
Foreign affairs are Herman Cain's Achilles' heel and it has not gone unnoticed by the political press and others. In the October 17 Washington Post, Chris Cillizza took note of Cain's appearance on "Meet the Press" where he was asked "whether Iran's involvement in an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S. amounted to an act of war."
Cain replied, "After I looked at all of the information provided by the intelligence community, the military, than I could make that decision." That is what is known as a lawyerly response. "If, if it's an act of war, and the evidence suggests that, than I am going to consult with my advisors and say, 'What are our options"'"
If Barack Obama's extremely muted response is any indication, there aren't that many overt options, though one might hope that there are a host of covert ones in the works.
During a PBS interview with Judy Woodruff, Cain was asked about China as a potential military threat to the U.S. At one point Cain said, "They've indicated that they're trying they're trying to develop nuclear capability..." China conducted its first text of a nuclear device on October 16, 1964. It is estimated to have some 400 nuclear weapons. They are not "developing" a nuclear threat. They are a nuclear threat in the same way as other nations with nuclear weapons. This is why Iran is hell-bent on acquiring its own nuclear weapons.
A man no one could accuse of being anything but conservative, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, had Cain on his program and, in a segment with Dennis Miller, the show's comic relief, O'Reilly said, "Look, I like Herman Cain. I like his spirit. I think he presents himself very well. But when he came on The Factor a few weeks ago, he had no clue about foreign affairs."
Cain lacks a good poker face. When asked questions for which he is unprepared, his eyes begin to blink like a deranged traffic light. He responds with some programmed answer that is often unrelated to the question. He is the proverbial deer in the headlights.
During a recent speech to a Republican audience, he said that so far as he's concerned, America is Israel's ally and vice versa. That got the predictable applause. Cain visited Israel in August on a fact-finding tour. He met with a deputy prime minister and the Mayor of Jerusalem.
However, when he was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, he was asked about the Palestinian demand of "right of return," a major divide between Israelis and Palestinians, and Cain had no idea what it was. "That's something that should be negotiated," said Cain, grasping for an answer that sounded sensible, but the issue is not negotiable so far as the Israelis are concerned and with good reason. Someone even casually aware of the issues affecting Israel would know that.
Stephen Yates, president of the DC Advisory and former national security advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, might not be expected to criticize a GOP candidate, but when asked he said of Cain, "These are the kind of questions a leading candidate cannot simply pass to advisors. To date, Cain has not projected command of these presidential imperatives."
A pizza company executive or one leading a restaurant trade association probably doesn't need to know much about foreign affairs, but a candidate for President of the United States needs to know more than some hasty daily briefings by his campaign staffers.
Cain dismissed the fact he had no idea where Uzbekistan is or its strategic importance to U.S. foreign affairs. "When they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I'm going to say, you know, I don't know. Do you know?" Even Obama knows that a stable relationship with Uzbekistan is regarded as of vital importance to the war in Afghanistan for its airport and as a transit corridor to reduce dependence on Pakistan.
Cain thinks foreign affairs questions are "gotcha" questions, but they may well be the most critical questions a potential president has to understand and answer. It is testimony to the difficulty of these issues that Barack Obama has essentially carried out most of the policies put in place by George W. Bush when it comes to foreign affairs.
Right now Herman Cain is the candidate-de-jour in the polls, but so was Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry when he got into the race. I like the fact that Cain is a bona fide conservative. I don't like the obvious fact that he couldn't find Uzbekistan on the map and probably doesn't know much else about the world.
On that count alone, I would not vote for him. Republicans have to get over their current love affair with Herman Cain and select a candidate more qualified to lead the nation.
© Alan Caruba
You're funny! I posted this thread, I havn't mentioned any candidate but Cain. So who is doing the disrupting around here, hmm? :)
There sure are a lot of Perrywinkes on this CAIN thread.
Just saying.
One set of standards please.
Jean, I am sooo over myself. Because, if you will read all the posts to me, they are pretty ugly and just prove my point that all one has to do on FR lately is make the slightest criticism of Cain and suddenly, you’re the devil.
I’m sorry it offends all y’all but I stand by my contention that your devotion to Cain is a little over the cop and that none of you will even consider honestly any faults he might have.
Sadly the foreign loving state department is one of the biggest problems, that and the UN, and those that worship at that alter.
“You’re funny! I posted this thread,”
-
Yes the irony is thick.
