Quayle on Clinton Foreign Policy

So Dan Quayle wants to be president. What else could prompt the former vice president’s attack on the Clinton administration’s foreign policy, replete with the implication that he could do better (Column Right, June 21)?

In response to Washington’s last crisis with Iraq, one largely defused by U.N. mediation, Quayle chides Clinton for allowing U.N. “interference.” The Bush-Quayle administration gave the U.N. dominion over the Iraqi crisis when it chose to use the U.N. as a vehicle for consensus-building and post-war resolutions.

On China, Quayle goes from amnesiac to hypocrite. He forgets that it was the Bush administration that took the lead in rehabilitating Beijing’s reputation following the Tiananmen Square massacre. He assails Clinton’s handling of the Asian power without offering any alternative whatsoever.

Rounding out Quayle’s exposition is a paying of respects to some of the moneyed interests he no doubt hopes will finance his presidential dreams. This, of course, means a perfunctory criticism of Yasser Arafat and a healthy offering to powerful defense companies, thus Quayle’s insistence on a missile defense system.

PAUL BRAR

Fountain Valley

*

Quayle fails miserably to state the Republican case against the Clinton administration. What must be frustrating to Quayle is the Clinton success story. Except for some die-hard Republicans, Clinton is generally given high marks for his foreign policy. Quayle is silent on the economy. President Reagan did not bring down the Soviet Union by himself--the communists had an unworkable economy. Perhaps Reagan’s policy hastened its demise by a few years.

Bush and Reagan were good and reasonable men who also made some mistakes. I am not a Republican, but I will not denigrate our ex-presidents with self-serving claptrap. However, I would vote for Godzilla for president before ever considering Quayle.

MARTIN BURTON

Rancho Palos Verdes