Abject bullies
Publius articulates something I've been trying to wrap my brain and my typing digits around for some time.
It's true. The blatherers on the right have, with some success, painted the years of peace and prosperity that marked Clinton's two terms as one of complacency. Of being more interested in zaftig interns than in the "gathering storm" of threats that only the manly men of the GOP (and their "liberal" cheerleaders) could stare down. Of using peace accords and "negotiating with madmen" to hide an inability to forcefully stand up for Amurica's God-given rights and priveleges.
This is patently false, of course. Keeping Kim Jong Il in a box while also juggling the Palestinian/Israel negotiations, encouraging fragile reform in Iran, keeping an eye on the newly emerging threat of something called al Qaeda (and looking for ways to kill its leader even amid impeachment hearings), not to mention combatting the genocide in the Balkans, took enormous seriousness of purpose, nimble minds, and a willingness to use all the tools -- diplomatic, law enforcement, and militaristic -- at their disposal. They were keeping a slew of dangerous plates spinning on poles while to all appearances we were living in the most peaceful period since the end of WWII. And burnishing the reputation of the last remaining superpower.
Yes, Clinton failed Rwanda, as the world under the Bush regime now fails Darfur, but at least Clinton admitted the failing and apologized for it, something Bush will never do. For anything.
Would a Clinton -- or a Gore -- administration have thwarted 9-11? Who knows, though I suspect they may very well have. Certainly a Clinton or a Gore (or a Bush Sr., for that matter) would not have responded to the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing with a shrug, a sneer, and an "All right. You've covered your ass now." And certainly if George Tenet had been running around a Gore White House in 2001 with his "hair on fire," someone in the administration would have asked, "Do you smell burning hair?" and tried to find out the cause.
Bush demands that we live in a constant state of fear while also telling us we have a duty to go shopping. The Clinton/Gore administration did the heavy lifting of trying to address the simmering cauldrons of global disaster from manifesting themselves between our shores. There were exceptions of course, but Federal law enforcement agencies knew damn well how, back then, to do the hard work of catching the motherfuckers and bringing them to trial. Instead of taking the easy way out of rounding up the usual suspects and leaving them to rot on Guantanamo, without trial, without separating the guilty from the innocent.
Without trying. 'Cause that would be hard. And bullies don't do hard.
When you look beyond the linguistic labels and narratives though, the reality is very different. The application of the hairy-chested ideology to the world is not “strong” at all. It’s profoundly weak — and it masks laziness and cowardliness.
Think about it. Coming up with a diplomatic solution with respect to Iran and North Korea is hard. It requires digging into the issue, assessing your leverage, understanding the other culture, understanding their subjective fears and concerns, engaging in some game theory analysis, and doing the inevitable give-and-take that diplomacy requires in a world that’s not black-or-white. Alternatively, you can say “they’re evil” and take your ball and bat and go home. That’s not “strength” though, it’s stupidity. Actually, stupidity is too kind a word. What it really is, is laziness — a simple unwillingness to do the hard work and to invest the capital required to get the best solution you can. This administration prefers to stick its head in the sand and call it moral clarity.
Same deal with Iraq. I was thinking about this after reading Lindsay’s most excellent phrase “innumerate cowards.” It’s so very true. The administration and its sympathetic pundits like to paint their Iraq policy as one of steely resolve and of hawkish, hairy-chested strength. But in fact, it’s just the opposite. It’s abject cowardice.
It's true. The blatherers on the right have, with some success, painted the years of peace and prosperity that marked Clinton's two terms as one of complacency. Of being more interested in zaftig interns than in the "gathering storm" of threats that only the manly men of the GOP (and their "liberal" cheerleaders) could stare down. Of using peace accords and "negotiating with madmen" to hide an inability to forcefully stand up for Amurica's God-given rights and priveleges.
This is patently false, of course. Keeping Kim Jong Il in a box while also juggling the Palestinian/Israel negotiations, encouraging fragile reform in Iran, keeping an eye on the newly emerging threat of something called al Qaeda (and looking for ways to kill its leader even amid impeachment hearings), not to mention combatting the genocide in the Balkans, took enormous seriousness of purpose, nimble minds, and a willingness to use all the tools -- diplomatic, law enforcement, and militaristic -- at their disposal. They were keeping a slew of dangerous plates spinning on poles while to all appearances we were living in the most peaceful period since the end of WWII. And burnishing the reputation of the last remaining superpower.
Yes, Clinton failed Rwanda, as the world under the Bush regime now fails Darfur, but at least Clinton admitted the failing and apologized for it, something Bush will never do. For anything.
Would a Clinton -- or a Gore -- administration have thwarted 9-11? Who knows, though I suspect they may very well have. Certainly a Clinton or a Gore (or a Bush Sr., for that matter) would not have responded to the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing with a shrug, a sneer, and an "All right. You've covered your ass now." And certainly if George Tenet had been running around a Gore White House in 2001 with his "hair on fire," someone in the administration would have asked, "Do you smell burning hair?" and tried to find out the cause.
Bush demands that we live in a constant state of fear while also telling us we have a duty to go shopping. The Clinton/Gore administration did the heavy lifting of trying to address the simmering cauldrons of global disaster from manifesting themselves between our shores. There were exceptions of course, but Federal law enforcement agencies knew damn well how, back then, to do the hard work of catching the motherfuckers and bringing them to trial. Instead of taking the easy way out of rounding up the usual suspects and leaving them to rot on Guantanamo, without trial, without separating the guilty from the innocent.
Without trying. 'Cause that would be hard. And bullies don't do hard.
posted by John at 3:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home