Faculty of Letters

Department of English Language and American Studies

Graduation Project
Title:
US FOREIGN AFFAIRS
BILL CLINTON VS. GEORGE BUSH

Mentor: Candidate:
Asst. Prof. Shener Bilalli Ema Ciguljin

Skopje, 2017
 Faculty of Letters
Department of English Language and American Studies

Graduation Project
Title:
US FOREIGN AFFAIRS
BILL CLINTON VS. GEORGE BUSH

Mentor: Candidate:
Asst. Prof. Shener Bilalli Ema Ciguljin

Skopje, 2017

2
Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 4
Bill Clinton’s Biography.................................................................................................................................. 5
Presidential Campaign ................................................................................................................................... 7
Bill Clinton’s Presidency ................................................................................................................................ 8
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell .................................................................................................................................. 8
Abortion Rights .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Bill Clinton’s Foreign Policy ......................................................................................................................... 10
Bosnian Intervention ............................................................................................................................... 11
The Kosovo War ...................................................................................................................................... 14
The Clinton Doctrine.................................................................................................................................... 17
George Bush’s Biography ............................................................................................................................ 19
Presidential Campaign ................................................................................................................................. 21
George Bush’s Presidency ........................................................................................................................... 22
George Bush’s Foreign Policy ...................................................................................................................... 23
September 11th attacks ........................................................................................................................... 23
Iraq invasion ............................................................................................................................................ 25
The Bush Doctrine ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Comparison of Clinton and Bush ................................................................................................................. 29
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 31
References: .................................................................................................................................................. 32

3
Introduction

Foreign policy is policy of a nation dealing with other countries and international
organizations. In the United States, foreign policy is developed by the president with the
assistance of the secretary of state and specialist and diplomats in the State Department. In
addition, both issues of Congress have input through committees on foreign relations in the
Senate and foreign affairs in the House. The Senate must “advice and consent” in approving
treaties, the appointment of high level State Department officials and ambassadors. Also
influential in developing American foreign policy can be the CIA, the National Security Council,
and the National Security Adviser, the military and even private contracts of the president and his
advisers.
In the 20th century, presidents increasingly dominated final decisions on foreign policy.
The role of Senate diminished, while that of military, security and intelligence advisers has
grown, diffusing determination and responsibility.
In the diverse American political history, Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush have
had some of the largest impacts on modern foreign affairs. Perceived as the most influential
superpower after the cold war, thanks to its well developed and strong military, economic success
and diplomatic capital, the United States proclaimed itself responsible for promoting democracy
and policing international events, taking on the role of the „global policeman“. In this setting,
both President Clinton and President Bush had a large space to work on, considering foreign
policies, which is the reason their effects in the American are important.
In this project we will be looking at both of their biographies, using them to find out the
things that shaped their political and worldly views, as well as the things that influenced their
decisions. There will also be a comparison of the two presidents, their similarities and differences
and most importantly, of course, their foreign affair policies.

4
Bill Clinton’s Biography
Source: http://www.topnews.in/people/bill-
clinton

Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Blythe

III) was born on August 19, 1946 in Hope,
Arkansas, a few months after his father died in
a car accident. While he was high school
student he took the last name of his step
father, Roger Clinton.
As a child, he was raised by his
grandparents, who he often credits or his love
of books and appreciation for education, as he
claims that they had instilled these values into
him. Unlike his grandparents, though, he was very religious and was appalled by his step father’s
alcoholism and abuse and he stood up to him even as just a teenager.
Young Clinton showed interest in politics even as a high school student as he was very
involved with public service and when he was only thirteen years old, he was elected as the
representative of Arkansas for Boys Nation and this led him to the opportunity to meet President
John F. Kennedy.
Bill graduated Georgetown University and has been rewarded with a Rhodes scholarship
to Oxford. He received a law degree from Yale in 1973.
As a politically involved student, Bill started shaping his political stances and was vastly
opposed to the Vietnam War and had successfully avoided draft. However, he felt bad about this
decision and signed up to the draft board once again, but he never served in Vietnam. In 1975 he
married Hillary Rodham, whom he met while he was student at Yale University.
After graduation he returned to Arkansas where he was professor of law at the University
of Arkansas before entering politics. In 1974, he out himself on the political map by challenging
John Paul Hammerschmidt for a place in the House of Representatives, even though he lost this
race. His campaign for Congress ended in reverse, but 2 years later, in 1976,he was elected for
Arkansas Attorney General.

5
 In 1978, Bill Clinton was elected for a governor of Arkansas, and in 1980 he lost a bid for
reelection. In 1982 he regained governorship, and served until his presidency in 1993.
As a governor, he had a vision to make fundamental changes in the state’s education and
economics.
His educational plan included a mandatory test for teachers and school administrators on
basic skills, as well as required the money to be more equitably distributed between school
districts, so there would be no inequality in education. This plan led to the sales tax being raised
and The Arkansas Board of Education raised the standards for school accreditation.
His welfare plan meant to get the people receiving the welfare back to work. Clinton raised the
taxes on motor fuels coupled with other tax increases on vehicles, such as registration fees.
Arkansas had a leap in job creation and employment, as Clinton’s program supported growing
businesses, mostly technology oriented and as many banking laws were revised. However, the
downside of this was the fact that most of these jobs were not well-paid, so even though Arkansas
had many job opportunities, it was one of the states with the lowest average income during
Clinton’s time as a governor.