It’s true though. You’re a Perry supporter, you posted this thread about Cain - about Cain - which makes this a “Cain thread”.
Fact is Perry supporters constantly complain that opposing views on “Perry threads” are disruptive.
Some consistency would be refreshing.
Just saying. Ironic though it may be. :)
I am fed up with defending and spending millions or billions on nations that do hate us....you know when we asked Kuwait about investments...they said NO they were investing in Asia...we gave Yemen a nice chunk and they blew us the USS Cole and have hidden known terrorists in their country; we are in Africa now too..100 special ops fighting hundreds...our troops come home to what? threats of losing benefits, some wounded for life and an economy that is in very dire straits.
If the warmongers at Renew America don’t like him, that is an argument in his favor.
No, Cain has uttered no criticism of Romney... at least not yet.
I think his initial strategy was to be Romney’s veep.
Now that he’s leading in some polls, he may decide he doesn’t need Romney.
And now that he has a little baggage, Romney may decide he doesn’t need Cain.
Time will tell.
“A President Herman Cain will surround himself with conservative advisors like John Bolton.”
John Bolton might have something to say about that. He is one exceedingly intelligent man.
Excellent RitaOK! Rick Perry 2012.
I didn’t post this thread and didnt know that certain forums were censored? bloggers that support various candidates have been on all the threads...we are fighting for whoever we believe is the best man for president of this country...so long as bloggers dont make personal attacks but dispute with facts or questions the exchanges are worthwhile...worship of any candidate boggles my mind.
This is not a Cain thread. It is a thread about Cain’s lack of foreign policy knowledge or experience.
Not stop disrupting this thread with infantile insults to Perry supporters or you will be sorry. Hah.
That’s playground talk, which should be familiar to you.
Good enough for me. Short of a felony conviction, he has my vote and my money. I’m simply NOT going to let the media pick my candidate.
Anyway, he’ll likely have Newt on the ticket, so if he’s a bit weak there, Newt will easily make up for it.
It’s a Cain thread.
Look at the title, and stop being so disruptive. :)
Thank you. Go post a Perry thread or something constructive.
Sorry for mentioning Gov. Perry (I gather that is forbidden) but Gov. Perry is the only one who has suggested Bolton for Secretary of State.
I really don’t think threads on Free Republic are “owned” by anyone, posters, candidates or otherwise. They are all open for posting by those who support Free Republic. So deal with it.
The problem is that what would he do is irrelevant? The reason why people defend Cain here is because of the attempt to hold him to standards none of the others are. When has Romney been asked twenty questions about what he would do in the event of Iranian aggression? The truth is that no one can estimate exactly what they’d do but certainly I do know that Cain would like GW Bush surround himself with the best advisors on foreign policy which is what is far more important. None of what Bush or Obama offerred on the campaign trail ended up in their ultimate foreign policy. What people here are tired of is the game. Sure Cain needs to beef himself up and talk in more detail on foreign policy but I’ve read Cain’s writing on China and other foreign policy issues and he has been consistently credible. I’m not worried about religious fervor, what I’m worried about is the campaign to stamp one of the least consistent candidates as the ‘inevitable’ candidate. That people love what Herman Cain stands for should not be a surprise or worry. People love candidates who love America shamelessly and have lived the American dream. Cain has risen from poverty to success. He is no idiot and those that act as though all of his demonstrated intelligence is to be dismissed because of a bad interview or two while other candidates bad records are to be ignored and everything they release in position papers is to be considered gold? Come on. Quit playing and accepting the mind games because you have to be smarter than that.
Washington is filled to the brim with talkers who can tell you the premutations of what should or not be done in all kinds of situations and those same people have nearly destoryed this country and have overextended us throughout the world with blank check militarism. Excuse us all if we DO NOT accept the false premises and rules of those who have in their lack of wisdom brought America to the brink of disolution.
An obvious theme is developing for Obama to use in next year’s election.
Former NM Governor Richardson on Meet the Press: “This President has a great foreign policy record.”
[Without drastic economic/jobs improvement next year, see more of Obama running on foreign policy rather than domestic policy.]
[Theme on MTP: Cain’s lack of foreign policy experience. Gregory asked both Richardson and Huntsman about that.]
the Title of this thread is Cain flunks foreign policy.
Now get your blocks out and play with them.
Perry IS the only one who mentioned Bolton for his cabinet. You are correct and there should be many more mentions of Gov. Perry on FR. Your posts are great altura.
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.