Conservative and moderate foreign policy analysts continue to skewer the Republican presidential contenders for their amateurish handling of foreign affairs issues at the Saturday night CBS News debate.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has received considerable criticism for his suggestion that foreign aid for Israel should start from scratch each year, forcing the Israelis to make their case for U.S. assistance.
Factcheck.org found several instances of false statements or exaggerations by Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.
But the consensus loser in the debate – and in the days since — was Herman Cain.
Fouad Ajami, a prominent hawk in the neoconservative movement and an outspoken watchdog of Arab and Islamic governments, was especially harsh. He said Cain’s lack of knowledge about the brief war in Libya is “disgraceful” and that the top tier of candidates is a “very, very poor field” with the exception of Gingrich.
Over at National Review, Elise Jordan offered a similarly distressing overview.
“When it comes to international affairs, most of the contenders offer plenty of political theater and little substance.
“First there are the ‘know nothing’ candidates, who struggle to produce a 1-minute debate answer,” Jordan wrote. “They fear straying from conventional Republican foreign-policy talking points because they know nothing about foreign policy and merely aspire to keep afloat in the debate.
“Rick Perry and Herman Cain duked it out to see who is captain of the Know Nothing team. Who was more unimpressive? It was a close call.”
Yesterday, when asked a question by a reporter from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel about U.S. military assistance to Libyan rebels, Cain experienced a brain freeze of eight to 10 seconds, a video version of which has already gone viral on the Internet.
“Okay, Libya,” Cain said, before rolling his eyes and pausing to gather his thoughts.
“President Obama supported the uprising,” he said. “Correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gadhafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say, ’yes I agree’ or ‘no I didn’t agree’.”
He continued: “I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason — no that’s a different one.” The confused candidate added that he’d “got all this stuff twirling around in my head.” When he finally answered, his response advocated a position that isn’t much difference than the actions Obama took.
When asked today by a reporter about his gaffe in Milwaukee on the Libya issue, Cain, in a forceful, robotic voice responded slowly: “9 … 9 … 9” – a reference to his tax plan, not any foreign policy issues.
David Shorr, author of “Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide,” said that Saturday’s debate in South Carolina was marred by “some candidates (who) appeared utterly unserious and unprepared.”
Here’s how Shorr summed up his impressions of the GOP field:
“First, a quick best and worst. It was no contest for best: Jon Huntsman. Gov. Huntsman’s quotient of substance to platitudes/cheap applause lines was way above everyone else. Of course, foreign policy seriousness is a pillar of his candidacy (bless him). And of course his poll numbers have been stuck in the basement. If there are any centrist Republicans among our readers, this man is trying to rescue you from the fire-breathers.
“… Worst was also an easy call: Herman Cain. The man said almost nothing of substance on Saturday — and ‘almost’ might be too generous. He keeps reaching for the same line about how presidents have plenty of advisers and don’t really have to know anything. ‘Herman Cain, the candidate who will make up for his ignorance by seeking a lot of advice.’ Don’t know if that’s going to fly with the electorate, but we’ll see. At one point, Cain tossed in the word strategically a few times because, you know, that sounds commander-in-chiefish.”
Kelsey Hartigan, a military and foreign policy writer for the National Security Network, wrote a blog for Democracy Arsenal that shredded the low-knowledge answers given by the candidates on the subject of Iran.
Hartigan explains that every idea raised by the candidates either is already an element of Obama’s policy of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program (particularly amusing were all the loud calls for covert action, said Shorr), or would have disastrous unintended consequences.
You can read Hartigan’s entire post here.
