Garling Gauge

Brains Vs. Bravado: Hillary Vs. Bush on the ‘War on Terrorism’

Republican vs. Democratic minds

Reported in Salon by Tim Grieve, Republican President Bush and Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton “have both just had the opportunity to address the war on terrorism in the context of a relatively sophisticated, academic discussion.

Suffice it to say, they used their opportunities differently.”

First we have excerpts from the president’s October 23, 2007 speech at the National Defense University:

” We’re at war with coldblooded killers who despise freedom, reject tolerance, and kill the innocent in pursuit of their political vision … And one of the real challenges we face is, will we have confidence in the liberty to be transformative? Will we lose faith in the universality of liberty? Will we ignore history and not realize that liberty has got the capacity to yield the peace we want? So this administration, along with many in our military, will continue to spread the hope of liberty, in order to defeat the ideology of darkness, the ideology of the terrorists — and work to secure a future of peace for generations to come. That’s our call.”

Compare the vague, emotional, dogmatic references made by the president to that of Sen. Clinton, responding to “Guardian America’s Michael Tomasky on whether terrorists ‘hate us for our freedoms’ or actually have ’specific geopolitical objectives.’ ”

“Well, I believe that terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives. Some have been ideological, others territorial. There are personality-driven terroristic objectives.

The bottom line is, you can’t lump all terrorists together. And I think we’ve got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d’etre of terrorists. I mean, what the Tamil Tigers are fighting for in Sri Lanka, or the Basque separatists in Spain, or the insurgents in al-Anbar province may only be connected by tactics. They may not share all that much in terms of what is the philosophical or ideological underpinning.

And I think one of our mistakes has been painting with such a broad brush, which has not been particularly helpful in understanding what it is we were up against when it comes to those who pursue terrorism for whichever ends they’re seeking.”

Grieve asks if Bush’s talk of “coldblooded killers” plays better on the campaign trail, while “Clinton’s refusal to ‘lump all terrorists together’ suggest that she has thought about the issue in a slightly more penetrating way.”

When comparing the mindset of most reasonable beings compared with our current president, “slightly more penetrating” is the understatement of the year. Bush has demonstrated a predilection for broad ideals and obtuse decision making during his administration. More than one author of note have commented on his lack of curiosity about the world and the intricacies of public polices. Needless to say our president has earned a global recognition as a dummy.

Just before Clinton’s reelection to the Senate, Raymond Hernandez of the New York Times noted that “since taking office, Mrs. Clinton has managed to cultivate a bipartisan, above-the-fray image that has made her a surprisingly welcome figure in some New York Republican circles, even as she remains exceedingly popular with her liberal base.”

In addition, a September Pew Research Center poll show the public view Clinton as both smart and tough. “No other candidate – Democrat or Republican – comes close to Clinton in being linked with each of these traits.”

That combination is certainly helping her in the polls. Roger Simon of the Politico has written that unlike the 1992 election on the economy, in this election cycle, ‘it’s strength, stupid.’ But toughness won’t do it alone, as demonstrated by Bush’s disastrous Iraq policy and immature statements like “we’re kicking ass [in Iraq].” America is in dire need of a leader with thought on the global stage.

“Well, let’s put it this way”, wrote Grieve, “Can you imagine a reporter asking Bush — as Tomasky asked Clinton — whether he thought the war on Iraq fits “within the tradition we associate with Truman and Acheson”?

“And if a reporter were to ask such a question, can you imagine Bush answering by saying that ‘it’s hard to take what was a philosophy with respect to the use and containment of power during the Cold War and try to shoehorn it into a post-Cold War context’?”

Bush would never construct such a sentence. He would, as usual, speak broadly about the ‘global war on terror’ and how the United States will do whatever it takes regardless of the consequences. In essence, gobbledegook.

Bush approaches national threats and foreign policy as a fearful aggressor cloaked in the broad ideals of a misunderstood visionary, who’s only hope at redemption lies in his own posterity. A Truman on acid.

Our too-late-to-turn-back-now trailblazing president feels misunderstood by the masses ever since he turned the American nation-state into a schoolyard bully that doesn’t understand why he keeps losing friends: “Maybe if I win one more fight they’ll see things my way”.

Conversely, on the surface, Clinton appears to have a greater understanding of the intricacies of the world and the consequences of American policies. If the presidential winds continue blowing in her direction, we might just have a chance to compare how the nation and the world respond and fare to Clinton brains vs. Bush’s bravado.

*
More on Hillary Clinton, Bush

http://www.joemurray.com/bush_ear_debate.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/yvs454