PrintJohn Hannah, who served as Dick Cheney's national security advisor, takes to NRO to express his anger that Hillary Clinton was bashing the Bush legacy in Pakistan this week. First, what Hillary said:
As a way of repudiating past U.S. policies toward Pakistan, Clinton told the students "there is a huge difference" between the Obama administration's approach and that of former President George W. Bush. "I spent my entire eight years in the Senate opposing him," she said to a burst of applause from the audience of several hundred students. "So to me, it's like daylight and dark."
Hannah reacts:
Does anyone advising President Obama and the secretary of state really believe that this kind of partisanship and trash-talking abroad about another American president is really going to buy us much long-term goodwill among either our friends or our adversaries? Do they imagine that this sort of thing really helps to advance U.S. national interests?
Personally, I really do think it might buy us longterm goodwill. It's a fact that people around the world loathed Bush (and Hannah's former boss), and the foreign policy associated with them. A change of faces in Washington certainly won't solve all our problems, but I think it can help along the margins. Hillary was, after all, applauded when she said this. If Hannah has a theory about why this harms American interests he might want to offer it, rather than pose rhetorical questions whose answers aren't as obvious as he seems to presume.
COMMENTS (3)
To guys like Hannah, being hated was a feature of the Bush administration, not a bug - they thought it demonstrated decisiveness, determination and imperviousness to reason and good faith criticism. Sometimes, this can be a good thing - I doubt the Axis had much love for Churchill and Roosevelt. But, every adversary is not Nazi Germany, and every leader is not Hitler. The ability to distinguish between adversaries who cannot be stopped short of total war and those who are amenable to other forms of persuasion is statecraft. I'm not surprised Hannah misses this distinction.
To guys like Hannah, being hated was a feature of the Bush administration, not a bug - they thought it demonstrated decisiveness, determination and imperviousness to reason and good faith criticism. Sometimes, this can be a good thing - I doubt the Axis had much love for Churchill and Roosevelt. But, every adversary is not Nazi Germany, and every leader is not Hitler. The ability to distinguish between adversaries who cannot be stopped short of total war and those who are amenable to other forms of persuasion is statecraft. I'm not surprised Hannah misses this distinction.
Well, Pakistanis applauded. Was this before or after they bitched and moaned about everything we have done in the region under Bush AND Obama?
Yes, some people, even some political leaders loathed W's foreign policy. Others, notably India, Japan and Australia, did not.
It is just as unseemly for HRC to trash W overseas as it was for anyone in W's pay to trash Bill Clinton. Foreign policy is, or should be, American, not partisan.
Well, Pakistanis applauded. Was this before or after they bitched and moaned about everything we have done in the region under Bush AND Obama?
Yes, some people, even some political leaders loathed W's foreign policy. Others, notably India, Japan and Australia, did not.
It is just as unseemly for HRC to trash W overseas as it was for anyone in W's pay to trash Bill Clinton. Foreign policy is, or should be, American, not partisan.
Fair point by butchie_b. But was the intent partisan (to bash the dead horse of the Bush Administration), or was it aimed at building goodwill by emphasizing that we would not follow the much-hated foreign policy of Bush. I think it was the latter. Around much of the world, including many of our closest allied countries, Bush was despised. And for good reason -- his administration showed contempt for other countries. Nevertheless, I think she would have done better to say it a different way.
By Australia are you referring to the present Aussie government or the former one of Howard, which overlapped with Bush. I think you are correct about the former, but not so sure about the present governm ... view full comment
Fair point by butchie_b. But was the intent partisan (to bash the dead horse of the Bush Administration), or was it aimed at building goodwill by emphasizing that we would not follow the much-hated foreign policy of Bush. I think it was the latter. Around much of the world, including many of our closest allied countries, Bush was despised. And for good reason -- his administration showed contempt for other countries. Nevertheless, I think she would have done better to say it a different way.
By Australia are you referring to the present Aussie government or the former one of Howard, which overlapped with Bush. I think you are correct about the former, but not so sure about the present government?