6
Presidential Campaign

Bill Clinton announced that he is running for a president in October 3, 1991, as a

Democrat. He was running for a president against 41st president the Republican George Herbert
Walker Bush and Independent businessman Ross Perot.
His presidential campaign was hindered by many accusations, mostly of infidelity and the
rumors of him dodging draft may seem to be enough to ruin his chances, but his very smart and
strategically well-thought out campaign, as well as the unexpected success of the third party
candidate Ross Perot who shifted a notable digit of republican votes towards himself, won the
elections for Bill. On November the 3rd1992 he becomes 42nd president of Untied States of
America. During the elections he has made promises to improve the American economy in many
ways, by reforming the welfare and healthcare systems investing in the infrastructure and
reducing the government spending. This proved to be a very successful strategy, especially
considering the fact that his predecessor, President George H. W. Bush had little success in the
economical field.

Source: http://slideplayer.com/slide/8320006/

7
Bill Clinton’s Presidency

As a president, Clinton started working on making his campaign promises come true right
away. He had succeeded in passing the National and Community Trust Service Act which had
enhanced the opportunities for education for young Americans by giving tuition assistance in turn
of working on special service projects. He had also passed the income tax credit for employed
underprivileged people. Furthermore, he had pushed the DADT (don’t ask, don’t tell) policy in
the military for the lesbian/gay/bisexual population which barred the military personnel from
investigating the service members’ sexuality, but had also prohibited the LGB service applicants
or members from openly stating their sexual orientation as well. He had also ratified the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This agreement is considered to be one of the most
important continental agreements and its main cause is to create a free trade zone on the western
hemisphere and it means to eliminate customs and other free trade restrictions, as well as regulate
and coordinate working laws. This agreement was signed my Mexico, USA and Canada.
After NAFTA’s passage, Clinton thought that ravages of the preceding months were an
aberration. Now the opposition would return to politics and the clam would extend to the White
House. In November he had signed the Brady Bill, which required a background check for
handgun purchases; its enactment prevented more than six hundred thousand felons, fugitives,
and other criminals from buying handguns, and the crime rate involving guns fell by 40 percent.
He had gotten the National Voter Registration (“Motor Voter”) bill passed, allowing people to
register to vote when getting a driver’s license. The Family and Medical Leave Act, giving
employees twelve weeks of leave to care for a new child or sick family member, was passed;
more than 20 million took advantage of the new law. Bill had also fought for universal health
care coverage, but this idea met a lot of backlash and turned out to be catastrophical for his
political career.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

A week after he eased abortion restrictions, Clinton announced a plan to lift the ban on
gays serving in the US military. Talking both abortion rights and gays in the military during the
first few days of his presidency helped coalesce forceful conservative opposition to Clinton from
get-go. Clinton’s third out-of-the-gate-initiative, the Family and Medical Law act, which gave

8
workers time off from their job when a baby is born or a family member feel ill, was far more
popular. “More people would mention it”, Clinton later wrote, “than any other bill signed”

Abortion Rights
On January 22, 1993- the third day of his administration and the twentieth anniversary of
the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States –
Clinton, with Vice President Al Gore looking on, signs an executive order lifting five major
abortion restrictions imposed during the Reagan and Bush administrations.
With a stroke of his pen, the new president lifted the ban on abortion counseling in
federally-financed clinics, removed restrictions on federal financing for research using fetal
tissue, eased abortion policy in military hospitals and reversed Reagan’s prohibition on aid to
international family-planning programs that offered access to abortions. Hours earlier, more than
75,000 angry anti-abortion demonstrators marked the Roe v. Wade anniversary with a rally across
the street from the White House.

9
 Bill Clinton’s Foreign Policy

Bill Clinton was the first true post- World War II, post-Cold War president. Clinton
represented a different political generation, driven by vastly different issues. He came to office
with relatively little knowledge about the foreign affairs. In foreign affairs, Clinton operated as a
prudent Wilsonian, involving the nation in peace keeping mission but always seeking to
minimize the potential loss of American lives in such ventures. The defining personal experience
for Clinton was most assuredly racial change in the South. That seemed to be the issue to which
more than any other he brought genuine commitment and passion and was what probably had
motivated him to be a politician in the first place. Foreign policy remained distant for him. He
had not greatly interested himself in the study of postwar Europe, the effect of the Cold War on
both sides of the Iron Curtain, nor the validity of NATO. If any foreign policy issue weighted on
him those days was Vietnam.
Clinton was interested in domestic politics, which was his strength and his natural
inclination. His defeat of Bush had only served to confirm the accuracy of his political instincts.
Foreign policy issues subtracted from the limited power he had, which was to be used for
domestic programs anyway. Foreign policy was to be minimalized and, if all possible, kept on the
back burner.
His months on the campaign trial had convinced him that he was politically ahead of a
new curve. Nothing indicated that as clearly as a meeting he had held with a group of leading
Democrats during the transition period. The group of leading Democrats was composed of all
House committee chairmen. Clinton asked each chairman about the problems in his area until he
got to Lee Hamilton, the veteran Indiana congressman who headed the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. Hamilton talked about a number of issues: post-Soviet Russia, the complex problems
of dealing with China, Johnson and Vietnam, Carter and the hostages in Iran, Reagan and the
Iran–contra scandal, and Bush and Gulf War. Clinton knew that his stands on domestic issues had
elected him.
The team assembling around Clinton during the transition was representative of, among
other weaknesses within the Democratic Party, the lack of depth in foreign policy. Old issues that
had divided different wings of the party because of Vietnam had never entirely been resolved.

