May 20, 2008Gilmore's national security experience
But this bit came as quite a surprise: An acknowledged authority on national security? Gilmore? Someone please enlighten me. |
SearchQuick Thought
Recent comments
Monthly archivesCategories
Latest columnsToday's editorials
Letters to the editorAbout this blogThe Roanoke Times editorial staff engages readers in a respectful dialogue and exchange of opinion, including our virtual editorial board where you can discuss tomorrow's editorials today. Read more about the editorial staff .....Advertisement.....
|
May 20, 2008
Gilmore's national security experience
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore and senator-wannabe issued a press release saying John McCain is right for criticizing Sen. Barack Obama's foreign policy statements. So the press release was littered with the unimaginative, calling Obama's proposal "inexperienced and dangerous" and even had something about Hitler tossed in.
But this bit came as quite a surprise:
"Gilmore, an acknowledged authority on national security and a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Virginia, said..."
An acknowledged authority on national security? Gilmore? Someone please enlighten me.
Comments
[May 20, 2008 3:50 PM]
HenryJim Gilmore isn't running for President. Barak Obama is running for President. Obama is a lighweight when it comes to foreign policy. That is why he is constantly getting in trouble for what he says.
[May 20, 2008 4:22 PM]
E. StrotherWhile he was governor, Gilmore was chairman of a commission that Congress established in 1999 to assess the country's domestic response capabilities to terrorism. In December 2000, an Associated Press story quoted Gilmore as saying, "The United States has no coherent, functional national strategy for combating terrorism." On that, it was soon evident that he and the commission were right.
[May 20, 2008 8:23 PM]
JoshLuanne,
A simple google check will reveal that headed the Gilmore Committee on 17 members whose job was to provide homeland security with recommendations. A large majority of the committee's recommendations were adopted.
Gilmore, as we know was governor when 9-11 hit Virginia, and headed the state's anti-terrorism response.
E. Strother,
I'm glad you agree the Clinton administration "had no coherent, functional national strategy for combating terrorism" as of December, 2000. Most of us already knew that.
[May 25, 2008 11:22 AM]
JimObama wants to talk with one of our worst enemies, Amahjenidad, and he recently got verbal support from Hamas. I feel safer already.
[May 26, 2008 9:25 AM]
LeverageThe American military has the capability to launch a massive air bombardment on Tehran today.
That doesn't change no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
A president can use the so-called bully pulpit to threaten Tehran and ramp up the aggressive rhetoric and that clearly makes some people in this country feel safer.
If our president can project the confident reality that our military continues to have the power to neutralize a foreign army while suggesting with direct, bold, and unflinching diplomacy that we need a cooling of rhetoric toward Israel and transparency in the development of nuclear energy capabilities - we can prevail.
In the end, the military options remain intact. Why use them first? Why sit back and assume the threat itself is the only way to affect the outcomes we seek?
Bluster, rhetoric, and blowing smoke do nothing to make us safer - they merely push us closer to further weakening our relationships with nations around the world.
Our leverage can be military power - we just need to be a little smarter in how we apply it.