Why do Presidential candidates avoid foreign policy - 6.15.2007.1

It would seem that I am not the only person with questions for the future President of the United States. I doubt that Mr. Clinton Whitehurst and I are the only ones. Yet the candidates, of both parties, continue to avoid questions that go beyond the simple 30 second soundbite.

I have yet to hear a single candidate speak about some of the issues Mr. Whitehurst brings up. While these are questions limited to foreign policy, they are important. They include:

“If North Korea reneges on its promise to give up its nuclear-weapons program, should the US encourage Japan to develop nuclear weapons?

How should the United States Respond to a Chinese military action against Taiwan?

In the Western hemisphere, for example, should the United States lift its embargo against Cuba?”

And several other questions that the next Commander-and Chief must be able to respond to. While all eyes of the citizenry are turned towards the Middle East, no one is asking what will happen elsewhere. It’s not enough to know that the next President wants to end the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter. How they will end these current wars and what they intend to do about the rest of the world are critical in our decision in choosing among the candidates.

Perhaps one of the candidates will be bold enough to answer the questions that aren’t being asked, and give an answer that will be better than a soundbite. Then again it seems they are in no more of a hurry to answer the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University than they are to answer me.

Don’t you wonder why?