10
Bosnian Intervention

In 1992, Bosnia was the last of the ex-Yugoslavia’s country to declare its independence.
The majority of Bosnia was Muslims, not Arabs nor Turks but Europeans whose ancestors had
converted to Islam during the years when the Ottoman Empire had extended to Balkans. Many of
them were more Western and secular than their Serb counterparts. Sarajevo, the capital city of
Bosnia, was the fateful city where the First World War had been triggered by the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian terrorists. Now, thanks to Slobodan Milošević, Bosnia’s
Serbs funded and armed by his regime and ringed the mountains encircling, Sarajevo and were
subjecting the city to a siege.
From the start, the Bush administration (George W.H Bush) had adopted a policy of
deliberate indifference to this Balkan change. During the campaign Clinton had criticized Bush
for his inaction but once in office he found himself stymied. The NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization) allies were adamantly opposed to lifting the arms embargo earlier imposed on
Yugoslavia or to helping the Bosnian Muslims in any way. The British position was draped in
world-weary conservative pessimism, but it expressed not a recurring stain of post imperial
fatigue but a sharper, more profound cynicism. French and British peacekeeping troops operating
under the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) that had been deployed in Bosnia were
strictly curbed from aiding the Bosnians. Yet their presence on the ground gave the French and
the British governments the trump of any U.S. demand for action from the air. However,
Clinton’s protests were ruled out of the order. It was in this closed box that the NATO allies
stifled Clinton’s wished-for policy of both lifting the arms embargo in Bosnia and bombing the
Serb emplacements that were threatening Sarajevo.
In all these international situations, Clinton appealed irresolute, unsure about the use of
force, whether in deploying it or refusing to deploy it. He seemed to have miscalculated, or
worse, blundered. But the positions for which Clinton was later criticized were advocated by a
powerful figure within the administration.
In the year following the November 1994 controversy, Clinton administration executed an
effective volte-face in Bosnia policy and decided to become more actively involved in trying to
bring about a settlement. The administration’s main motivation was the desire to reassert US

11
leadership in European security affairs - with a revitalized NATO as the chosen vehicle through
which to do this.
The Serbs were determined that 1995 would be the last year of the war and the effective
end of Bosnia as an independent entity. They invaded the so-called safe areas supposedly
protected by the UNPROFOR and engaged in a concentrated war to eliminate the Bosnian
Muslims; a massive ethnic cleaning. Clinton insisted that air strikes should be targeted on the
Serb positions. Eventually the UNPROFOR troops were released, and the Allied command
decided to stop bombing and issued a statement proclaiming that UNPROFOR would return to
“traditional peacekeeping.” In July, the Bosnian Serb army, working with the Serbs, captured
Srebrenica, a town filled with the tens of thousands of refugees from the region. UNPROFOR
troops were pushed aside; women and children were based out; and 7,079 men were
systematically killed within a week. This was the greatest act of mass murder in Europe since the
end of the Second World War.
Clinton bitterly demanded that Allied command adopt a new policy. In August, after the
massacre in Srebrenica, UN Ambassador Albright sent him a frank memo that he took to heart.
“Fairly or unfairly, your entire first term is going to be judged by how you deal with Bosnia,” she
wrote. At same time President Jacques, affronted by the dishonor visited upon the French soldiers
in UNPROFOR and the Serbs’ massacres, wondered aloud if there was a true leader in the
Western alliance. With U.S. encouragement, the Croat army in August launched an invasion on
Serbian Krajina, and NATO began a full-scale bombing operation to drive Serbs off the hilltops
above Sarajevo, where they were heavily invested.
On November 1st ,1995 conference in Dayton, Ohio, begun. Bosnian president Alija
Izetbegović, Serbian president Slobodan Milošević and Croatian president Franjo Tuđman, and
representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and
European Union met at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base on the outskirts, a site chosen to reduce
the ability of participants to negotiate via the media rather than the bargaining table.
At Dayton, where the NATO negotiators met with the Serbs, Croatians, and Bosnians to
work out a treaty with Milošević, Holbrooke succeeded against considerable odds in brokering
the agreement. NATO replaced UNPROFOR in the Balkans, and Clinton sent twenty thousand
U.S. troops to join its forces there. American public opinion did not favor this commitment and
the House Republican leaders refused to support it. But with the signing of the Dayton Peace

12
Accords, peace was enforced. Clinton had arrived at a workable, coherent strategy using U.S.
leadership to gain Allied cooperation; air power; an army; and hard diplomacy.

Source: http://www.history.com/speeches/clinton-remarks-on-the-dayton-peace-accords

In his speech, after signing the Dayton Accords, Clinton said:

“When I took office, some where urging immediate intervention in the

conflict. I decided that American ground troops should not fight a war in Bosnia
because the United States could not force peace on Bosnia's warring ethnic groups,
the Serbs, Croats and Muslims. Instead, America has worked with our European allies
in searching for peace stopping the war from spreading and easing the suffering of the
Bosnian people. We imposed tough economic sanctions on Serbia. We used our air
power to conduct the longest humanitarian airlift in history and to enforce a no-fly
zone that took the war out of the skies. We helped to make peace between two of the
three warring parties -- the Muslims and the Croats.
But as the months of war turned into years, it became clear that Europe alone could
not end the conflict. This summer, Bosnian Serb shelling once again turned Bosnia's
playgrounds and marketplaces into killing fields.

