US foreign policy

With the Missisippi primary only a day away, Americans are again faced with the difficult choice; Clinton or Obama?

The two candidates offer virtually the same policy options, so the deciding factor has come down to what each candidate has done in the "past".

Clinton - favored the Iraq war.

Obama - opposed the Iraq war.

The question here isn't "was the Iraq war the right thing to do?" but rather "what would Clinton/Obama do in the case of a national security emergency?"

最近、クリントン上院議員のCMが注目を集めている：「午前3時、皆様が安らかに眠っている時に、ホワイトハウスの赤い電話（緊急時にしか鳴らない電話）が鳴りました。あなたなら、誰にその電話をとってほしいですか？」。つまり緊急事態が発生した場合、「経験があるクリントン」と「経験の浅いオバマ」の誰が大統領になるべきか、を問いかけるCMです。

Personally, thinking back to the days immediately after 9.11, opposing the war on Iraq would have been perceived as "unpatriotic" (非愛国的）and thus would have been the more difficult stance to maintain. Of course "hindsight is 20/20" (後から振り返ると、視力が左右2.0かのように物事がはっきり見える）so it's easier today to criticise the Bush administration for its failure in Iraq. But given the state of the US intelligence community (CIA・FBI・NSA等の情報機関）, it's quite understandable how a President could make wrong and hasty decisions.

I do give credit to Sen. Obama for opposing the Iraq war. Maybe experience is not such a good thing if the whole point is to change the status quo.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile