My name isn’t Ted Cruz.
I just thought you’d be able to answer the question. Sorry to bother you.
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.