13
 In response, the United States led NATO's heavy and continuous air strikes, many of
them flown by skilled and brave American pilots. Those air strikes, together with the
renewed determination of our European partners, and the Bosnian and Croat gains on
the battlefield, convinced the Serbs, finally, to start thinking about making peace.”

Six days after the agreement was initiated, President Clinton took his case for U.S
involvement in Bosnia and the American people. Speaking from the Oval Office, Clinton said
that U.S diplomacy had produced the Dayton Accords and that U.S troops had been requested to
help the parties implement the peace plan. He said peace in Balkans was in America’s interest
and he assured the American people that, since 25 other nations had already agreed to participate
in a force of 60.000, only a third of the troops would be Americans.

The Kosovo War

The Kosovo was under the protection of Slobodan Milošević in Belgrade. Deadly
violence has escalated in Kosovo during 1999 between Albania Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
and the Serbian authorities. Milošević was carrying out an exercise in “ethnic cleaning” if
Albanians from the province of Kosovo. There was systematic expulsion of Albanians from
Kosovo. Almost one million refugees were beginning to entry into Albania and Macedonia. The
refugees were touring stories of rape, executions and massacres by the Serbian army.
Cohen wrote that the KLA was taunting the Serbian Army into killing Albanians because
they wanted their independence instead of the autonomy that the United States will only support.
He was of the belief that if they provoke the Serbs to kill the West will take sides. Predictably the
United States demanded that Milošević withdraw his army from Kosovo, but Milošević ignored
the warning. So NATO embarked on an air attack on Kosovo which lasted seventy-eight days,
more precisely from March 24 until June 9, 1999.
This happened in spite of Clinton’s reluctance to engage his troops in a war abroad after
the Rwanda and Bosnia fiascos were nearly a million persons perished at the hands of ethnic
extremist while U.S. stood by doing nothing. This level of inaction was the greatest criticms by
the Third World Leaders. In his Statement to the nation in March 1999 Clinton articulated
America could not sit idly by and watch a repeat scenario of the Rwanda and Bosnia because

14
“inaction in the face of brutality simply invites more brutality.” Clinton further explained why it
is imperative to act in Kosovo:
“We act to protect thousands of innocent people in Kosovo from a mounting military
offensive. We act to prevent a wider war; to diffuse a powder keg at the heart of
Europe that was exploded twice before in this century with catastrophic results, and
we act to stand united with our allies for peace.”

Clinton later started that his action was needed in order to foster a “secure undivided
free” Europe. Yet Hass charged that Clinton is only willing to intervene “when the
domestic political cost of standing aloof exceeds the cost of a carefully staged and limited
operation”
Clinton’s critics maintained that military action in Kosovo was unconstitutional
because the province of Kosovo was recognized as a part of sovereign Yugoslavia by the
United States. As postulated by Campbell, President Clinton had no authority to declare
war because “there was no attack on the United States, no summons from an ally under
attack, or no emergency that prevented congressional deliberation.” In February 1999
before the engagement in Kosovo Congressman Tom Campbell along with thirty-eight
other members of Congress wrote Clinton a letter stating that he had no right to declare a
war in Kosovo without the Congress’s approval. Clinton ignored the letter and went to a
war anyway. It was hailed as the largest concentration of air power in history with 1,100
airplanes flying 38,000 sorties. After seventy-eight days of NATO airstrikes Milošević
withdrew his army from Kosovo.

15
Source: http://history.unc.edu/undergraduate-program/senior-honors-thesis/humanitarian-
intervention-us-foreign-policy-case-kosovo/

Multilateralism got a boost during the in the intervention of Kosovo. Clinton had
recruited NATO forces in his humanitarian intervention exercise, its first major military in
its 50-year history. In addition, this was the first war fought by any formal alliance of
democracies since the end of World War II. Although the United States was the leader of
the committee of 19 nations it still had to get consensus on the activities of the group.
Nevertheless, critics have stated that it was nit multilateralism but unilateralism
because it was headed by the United States and it did not have U.N. authorization which
violated Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter which prohibits the “treat or use force against”
another state. Article 51 allows the nation to use force in “self-defense if an armed attack
occurs against” or an allied country. However, Clinton was cognizant of the fact that would
not have garnered U.N. Security Council support because Russia would use its veto against
the any intervention in Kosovo, because of its historic ties to Serbia. Further, the US
military fighting as part of NATO did indeed demonstrated multilateralism on the part of
Clinton because the US did not embark on this mission alone.

16
The Clinton Doctrine

President Clinton's decision to use military force against the Serbs was not simply a
calculated response to Slobodan Milošević's intransigence. NATO bombing was a part of larger
strategic version. This vision had three basic components.
The first is an increasingly pessimistic appraisal of the global security environment. The
perils range from regional conflict and insurgency to terrorism, criminal violence and ethnic
unrest.
The second component is the assumption that as a global power with far-flung economic
interest, the United Stated has a vested interest in maintaining stability. Because no other power
or group of powers can guarantee this stability, the United States must be able to act on its own or
in conjunction with NATO allies.
The third component is conviction that to achieve global stability, the United States must
maintain sufficient forces to conduct simultaneous military operations in widely separated areas
of the world against multiple adversaries, and it must reverse its existing security alliances, so
that they can better support US global expeditionary operations.
Less public but not less significant, is the US effort to convert NATO from a defensive
alliance in Western Europe into a regional police force governed by Washington. In December
1998 at meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, Secretary of State Adeline Albright
claimed that missile-armed “rogue states” pose as great a threat to Europe. As the Warsaw Pact
once did, Albright called on NATO to extend its operational zone into distant areas and to combat
a wide range of emerging threats. Albright said: ”Common sense tells us that it is sometimes
better to deal with instability when it is still at arm’s length that to wait until it is at our doorstep.”
Here lies the essence of what might be termed the Clinton Doctrine, the proposition that
the best way to maintain stability in areas that truly matter to the United States is to combat
instability in other areas, however insignificant it may look, before it can intensify and spread.
Possibly the most explicit expression of this doctrine was Clinton’s speech in San Francisco:
“It’s easy…to say that we really have no interests in who lives in this or that
valley in Bosnia, or who owns a strip of brushland in the Horn of Africa, or some
piece of parched earth by the Jordan River. But the true measure of our interests lies
not in how small or distant these places are, or in whether we have trouble

17
 pronouncing their names. The question we must ask is, what are the consequences to
our security of letting conflicts fester and spread. We cannot, indeed, we should not,
do everything or be everywhere. But where our values and our interests are at stake,
and where we can make a difference, we must be prepared to do so [emphasis
added].”
Clinton’s decision to bomb Serbia is consistent with a clearly delineated strategic plan.
There was a growing debate over the wisdom of bombing Serbia. Certainly many people are
concerned about the humanitarian dimensions of the Serbian actions in Kosovo. But in the course
of this debate it is essential not to lose sight of the larger strategic doctrine behind the bombing.
The Clinton Doctrine aspires to morality and universality. But foreign policy must be
calculating and particular. Clinton proclaims he is going into the battle for principle that ethnic
cleansing and the slaughter of innocents can never be tolerated by a civilized world.

18
George Bush’s Biography

Source:
http://www.nndb.com/people/360/000022294/

George Walker Bush was born July 6,

1946 in New Haven, Connecticut. He is the eldest
of six children of George Herbert Walker Bush
and Barbara Pierce Bush. The Bush family had
been involved in business and politics since
1950s. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a
former Wall Street banker and progressive
republican senator from Connecticut, and his
father was businessman, diplomat and vice
president of the United States.
George Bush spent most of his childhood in Midland, Texas, where he was attending
school until the seventh grade. His family moved to Huston in 1961, while he was sent to Philips
Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. During his education he was an athlete, he played baseball,
basketball and football. Family connections made him enter the Yale University in 1964.
He was a popular student and he became president of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity,
and was also playing rugby. Despite his privileged background, he was very social person and
was friend with all students not only the popular. He also became a member of Yale’s secretive
Skull and Bones society, an invitation-only club whose membership contains some of American’s
most powerful and elite family members.
Couple weeks before graduation 1968, George W. Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National
Guard, while Vietnam War was at its height. In June, 1970 he get certificate for being fighter
pilot, despite od his irregular attendance and questions about whether he had completed his
military obligation, Bush was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21,
1974.
After his Guard duty, George W. Bush continued his education and Harvard Business
School, where he earned a Masters of Business Administration degree in 1975. After coming

19
back to Midland he starts to work for his family friend in the oil business, and later he started his
own oil and gas firm. In November 1977 he is getting married with Laura Welch.
In 1988, George W. Bush moved to Washington DC to work on his father’s bid for the
election for the White House, participating in campaign activities and meeting influential people.
In 1989 he joined a group of investors purchasing the Texas Rangers baseball team. He was the
group’s leader and he made savvy trades. Bush earned a reputation as a successful businessman.
In 1992, he decided to run for a governor of Texas as a Republican. His association with
Rangers and his family reputation helped him in the 1994 campaign against incumbent Democrat
Ann Richards. His campaign focused on welfare and tort reform, crime reduction, and education
improvement. Bush won the election with 53% of the vote and became the first child of a U.S.
President to be elected a state governor. In 1998, he became the first Texas governor to be elected
to consecutive four-year terms.
As a governor, Bush appealed to moderate Republicans and Christian conservatives in his
own party and earned reputation for bipartisan governing. He implemented the philosophy of
“compassionate conservatism”, which combined limited government with concern for the
underprivileged and personal responsibility. He pushed for a tax cut and increased funding for
education, he promoted educational reform, tying teachers’ salaries to student performance on
standard tests, and signed into law legislation lowering the age at which juveniles could be tried
in adult courts.

20
Presidential Campaign

In 1999, George W. Bush began his quest for the presidency, and after a contentious
series of primary elections, he won the Republican presidential nomination. The 2000
presidential election pitting George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gora was close and
controversial.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-2000electreslt04-frm.html

As the Election Day unfolded, there was no clear winner, the news were declaring both of
the candidates as winners. The very next morning, Bush had 246 electoral votes and Gore had
255, with 270 needed to win. Florida’s 25 electoral votes were held in balance where several
countries reported problems with balloting. After more than a month of recounts and legal
maneuvering, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the election, giving George Bush the victory.
Through Gore lost election in the Electoral College (271 to 266) he received over 543,000 more
popular votes than Bush, a result that further complicated Bush’s victory.

