"Foreign policy experience"

[CA95380]

Everyone keeps saying that Obama does not have enough "Foreign policy experience", to be President

What experience, in foreign affairs did our last five presidents have before they took office?

Most of them were Governors - what "foreign expierence" did they have?

As I see it, possibly George Herbert Walker Bush had the most experience? And he wasn't all that great. Right? Wrong?


James Earl Carter, Jr., (President 1977-1981)
Georgia State Senator, 1963-66
Governor of Georgia, 1971-75

Ronald Wilson Reagan, (President 1981-1989)
Governor of California, 1967-75

George Herbert Walker Bush, (President 1989-1993)
Member of U.S. House of Representatives, 1967-71
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1971-72
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1976-77
Vice President, 1981-89 (under Reagan)

William Jefferson Clinton, (President 1993-2001)
Arkansas Attorney General, 1976-78
Governor of Arkansas, 1978-80, 1982-92

George Walker Bush, (President 2001-2008)
Governor of Texas, 1995-2000

Internet Public Library: POTUS

 

[Chris]

Everyone keeps saying that Obama does not have enough "Foreign policy experience", to be President

What experience, in foreign affairs did our last five presidents have before they took office?

Most of them were Governors - what "foreign expierence" did they have?

As I see it, possibly George Herbert Walker Bush had the most experience? And he wasn't all that great. Right? Wrong?


James Earl Carter, Jr., (President 1977-1981)
Georgia State Senator, 1963-66
Governor of Georgia, 1971-75

Ronald Wilson Reagan, (President 1981-1989)
Governor of California, 1967-75

George Herbert Walker Bush, (President 1989-1993)
Member of U.S. House of Representatives, 1967-71
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1971-72
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1976-77
Vice President, 1981-89 (under Reagan)

William Jefferson Clinton, (President 1993-2001)
Arkansas Attorney General, 1976-78
Governor of Arkansas, 1978-80, 1982-92

George Walker Bush, (President 2001-2008)
Governor of Texas, 1995-2000

Internet Public Library: POTUS

Actually Obama has a lot of experience. He is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has been getting the secret CIA briefings for years. None of those ex-governors could say the same.

 

[Gunny]

Everyone keeps saying that Obama does not have enough "Foreign policy experience", to be President

What experience, in foreign affairs did our last five presidents have before they took office?

Most of them were Governors - what "foreign expierence" did they have?

As I see it, possibly George Herbert Walker Bush had the most experience? And he wasn't all that great. Right? Wrong?


James Earl Carter, Jr., (President 1977-1981)
Georgia State Senator, 1963-66
Governor of Georgia, 1971-75

Ronald Wilson Reagan, (President 1981-1989)
Governor of California, 1967-75

George Herbert Walker Bush, (President 1989-1993)
Member of U.S. House of Representatives, 1967-71
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1971-72
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1976-77
Vice President, 1981-89 (under Reagan)

William Jefferson Clinton, (President 1993-2001)
Arkansas Attorney General, 1976-78
Governor of Arkansas, 1978-80, 1982-92

George Walker Bush, (President 2001-2008)
Governor of Texas, 1995-2000

Internet Public Library: POTUS

Bush and Fox were thick as thieves while he was Governor. The Governor of Texas has a lot of PR with Mexico. We share a pretty big border with them.

 

[Chris]

Bush and Fox were thick as thieves while he was Governor. The Governor of Texas has a lot of PR with Mexico. We share a pretty big border with them.

So leaving our border open to illegals counts as foreign policy experience?

 

[morpheus]

"Foreign policy experience" is another one of those election-year gimmicks. Why hasn't this been an issue in past election years, when many candidates (including those who eventually won the presidency) had little foreign policy experience? Does anyone remember back in 2000 when that local journalist quizzed then-Governor Bush on Chechnya, India, Taiwan, and Pakistan (4 hot spots of the day), and Bush failed the quiz? And how much more does McCain know on international developments than Obama does? Let's be real here. Foreign policy is guided by lobby groups, industrial interests, PR firms, the Pentagon, and not by the president. Not even by the congressional committee on foreign relations...do you actually think these folks are knowledgeable on world affairs and are not susceptible to propaganda (or even bribes) from special interests? Let's be real here, folks.

