To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (256322 ) 5/20/2002 3:53:11 PM From: DuckTapeSunroof Respond to of 769670 I think 'inexperienced, foreign policy illiterate' might be a LITTLE strong... after all, there were a lot of 'experienced hands' who were retreaded into the administration to back-stop the ex-governor (of course, that also raises the possibility that the 'retreads' bring some obsolete baggage along with them....) I think it might be more productive to just realize that MOST governors are <almost by definition> inexperienced in foreign policy, and unlikely to exert a strong hand in these areas until they get their 'sea legs'. There is no shortage of examples. -------------------------------------------------------- On newly elected <foreign policy inexperienced> governors: ...But - hypothetically now - there may be a difference in what could have been done in similar circumstances with a different experience level at the very top.... Imagine two different scenarios: One in which a President has long experience of daily Presidential intelligence briefings, of dealing with the US intelligence infrastructure, in other words a President in the 3rd., 4th., 5th., 6th., etc. year of his service, who has completed the 'on-the-job training' initial portion of his term.... And the other possible situation, in which a newly-elected ex-governor (governors not being generally known for foreign policy or intelligence expertise) is at the helm and looking at the same sketchy data. Isn't it reasonable to expect that our Presidents learn on the job? We as a people are certainly always commenting about how much they appear to age on the job.... This need not be a Democrat / Republican thing. Perhaps any new President would have deferred to those around him with more experience in these areas. Perhaps it's more the experience, not the ideology. Message 17475716