21
George Bush’s Presidency

President Bush’s tenure reeked of confrontational rhetoric which other countries of the
world saw as arrogant and provocative, these confrontational vocations were heightened
especially after the 9/11 attacks. In his speech Bush at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C.
lamented that “the conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will not end in a way,
and at the hour, of our choosing.”
Bush’s state of the Union Address in 2002 where he accused that the triumvirate of North
Korea, Iran and Iraq being the “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” This
caused some damage to European status on the world stage and impeded the constructive
engagement taking place between Europe and these nations simply because of their historic
alliance with America and an out pouring of criticism from all over the world. When Bush
invaded Iraq in July, 2003 at a Press Conference when he was asked about the rising rates of
attacks on U.S. soldiers and casualties. His response of “bring ‘em on”. The jihadists were that as
a challenge. This led to jihadists from across the Middle East descending on Iraq.

22
George Bush’s Foreign Policy

In the first couple of years of Bush’s presidency, He enjoyed a political majority in Both
Congressional houses but faced a strongly divided government. At times, his political rethoric
fueled this divide. Taking a budget surplus by the previous Democratic administration, Bush
pushed through a $1.35 trillion tax cut to simulate the economy, but critics contended it favored
the wealthy. His administration promoted further controversy when he announced the U.S would
not abide by Kyoto Protocol for reducing green-house gas emissions, citing potential harm to the
U.S. economy.
The Bush administration’s responses to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
expanded presidential power in matters of national security. Bush transformed from being a
President with questionable legitimacy, who had been selected in a controversial election, to
taking on immense presidential emergency powers, defining treat, and attacking the enemy. His
administration justified its actions by citing Article II of the U.S. Constitution that outlines the
powers of the President as a commander in chief as well as legal authorizations passed by
Congress. Following 9/11, Bush’s leadership became a rallying point for the nation. The
American people were inclined to trust him because they believed in his ability to maintain their
safety.

September 11th attacks

On the September 11, 2001, one airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center in New
York City. At that point, it was believed to be an accident. The Second plane struck the south
tower 17 minutes later. At that point there was no doubt that the United States were under attack.
Each structure was badly damaged by the impact and erupted into flames. The third plane struck
the southwest side of the Pentagon, outside the city, touching off a fire in section of structure.
Couple of minutes later the Federal Aviation Authority ordered a nationwide ground stop, and
within the next hour the forth aircraft crushed near Shanksville in the Pennsylvania countryside,
after its passengers attempted to overpower their assailants. All this happened from the morning
at 8:46 until 10:03 am.
That day, President George Bush was in Florida, he had been visiting a second-grade
classroom in Serasota, when he was informed about the first plane that crashed into the World

23
Trade Center. Andrew Card, his chief of stuff whispered in the president’s right ear:” A second
plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.”
Next morning, Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office in a speech that laid out a
key doctrine of his administration’s future foreign policy: “We will make no distinction between
the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
On September 14, Bush visited “Ground Zero”, the smoking pile of debris of what
remained of the World Trade Center and the thousands who had perished there. Standing on top
of a wrecked fire truck, Bush grabbed a bullhorn to address the rescue workers feverishly to find
any survivors. When one of the workers said that he could not hear what the President was
saying, Bush made one of his memorable remarks of his presidency: “I can hear you. The rest of
the world hears you. And the people knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.”

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/15/george-w-bush-makes-surprise-
visit-to-911-memorial/

After Bush came in Washington, D.C, he addressed that nation with Psalm 23:”Even
though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me.”
Bush decided on three goals in days that followed the attack:
1. Keep the terrorists from striking again;
2. Make it clear to the country and the world that the United States had embarked on
a new kind of war;

24
 3. Help the affected areas recover and make sure the terrorist did not succeed in
shutting down the economy or diving society.

Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on9/11. Bush set Friday, September 14, 2001, as a
National day of Prayer and Remembrance. The 9/11 attacks gave the bush presidency a clear
focus to protect the American people at home and defeat terrorism abroad. The Bush
administration’s response to the attacks combined military action overseas and strong defensive
measures at home.

Iraq invasion
The invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration in 2003 was a brazen exercise of
preemption and unilateralism. In his West Point Address Bush contends that the strategy of
containment as used in the past is not practical for use in the present day where there are
“unbalanced dictators” who can distribute weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. He further
stated that Americans cannot defend themselves and their allies by just sitting back and hoping
for the best. Bush charged that America “need to take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans,
and confront the worst threats before they emerge.” The National Security Strategy of 2002 Bush
echoed his doctrine of preemption along with his unilateralist stance stating the U.S. “will not
hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right to self-defense by acting preemptively
against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.”
Some pundits have argued that preemption defined as prevention ran the risk of the U.S.
being viewed as a clear and present danger because preemption is seen as “taking military action
against a state that was about to launch an attack; international law has permitted this in order to
forestall clear and immediately present dangers, while prevention is defined as “starting a war
against a state that might, in some future point, pose such risks.”
Moreover, one can argue that this had to be done by the U.S. because Bush did not the
U.N. Security Council did not give the permission to the America so it had to act alone. It can be
argued here that Clinton did not even approach the UN before air attacks in Kosovo because of
Russia while Bush when to UN for permission to strike in Iraq. However, Bush only went to U.N.
Security Council because he wanted to legitimize its pre-emptive action against Iraq. His attempt
was unsuccessful, because Bush fail to establish a credible link between Saddam Hussein and al-

