Foreign policy is a critical part of selecting a president, but most often, the potential candidates have little practical experience in that arena. Bill Richardson has the most extensive practical experience by far, but has no chance of winning; the rest in both parties have to rely on policy presentation instead, backed by a show of in-depth study. In that sense, how badly should this statement disqualify a candidate on the eve of the primaries?
That is like saying “Iran is about to invade Mars.” I mean, they have nothing. They don’t have an army or navy or air force.
They don't? In fact, the Iranians have two of each, as the CIA notes in its Factbook. The Artesh represents the regulars, while the Revolutionary Guard has its own forces in each branch. They spend a significant portion of their GDP on maintaining their military, belying the thought that the Iranians cannot project military power.
At Heading Right, I note the candidate who said this utterly indefensible remark about the largest regional threat in the Middle East should not only be ignored as a presidential candidate, but his constituents should rethink his qualifications for his current office for being so uninformed. (via Hot Air, which covers other items from this transcript as well)
NOTE: I am under no obligation to publish comments from unverified users. Given the abuse regularly spewed by commenters on my Ron Paul threads, I will simply dump any abusive, off-topic, hysterical rants and unconnected cheerleader comments from those outside the CapQ community.
If Paul's commenter army can't abide criticism of their candidate, that tells the rest of us quite a bit about the maturity of this movement. I don't get anywhere near the level of abuse from those who support Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards when I criticize them. If the Paul commenters don't think people notice this, they are very much mistaken. If Paul's supporters want him to be taken seriously, then they should consider how their behavior reflects on their candidate.