’08 Presidential Candidates Talking Tough on Terrorism
President George W. Bush is lampooned for the nation’s involvement in Iraq and regularly portrayed as a loose cannon, willing to wage war any where in the world, even on pre-emptive terms.
But listening to the field of candidates to replace him – Republican and Democrat – and their comments on foreign policy and military might in recent days, it makes Bush look rather timid by comparison. Think, for example, of the outcry if President Bush began openly talking about the use of nuclear weapons, invading Pakistan, or bombing the Muslim holy cities. Can you say angry mob, along with congressional hearings and censures and who knows what other kind of political fallout. But different members of a large field of potential presidential successors has talked about all of those things during recent debates and interviews.
Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, two of the current favorites in the GOP field, have both sounded hawkish on the early campaign trail. At one point recently, Giuliani criticized Democratic candidates for not once using the words “Islamic terrorist” during their recent debates.
McCain also was on the offensive against Islamic extremists. “I firmly believe that the challenge for the 21st century is a challenge against radical extremism,” he said. McCain is often criticized by conservatives in his own party for flip-flopping on key issues based on the political winds.
Tom Tancredo, a Colorado congressman known for his sharp tongue, went over the top with his recent comments that make Bush look like a pacifist. Tancredo fumed that any further attack by Islamic extremists on American soil should be met with the destruction of Islam’s holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Doing so would act as a good “deterrent” against further attacks, Tancredo said. When given the chance to retreat from his statements that a State Department official labeled as “absolutely crazy,” tough guy Tancredo stood by his words. And they call Bush a cowboy?
The military saber-rattling hasn’t been limited to the Republican candidates. Leading Democratic candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton have engaged in a lively debate over America’s use of force around the globe. But the exchange provided a murky picture of how either of them might handle a major conflict on an international scale.
Obama offered conflicting statements about his willingness to use force abroad. The Illinois senator boldly said he would not hesitate to put American forces on the ground in nuclear-armed, dictator-controlled Pakistan to root out terrorist threats. Obama even called out Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.
Obama also briefly embraced the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan. He later clarified his statement to say he would not use nukes if civilians were involved. Then he backed away from the issue completely, saying it shouldn’t even “be on the table.”
Clinton saw weakness and pounced on her main rival for the White House. She dismissed Obama’s comments as un-presidential. “Presidents should be very careful at all times when discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,” she said. Her chiding of Obama allowed her to look even-handed and wise in dealing with such serious issues, even though she said nothing of major substance.
So why are the candidates engaging in all of this military rhetoric when the American public is clearly war-weary? It’s probably because most polls indicate the Iraq war continues to be a major issue of importance among voters, who will want to know the next president can handle himself or herself on a war footing. It might also be because the candidates have no convincing answers for other issues, like immigration and health care. Until those things change, expect candidates on both sides to continue to ratchet up the foreign policy rhetoric as the election nears.