25
Qaeda and there was no solid evidence that Hussein really possessed Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMDs). In addition, there was some distrust among members from America’s
rejection of multilateral treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the treaty for the International
Criminal Court. The other countries were uneasy about America’s policy of preemption, where it
was free to attack on other countries at a time of its choosing. This violated the sacrosanct
principle of sovereignty in the international system.
Bush offered a number of reasons why there had to be regime change in Iraq. He said the
Iraq was nation that sponsored terrorism and had links to al-Qaeda. In January 2003 State of the
Union Address Bush stated that Hussein had “materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000
liters of botulinum toxin- enough to subject millions of people to death … 500 tons of sarin,
mustard and VX nerve agent which would kill thousands. Additionally, Hussein was accused of
brutally murdering his own citizens with poisonous gases. All of these allegations saturated the
American media to galvanize support for an Iraqi Invasion.
Moreover, when Secretary of State Collin Powel was sent to address the U.N., he stated
that he knew the location of the WMDs in Iraq and that he even had pictures, but this was an
exercise in futility because the U.N inspectors had already reported that there were no WMDs in
Iraq. This whole WMD debacle has proven to be somewhat inconclusive because of sources that
have claimed that they exist and sources who claimed the opposite.
Although American did not get the U.N authorization it invaded Iraq on March 19,2003.
In his address to the nation on the invasion of Iraq dubbed “operation Iraqi Freedom”. President
Bush articulated that the Saddam Hussein regime “threatens the peace with weapons of mass
murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and
Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors
on the streets of our cities.” The invasion lasted from March 19 to May 1, 2003. The military
found no WMDs. This was expected because Iraq was already denuclearized by the International
Atomic Energy Agency between 1991 and 1992. However, some pundits are of the belief that the
Bush Administration invaded Iraq to preserve access to the region’s petroleum which will ensure
a reliable and cheap access to oil.

26
 Source: http://realitypod.com/2011/03/28/war-in-iraq-2003-2011-in-pictures/

This stimulated extensive debates over the legality of this act. This act violated section 3
and 4 of Article 2 of the U.N charter which stipulates:
“All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in
such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not engaged [and
shall] refrain in their international relations from the treat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
Offner contends that the Bush administration rejected “the Westphalian doctrine of state
sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, U.N Charter prohibition on the use of force
except or by Security Council mandate, ant the Nuremberg trials judgement that preemptive was
is a crime” which makes America under Bush more a rouge nation than a world leader.

27
The Bush Doctrine

Before a joint season of Congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush declared a new
approach to foreign policy in response to 9/11: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it
does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach had been found,
stopped, and defeated.” Bush declared that United States considered any nation that supported
terrorist groups a hostile regime. In his State of Union speech in January 2002, President Bush
called out and “Axis of Evil” consisting of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, and he declared all threat
to American security. British and French allies have not received Bush’s declaration
enthusiastically because they believed Bush’s language to be overly aggressive.
These remarks later matured into the polices known as the Bush Doctrine, officially
traceable to September 2002, when the White House released the National Security Strategy of
the United States. The doctrine generally focused on three points. The first was preventative war
in which United States would strike an enemy nation or terrorist group before they had chance to
attack the United States. It focused on deterring any potential attacker. The second point was
unilateral action in which United States would act alone if necessary to defend itself either at
home or abroad. The third point embraced spreading democracy and freedom around the world,
focusing on concepts such as free markets, free trade, and individual liberty.
Reactions to the Bush Doctrine were mixed. Neoconservatives within and outside his
administration strongly supported the idea of United States acting on its own to ensure the
country’s security to protect the American people. Some opponents believed the doctrine was
overly bellicose and its emphasis on preemptive war was unjust. Others believed the emphasis on
spreading democracy around the world was naïve and unrealistic. As the situation in Iraq became
increasingly unstable, the ideas behind the Bush Doctrine in prominence, even within the Bush
administration.

28
Comparison of Clinton and Bush

Both administrations had some common things such as the Wilsonian dynamic of
democracy promotion; both had a war on terror, both fought wars of choice (Kosovo in case of
Clinton and Iraq in case of Bush). However there were some very striking differences. Clinton
was a strong believer in multilateralism while Bush believed in American dominance and
Unilateralism. Clinton’s actions were mostly fueled by public opinion whereas Bush did not care
for public opinion. Clinton sought to promote stability while Bush sought to freedom at the
expense of stability. Clinton rhetoric when speaking the world was convivial while Bush’s was
viewed as provocation.
In addition, there were common things in Clinton’s War in Kosovo and Bush’s War in
Iraq. Both did not have U.N.S.C. authorization. Both fought against tyrannical regimes that did
not immediately threaten America and had quick victories. Both provoked strong opposition from
Europe and the rest of the world. However, this is where similarities stop. Clinton invested and
engaged NATO in its major military exercise which brought America and Europe closer together
and gave the NATO a new sense of purpose. On the contrary, Bush ignored NATO which led to
loss of U.N. support for the Iraq war and went to war in Iraq although much of the world opposed
it. His actions ultimately strained the European-American relations; divided Europe had left the
fate of the NATO and the U.N. in doubt. Clinton’s War fostered stability of Kosovo in Europe.
On the one hand, it came at a cost to the Serbs, who were expelled after the Kosovo intervention.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, instigated further destabilization in the Middle East.
His invasion in Iraq has spared, in recent months, debates about responsibility for the formation
of ISIL.
Also each of the presidents made his own doctrine about the wars and their foreign
policies. The Clinton Doctrine was about the global stability and security, while Bush Doctrine
was about spreading democracy and freedom around the world.

