That's diplomacy. That means talking to the Irans, to the Syrias, to the -- North Korea. I've done it, all my life, as diplomat, as a U.N. ambassador, as a special envoy, as a hostage negotiator.
I've got the most international experience here, with all due respect. There's a lot of good international experience here. But I've gone head-to-head in North Korea, and we got back -- we got back six remains of our soldiers six months ago. We got the North Koreans to stop their nuclear reactor.
And so, I believe it's important that we have a leader, not just who can bring people together, but could resolve some of the thorniest problems we have.
Alright, let’s get to the bottom of this right now. Let’s determine right here, right now who exactly has the most international experience that is relevant to the job of being President of the United States of America and let's agree to move past this issue of international experience so we can talk real issues. From About.com:
-Hillary during the Clinton years in the White House was involved in many overseas trips and the hosting of dignitaries from around the world. She and daughter Chelsea made an unprecedented tour of Africa in 1997.
-Barack lived four years in Jakarta, Indonesia. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has visited many spots around the world vital to U.S. interests including Russia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Israel among others. His most high profile trip was an August 2006 visit to Africa where he brought his family to his father's birthplace in Kenya. Touching...
-John served on the Select Committee on Intelligence in the Senate. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Edwards, along with former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp, chair a task force on U.S.-Russia relations. In the Fall of 2006, he visited Uganda with the International Rescue Committee.
-Bill’s first professional job was working on congressional relations at the U.S. State Department. He later was a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As a member of Congress he travelled extensively around the world, and played a key role shaping U.S. foreign policy as the U.N. ambassador. In 1995, he successfully negotiated with Saddam Hussein for the release of two American workers being held in Iraq. Similarly in 2006, he negotiated the release of an American journalist held in Sudan by President Omar Al-Bashir.
-Chris is a long serving member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a special interest in Latin America. He lived in the Dominican Republic during his time in the Peace Corps, and now leads the Senate subcommittee which oversees that agency. In 1999, Dodd received the Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Public Service Award for his foreign policy leadership.
-Joe is a long serving member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and serves as chair in the 110th Congress. He is considered one of the Democratic Party's leading voices on foreign policy. And his assignment on the Senate Judiciary Committee has given him experience on immigration, citizenship, and international narcotics regulation.
-Kucinich served as a congressional representative to at least one global climate treaty conference. His campaign Web site says he has "...hosted an international parliamentary session" and "...has been recognized for his advocacy of human rights in Burma, Nigeria and East Timor." In 2003, Kucinich won the Gandhi Peace Award.
Alright, so Richardson is the only one who has a record of specifically negotiating to free hostages. But he only has two success stories to tell. Does that bother anybody else here? I mean, how many instances did he have to go in and negotiate? Was his success rate really two out of all the times he negotiated?
Bill, Chris, and Joe seem to be the candidates most fit for foreign policy relations based on experience. But that’s saying that they possess the mindset and character to deal with people in today’s international world. What success they had in the 1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s may not be possible now when considering the shift in how the world views America as a result of the war in Iraq. Therefore, since all candidates have participated in the world and negotiated or held talks with international leaders, this should be deemed a moot point.
Richardson can cite his negotiating background as a strong reason to vote for him. But, he cannot argue that makes him better for working with the world and carrying out diplomacy.
All candidates have experience in the world so it’s not enough to say you have more experience. What is enough is letting the American how you will handle each little situation and each country which presents a conflict to America. That is why you must not refuse to deal in “hypotheticals.” We want to know what you will do as president so fill us in or drop out of the race. (This is specifically directed at Barack and Hillary.)
If it’s classified strategy, say it is. But don’t dodge. We don’t need another Bush administration that avoids being straight with the American people and gets us in another mess.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
