Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
I am glad that it is Obama - not Romney - that is in office to deal with the current international quandaries. Not because I like Obama's foreign policy but because Romney's embarrassing lack thereof which would have been heavily influenced by the same neo-cons that took advantage of the last Republican President that was uninterested in foreign policy.
I am much more hopeful for Susan Rice as Secretary of State, but regardless of who takes over (even if it was Romney/Senor) can we evaluate Clinton's tenure as SOS as anything but a failure?
She leaves with a hot war raging in Israel, a humanitarian crisis in Syria, a desperate coutry approaching nuclear capabilities, an "ally" in Pakistan that is using American debt to fuel their own military capabilities against a more sensible ally (India), and the expansion of decades-long willingness to engage in murdering whomever the CIA or White House please without regard for the sovereignty of the nations encroached upon or the lack of a trial afforded to underage American citizens.
Her appointment looks to be little more than a coalescing of the Democratic party for electoral purposes from a wily President that entrenched the vicious elements of previous administrations he had pledged to reform.
|
How much of a difference could any other SOS make? Not sure all of that is her fault. Seems like the cards fell into place with the US not being able to do much about it. Obama is playing the Syria crisis right in my books. Not sure what else we can do but to sit back and let them fight it out.