I think that practically every large, modern state has a better foreign policy we do. Better for them I mean.

In some ways we've made that easy for them. So long as we're determined to be the bad cop on the world stage everyone else has plenty of opportunities to play good cop. Now some screw up those opportunities badly, but most will get at least an occasional score.

There will always be conflicts in the world, and the US will always need a good foreign policy, even in times of relative peace.

Couldn't agree more. But the fist-shaking, War-on-Terrorism urgency that seems to come across as McCain's message is not needed. Especially because we may not be actively engaged in a military offensive. Particularly one the public believes to be related to the Sept. 11 attack.

Dave, would you say that that's about par for large, modern nation states

I think that practically every large, modern state has a better foreign policy we do. Better for them I mean.

A lot of that is part and parcel of our overall system. We don't really have a foreign policy in the sense that, say, Britain or France does. Our foreign policy is an emergent phenomenona—the product of the interaction of the many competing political, social, and economic interests in our country.

The bad news is that neither candidate is offering a good foreign policy. The good news is that we've muddled through with a lousy foreign policy for more than 200 years.

I think that, almost by definition, foreign policy can only range from bad to dangerous.

The bad news is that neither candidate is offering a good foreign policy.

This is probably true, but I'd say one candidate in particular is offering a god awful foreign policy. Unless of course you believe a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq is waving a white flag of surrender and antagonizing your enemies with bellicose language is good policy.

The good news is that we've muddled through with a lousy foreign policy for more than 200 years.

Dave, would you say that that's about par for large, modern nation states? (modern=within the last 200 years)

the US will always need a good foreign policy

The bad news is that neither candidate is offering a good foreign policy. The good news is that we've muddled through with a lousy foreign policy for more than 200 years.

An even better question, what importance is there in McCain's foreign policy "experience" if Bush finalizes the end of major military action abroad?

I think it unlikely that even another Bush term would bring war again.

What, then, makes McCain's "dangerous world" rhetoric necessary or urgent?

There will always be conflicts in the world, and the US will always need a good foreign policy, even in times of relative peace.

Question, is McCain going to start questioning Bush's patriotism now?

An even better question, what importance is there in McCain's foreign policy "experience" if Bush finalizes the end of major military action abroad?

I think it unlikely that even another Bush term would bring war again.

What, then, makes McCain's "dangerous world" rhetoric necessary or urgent?

I think it would be wise of McCain to peddle some other major issues more domestically involved in the weeks to come.

Question, is McCain going to start questioning Bush's patriotism now?