But, foreign policy has suddenly become the buzzword of this election year, like stem-cell research was in 2004. Pick a buzzword, repeat it several times in the media, and convince the American public that they actually have a chance to steer their country in the right direction by debating the chosen topic of the day. It's all an illusion, yet the public is duped everytime. So-and-so believes this, so-and-so believes that...so-and-so has experience on this and that... This is all completely absurd, yet the public gobbles it up like a supersized BicMac meal.

The reality is, I don't see major differences between a McCain presidency and an Obama presidency regarding foreign policy. The McCain presidency will be very hawkish and the Obama presidency will be very naive and vulnerable to special interests. Either way, we'll get the same foreign policy. Only the lingo will change. Democrats will make it their mission to "defend human rights" while Republicans will "fight terrorists and promote democracy". Different words, same thing. Beneath the rhetoric, we can expect a foreign policy driven by economic and geostrategic interests: pipelines, military bases, crude oil and natural gas reserves, shipping routes, continental shelves and undersea drilling, markets and free market agreements, and the like. This will drive foreign policy, and don't expect much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

 

[Jon]

Foreign policy is important this year because of our failing foreign relations over the last eight.

 

[editec]

Actually I think overall George Bush the elder did a fairly good job on the foreign policy front.

Also I also credit that Bush I's tax increases for setting up Clinton such that Clinton could balance the budget.

Bush II, of course, completely blew all his father's fine work on behalf of americans' futures completely out of the water.

 

[jillian]

Actually I think overall George Bush the elder did a fairly good job on the foreign policy front.

Also I also credit that Bush I's tax increases for setting up Clinton such that Clinton could balance the budget.

Bush II, of course, completely blew all his father's fine work on behalf of americans' futures completely out of the water.

Daddy Bush did a good job on foreign policy... which is why he had about a 90% approval rating at the end of Gulf I.... but it was the economy that got him... that and his not knowing what a supermarket scanner was.

unfortunately, his son is an ijit who said he listened to "THE Father" instead of "HIS father" when he went into Iraq....

 

[editec]

Daddy Bush did a good job on foreign policy... which is why he had about a 90% approval rating at the end of Gulf I.... but it was the economy that got him... that and his not knowing what a supermarket scanner was.

unfortunately, his son is an ijit who said he listened to "THE Father" instead of "HIS father" when he went into Iraq....

Agreed.

But his based abandoned him because he renigned on his "read my lips no new taxes" promise.

Had he NOT done the right thing, he might very well have won a second term.

 

[Shadow]

Obama has stated that his foreign policy experience consists of " being 10years old and living in Indonesia". No one is weaker than this braniac on foreign policy. Even Clinton and Biden mocked him on this point.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Everyone keeps saying that Obama does not have enough "Foreign policy experience", to be President

What experience, in foreign affairs did our last five presidents have before they took office?

Most of them were Governors - what "foreign expierence" did they have?

As I see it, possibly George Herbert Walker Bush had the most experience? And he wasn't all that great. Right? Wrong?


James Earl Carter, Jr., (President 1977-1981)
Georgia State Senator, 1963-66
Governor of Georgia, 1971-75

Ronald Wilson Reagan, (President 1981-1989)
Governor of California, 1967-75

George Herbert Walker Bush, (President 1989-1993)
Member of U.S. House of Representatives, 1967-71
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1971-72
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1976-77
Vice President, 1981-89 (under Reagan)

William Jefferson Clinton, (President 1993-2001)
Arkansas Attorney General, 1976-78
Governor of Arkansas, 1978-80, 1982-92

George Walker Bush, (President 2001-2008)
Governor of Texas, 1995-2000

Internet Public Library: POTUS

That's always a meaningless point. They will all surround themselves with experts that support their basic world view and will appoint an experienced Secretary of State for that anyway.

