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
Alan Caruba is a guy who doubts Herman Cain can find Uzbekistan on the map.I like that Herman Cain can find Israel on a map and would defend Israel and instill in Iran a sense of limits.
Obama has bullied Israel and removed the secular regimes in the region to facilitate Iran's takeover.
Obama has compromised our security by yielding to Putin on missile defense.
Obama has conceded Iraq to the fate of a sand castle.
Obama has made Afghanistan bloodier than ever before whose leader Karzai just said he would stand with Pakistan against us.
Obama said he would stand with the muslims and their 57 states.
The media's shrieking fairies and carping harpies embrace America's enemies, hence defend Obama and attack Herman Cain.
The US must stand with Israel
By Herman Cain
8/28/11
Imagine living in a neighborhood where most of your neighbors wish you would move away. Since you have a right to be there and it happens to be the home of many generations of your family, you refuse to be intimidated into leaving, even though you are frequently violently attacked and your family members are sometimes killed. Although painfully saddened, your resolve to remain in your neighborhood is not weakened.
That neighborhood is the dwelling place of Israel, a nation surrounded by many of its enemies.
Having spent last week touring Israel and talking with many of its citizens — including the deputy speaker of the Knesset, the leader of the opposition party in the Knesset, the mayor of Jerusalem, the mayor of the city of Ariel and the deputy prime minister — I now have a greater appreciation for the threats Israel faces as well as Israelis’ frustrations and their genuine desire for peace.
The threats posed by neighboring nations and the Palestinians are very real. After seeing first-hand the proximity of Israel’s enemies’ borders to Israeli communities and the peaceful and positive developments in the city of Ariel, it is easy to understand why the Israelis consider the idea of going back to the pre-1967 borders, as proposed by President Obama, to be unreasonable, impractical and, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said, a non-starter.
Unreasonable and impractical demands by the Palestinians have stalled the so-called peace process for decades. This is not just something that I have recently concluded from visiting Israel. This is something I’ve concluded from decades of watching the developments between Israel and the Palestinians.
One of Israel’s major frustrations stems from a lack of clarity about its relationship with the United States.
Different administrations have shown different levels of support for Israel, but the actions of the Obama administration have signaled renewed and disappointing confusion about our support for the country. Suggesting that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders only emboldens Israel’s enemies.
Let me be direct and clear. I support Israel’s position that the 1967 borders must stand. I also support the position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and that Jerusalem must never be divided.
And for those who may challenge or remain silent on these two critical issues, I challenge them to spend time (as I have) experiencing what many people do not know, and what some people don’t want the rest of the world to know.
I am convinced that the Israelis want peace and that, unlike some of their neighbors, they have been willing to make many concessions over the years for the sake of peace.
I attended the closing program of Glenn Beck’s special event in Israel, “Restoring Courage,” which could not have been held in a more appropriate location. No other nation has better exemplified courage throughout its history than the nation of Israel. It has consistently survived and thrived against the odds.
The United States must have the courage to stand with its friend Israel. It is in our shared interests to do so for the sake of peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world.
With me as president of the United States of America, we would stand with Israel.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/the-u-s-must-stand-with-israel/#ixzz1cxc0N5n7
ROTFLMAO So much for this author's credibility.
Approaching foreign policy with a firm grasp of American history, expecially the mistakes in foreign policy, combined with a solid set of core values and right principles is much more palatable than trusting a micro-managing imbecile like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama.
A President Herman Cain will surround himself with conservative advisors like John Bolton.
Cain's Peace through Strength and Clarity position is precisely what will keep us safe and well-informed of world problems.
You are simply not permitted to critique a candidate who is advantaged by having virtually no record whatsoever. It’s supposed to be a virtue, and therefore considered a “plus”
that along with having no record, a candidate like that would have no real clue. That being said, Cain has a much broader grasp and is far more articulate about his fuzzing up what he doesn’t know than Palin ever was, but even she had 18 mos as a governor and was seen willing to buck the establishment. I don’t follow Cain closely, but so far, has he uttered even a peep against Romney, or the establishment, or the corruption involved with all these establishment comprommises? Smoke and mirrors is already sitting in the White House with no record, but boy was he a great speaker in the beginning. What is the difference between community organizing and motivational speaking anyway, really?
I prefer the wrecking ball Rick announced this week. We need one and we need him. IMHO.
Kissinger failed everyone but Cain in foreign policy? Where did you get that notion?
Yeah, ole Henry is a real hoot when he's not drooling on his shoes.
Here's what he said about Jon Huntsman:
“A very good ambassador, I think he’s intelligent, well-poised, did a good job in China, and certainly makes a good candidate.”
Slow day on the Perry threads, isn’t it?...
I’m confident Huntsman is quite intelligent.
Speaks Mandarin. Former popular governor of a very conservative state.
He’s just a milquetoast, is all.
Cain isn’t.
And, of course, Kissinger was a McCain supporter...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/02/kissinger-praises-obamas-handling-egypt-mubarak-months-most/
..translation: Cain is not a Wilsonian Globalist, hence unqualified...
Stop talking about my panties. You’re cruising for a sexual harassment charge. :)
As opposed to the famous knee-jerk, pandering know-it-all response to a vague hypothetical question that candidates are prone to give.
It’s extremely important right now. Iran is on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. Perry discussed this.
He also mentioned getting a good secretary of state in place and he is thinking of John Bolton.
I agree with you altura. The article was thoughfully written and most of all, it is accurate.
Alan Caruba
Bingo!
It’s not a Cain thread. It’s a thread for discussing Cain’s lack of foreign policy expertise or experience.
Stop disrupting this thread if your only contribution is to use the term Perrywinkle and refuse to acknowledge that Cain has a weakness in a particular area.
on that I do agree with you altura. We are not supposed to question or ask on Cain without being called “smear bots” NOW, watching the debates last night he came across well and had some good ideas..I still do NOT like the 999 plan and have other issues I still have not resolved. August is a long way off...when we elect our nominee...I want whoever we select to be well vetted. btw...we are voting this tues here on whether or not to raise our county taxes....we really are taxed enough already.
Bearded Marxist?
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.