29
Source: https://edreformnow.org/bill-clinton-democrats-ed-reform-bush-43/

30
Conclusion

To sum up, it does not matter who is the president of United States their influence on
foreign affairs will be the same. As we see in the rest of the project both Clinton and Bush had
difficult time with wars in the world. Clinton could not stay cross-armed and watch the Muslim
people die in Bosnia and Kosovo, while Bush made his own war with Iraq based on 9/11 that al-
Qaeda made those attacks on buildings of the World Trade and Pentagon.
Both of these presidents have their own ideas of how to rule. Clinton started showing his
interest in politics even as a high school student as he was very involved with public service.
Bush was always involved in business and politics, because his father George H.W. Bush was
also President of United States before Clinton.
They had many similarities between each other, but we can see many differences as well.
However, it is obvious that the Bush administration had endemic credibility issues in all of the
areas studied. Having in consideration the information, it is affirmed that the Clinton
administration sought to engage the people while Bush administration sought an aggressive way
od attaining its agenda.
Clinton’s approach was one of multilateralism and the promotion of stability through
engagement. The European-U.S. relations were peaceful. By contrast with the Bush
administration there was a marked difference in European-U.S. relations, the U.N. lost its moral
and legal authority to settle disputes by peaceful means the world was crawling under the shadow
of U.S. imperialism. Bush’s approach of unilateralism, pre-emption and the flaunting of U.S.
primacy has indeed showed that his administration had confrontational disposition, while Clinton
made effort to engage with all corners of the world as though they were almost equal, not
flaunting as in the case of Bush.
In my opinion Clinton was one of the best presidents that U.S have ever had. Clinton
fought for what was the best for his people, and he put everyone’s needs before him. Even though
he had much bad days, he gave his best to be good for the people.

31
References:

1. Anup Shah, The Clinton Doctrine if Humanitarian Interventions, Global Issues, updated:
December 02,2000 Acceded on: June 5, 2017
2. B. Simms, Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia, Allen Lane/Penguin
Press (UK), 2001
3. Baker III, J.A., L. Hamilton, and Iraq Study Group, The Iraq Study Group Report (New
York : Vintage,2006)

4. Bush, G. W. “Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation”, United States,
Washington D.C, 11 September 2001, http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html accessed June 5, 2017.

5. Bush, G. W., “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People”, United
States Capitol, Washington D.C., 20 September 2001, http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html accessed June 5, 2017
6. Bush, G. W., “Graduation Speech at West Point United States Military Academy”, West
Point, New York, 1 June 2002, http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html accessed June 5, 2017.
7. Bush, G. W., “President George W. Bush Inaugural Address”, Washington D.C., 20
January 2001, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/inaugural-
address.html accessed June 5, 2017.
8. Bush, G.W., “President’s Remarks at the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance Day”,
National Cathedral, Washington D.C., 14 September 2001, http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-2.html accessed June 5, 2017.
9. D. Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals, New York, 2001
page 104
10. D. Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals, New York,
2001 page 188

11. D. Kellner, “Lying in Politics: The Case of George W. Bush and Iraq”, Cultural Studies:
Critical Methodologies 7:2 (2007), p.139; J.A.Ramirez, “Iraq War: Anticipatory Self-
Defense or Unlawful Unilateralism?”, California Western International Law
Journal 34:1(2003), pp.11-12

12. G. W. Bush, ‘President’s State of the Union Address’ (2002).

13. Cable News Network, Transcript of President Clinton’s Speech on Bosnia,

November27,1995, (Accessed on June 5, 2017)
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9511/bosnia_speech/speech.html
14. Klare, M.T., The Nation, The Clinton Doctrine, Posted April 1,1999, Accessed on June
3,2017

32
 https://archive.is/20060318133204/http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990419/klare#selecti
on-501.382-501.489
15. Miller Center, George W. Bush: Foreign Affairs. Accessed on May 15,2017
https://millercenter.org/president/gwbush/foreign-affairs
16. William J. Clinton Library and Museum, William J. Clinton Biography, Accessed on: May
5,2017
https://www.clintonlibrary.gov/clintons/william-j-clinton-biography
17. Ivo H daalder, Decision to Intervene; How the War in Bosnia Ended, Foreign Service
Journal, December 1998. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/decision-to-intervene-how-
the-war-in-bosnia-ended/
18. M. Ratner, and J. Lobel, “Humanitarian Military Intervention: A Proposal for just Change
in U.S. Foreign Policy”, Foreign Policy in Focus, 12 October
2005, http://fpif.org/humanitarian_military_intervention/ accessed June 5,2017

19. M. Ryan, “Wilful Blindness or Blissful Ignorance? The United States and the Successful
Denuclearization of Iraq”, Intelligence and National Security, 29:3, (2014) pp .458.

20. R. Cohen, “The Kosovo Dilemma”, The Washington Post, 1 October 1998, p. A23
21. R. N. Haass, “The Squandered Presidency: Demanding More from the Commander-in-
Chief”, Foreign Affairs 79:3 (2000), p.139.

22. Ryan (2014), p.465;W. C McWilliams and H. Piotrowski (2014) , p.550; Baker III, J. A.,
L. Hamilton, and Iraq Study Group, The Iraq Study Group Report (New York: Vintage,
2006), pp. 85-86

23. S., Blumenthal, The Clinton Wars, New York, 2003 (1st edition) page 64
24. S., Blumenthal, The Clinton Wars, New York, 2003 (1st edition) page 134

33