That being said, a President's role and primary focus has to be foreign policy, not domestic. Presidents have very little control over domestic policy, that's the Congress' job. A President is Commander in Chief, and their primary duty is National Defense, which means their main focus, day in and day out, is foreign, not domestic

 

[Zoomie1980]

Agreed.

But his based abandoned him because he renigned on his "read my lips no new taxes" promise.

Had he NOT done the right thing, he might very well have won a second term.

Had Ross Perot not run, he would have won and we never would have known what a Clinton was....

 

[morpheus]

Foreign policy is important this year because of our failing foreign relations over the last eight.

Important issues are not always election issues. Often times, they're not. Foreign relations has only entered public discourse belatedly because it's one area where opposing candidates (both Republicans and Democrats) felt thay can expose a weakness in Barrack Obama, and because they've been trying to tie it into the themes of "terrorism" and "security". It's not repairing relations with major world countries that the McCain campaign is after; it's relations with Iran and North Korea that they're hoping to convince the American public that Obama can't handle. A bit of a scare tactic. And a smokescreen issue: Iran and North Korea will remain on the forefront of American political discourse, but underneath the surface, the United States will be fighting covert wars, like Georgia for example. It's easy: distract the public, convince them there's a powerful enemy that can't be contained, and consolidate public support for a wider foreign policy. The public will have a false sense of security, and special interests will be reaping the benefits. Americans fall for it every time. Works like a charm.

 

[CA95380]

Actually I think overall George Bush the elder did a fairly good job on the foreign policy front.

Also I also credit that Bush I's tax increases for setting up Clinton such that Clinton could balance the budget.

Bush II, of course, completely blew all his father's fine work on behalf of americans' futures completely out of the water.

Good points .... but .... if George Bush, Sr. had not pulled out of Desert Storm after restoring Kuwait's sovereignty ... and finished the job in Iraq ... we would not be there today.

 

[editec]

Had Ross Perot not run, he would have won and we never would have known what a Clinton was....

Very probable, I suppose.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Good points .... but .... if George Bush, Sr. had not pulled out of Desert Storm after restoring Kuwait's sovereignty ... and finished the job in Iraq ... we would not be there today.

We would have gone through the same mess, 10 years sooner.... Maybe a little less because we had a much larger force back then and broader international support, but it still would have been years mired in an insurgency suppression. Those are alway ugly.

 

[editec]

Good points .... but .... if George Bush, Sr. had not pulled out of Desert Storm after restoring Kuwait's sovereignty ... and finished the job in Iraq ... we would not be there today.

Or...we might.

 

[morpheus]

Good points .... but .... if George Bush, Sr. had not pulled out of Desert Storm after restoring Kuwait's sovereignty ... and finished the job in Iraq ... we would not be there today.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he expected -at best- American backing and -at worse- American indifference. In exchange for his cooperation with the United States against Iran during the 1981-1988 Iran-Iraq war (in which Hussein was a close American ally), Washington led him to believe -throughout the 1980s- that once the war with Iran was over, the United States would not oppose Iraqi military action to resolve a border dispute with Kuwait. At the time, Iraq claimed the al-Rumalya oil field, a disputed border strip, and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan). The New York Times got a hold of a transcript of the discussions between American ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein and his deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz. On September 23, 1990, the NYT quoted Glaspie saying to the Iraqis:

But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi [Chadli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

At the time, Glaspie was reiterating the traditional American position regarding the issue, and had not yet ben briefed by Washington on how to respond in such a situation. Subsequent accounts by Washington officials claim that this was standard diplomatic language for an ambassador not yet briefed by his/her government, and that Saddam Hussein had known that he would meet American resistance when invading Kuwait. However none of these attempts at damage control fully explain Glaspie's curious language. Why had it been standard procedure since the 1960s to express indifference on border duspites between allies? Interestingly, throughout the Iran-Iraq war, Washington supplied Saddam Hussein with arms and funding (despite domestic human rights abuses and violations of Geneva conventions in the war against Iran), and even military assistance in the Persian Gulf, which was exposed during the accidental shooting down of an Iranian airliner by American warships in 1988. What was the US military doing there? And why was the Reagan administration consistently heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law? And why did Washington belatedly use Hussein's human rights abuses against him during the 1990-1991 Persian Gul War, when Iraqi Kurdish refugees had been fleeing to Europe throughout the 1980s with documented evidence of the genocide against them? Why was this ignored in the American press until years later, when it was convenient to mention it?

