Hillary Exaggerates On Foreign Policy Experience

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by SomeMildLanguage, Mar 14, 2008.

  1. SomeMildLanguage

    SomeMildLanguage 500+ Posts

  2. Sii

    Sii 1,000+ Posts

    I'm shocked
     
  3. blueglasshorse

    blueglasshorse 1,000+ Posts


     
  4. SomeMildLanguage

    SomeMildLanguage 500+ Posts

    Supporting President Bush in 1999, 2000, 2004, or now is irrelevant.

    Foreign policy credentials weren't even a major issue in 2000. We were all still living in fantasyland with our mythological post-Soviet peace dividend, replete with benign and/or irrelevant bad guys, invincible American military technology, and not the vaguest notion of attacks on American soil. In 2000, the GOP primary race focused on tax cuts and entitlement reform and electability and restoring dignity to the White House and social values. 8-9 years ago, foreign policy experience was just a bonus, not a central requirement.

    This is 2008. If we could transpose today's geopolitical circumstances onto 2000, there's very little way Governor Bush would have been the nominee. McCain ultimately won the nomination this year because he was the "adult" with the most foreign policy experience.

    Moreover, I think the point that Bush was not experienced on foreign policy, therefore it's okay for Hillary/Obama to be inexperienced on foreign policy, tends to ricochet. I think the Bush administration probably tells us that real foreign policy experience-- prior to taking office-- is incredibly important.
     
  5. UT Spring Branch

    UT Spring Branch 500+ Posts

    Bush was the son of a president - but he did not make up stories about his foreign experience
     

Share This Page