 

[CA95380]

morpheus ... it all boils down to the United States poking their nose into other countries business. It has been that way since before WWI ... and I do not think in our life time we will see it change. It is just not profitable ... in the eyes of 99% of those elected @$$holes in DC. Very stupid mistakes have been made by most administration's.

They tell us one thing before being elected then do the complete opposite! Right down to our city dog catchers. Do we vote for dog catcher's ... but you get the idea of what I am saying, I think.

 

[Zoomie1980]

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he expected -at best- American backing and -at worse- American indifference. In exchange for his cooperation with the United States against Iran during the 1981-1988 Iran-Iraq war (in which Hussein was a close American ally), Washington led him to believe -throughout the 1980s- that once the war with Iran was over, the United States would not oppose Iraqi military action to resolve a border dispute with Kuwait. At the time, Iraq claimed the al-Rumalya oil field, a disputed border strip, and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan). The New York Times got a hold of a transcript of the discussions between American ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein and his deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz. On September 23, 1990, the NYT quoted Glaspie saying to the Iraqis:



At the time, Glaspie was reiterating the traditional American position regarding the issue, and had not yet ben briefed by Washington on how to respond in such a situation. Subsequent accounts by Washington officials claim that this was standard diplomatic language for an ambassador not yet briefed by his/her government, and that Saddam Hussein had known that he would meet American resistance when invading Kuwait. However none of these attempts at damage control fully explain Glaspie's curious language. Why had it been standard procedure since the 1960s to express indifference on border duspites between allies? Interestingly, throughout the Iran-Iraq war, Washington supplied Saddam Hussein with arms and funding (despite domestic human rights abuses and violations of Geneva conventions in the war against Iran), and even military assistance in the Persian Gulf, which was exposed during the accidental shooting down of an Iranian airliner by American warships in 1988. What was the US military doing there? And why was the Reagan administration consistently heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law? And why did Washington belatedly use Hussein's human rights abuses against him during the 1990-1991 Persian Gul War, when Iraqi Kurdish refugees had been fleeing to Europe throughout the 1980s with documented evidence of the genocide against them? Why was this ignored in the American press until years later, when it was convenient to mention it?

It wasn't until the very end of the 1980's that Cold War wound to a halt. For most of that decade, especially the first half, before Gorbachev, we were still in a very hotly contested Cold War. The Soviets burning desire was alway unfettered access to Warm Water port(s). Their strategic goal was to move ever southward in S. Asia towards one. The also were very afraid of Islamic terrorism on their southern fringe. To counter Soviet expansion in Southern Asia and the Middle East we used Iran up until 1980. With the fall of the Shah, we essentially had NO allies to prevent a Soviet march to the Arabian Sea. They had client states in Egypt and Syria as well as Afghanistan and, tacitly in Iraq. Iran was a new threat, being an enemy of the Soviets AND America. So we needed an ally in the region and the only viable one was Sadaam. A counterweight to Iran AND the Soviets.

It's how we lived in a BiPolar world. We used fervent anti-Communist dictators in Latin America, and lots of unsavory allies in Africa and the Middle East, not to mention a corrupt government in S Vietnam. But we would do ANYTHING to prevent the Soviets from gaining more ground. So we tolerated Sadaam, and still would be tolerating him today if he hadn't invaded Kuwait.

Geopolitk. There are ALWAYS more important strategic issues that the places we are in actual conflict. Iraq and Afghanistan have little to do with combating terrorism. That is just what you are being told. Their REAL goal is the establishment of large military bases from which America can project power over the last great untapped natural resources region on earth, the South Central Asian Caspian-Aral Sea region. If anyone believes differently, they are blind fools. And yes, I absolutely, 100% support that because we simply cannot allow China, Russia or India to have control over it.