Some quick thoughts on the Iraqi election

I have not had the time to sort through the mass of info and opinion regarding yesterday's election in Iraq, so I'll be brief (really, I mean that).

It was truly a remarkable event that does provide some hope. Everyone responsible for the election--including Bush--deserves to be congratulated. The courage and determination shown by the Iraqi people in voting despite all the danger is truly remarkable. I really do hope that the election marks the start of success in Iraq. Still, this is just a start.

One of the best commentaries I read or heard today was from Daniel Schorr on NPR's All Things Considered. You can listen to it here.

I will close with this paragraph from Mark Follman at Salon.com:

It is possible to hope for democracy to succeed in Iraq -- to wish for the best possible outcome for the Iraqis themselves, and for the rest of the world -- while still being fully critical of the Bush administration's numerous disastrous war policies. Setting aside all debate about the war's inception, it is possible to criticize Bush's policies precisely because one wishes for the best possible outcome in Iraq.

Freedom is on the march--or is it?

Overview

Although Bush often proclaims that "Freedom is on the march" in the Middle East, there is evidence to the contrary, and that evidence indicates that the Iraq war is the problem.

A potential problem raised in the press conference

In his press conference, Bush was asked about a situation that could cause problems for the Burning Bush doctrine.

Q: Mr. President, let me take you up on that, if I may. Last month in Jordan, a gentleman named Ali Hatar was arrested after delivering a lecture called, "Why We Boycott America." He was charged under section 191 of their penal code for slander of government officials. He stood up for democracy, you might say. And I wonder if here and now, you will specifically condemn this abuse of human rights by a key American ally. And if you won't, sir, then what, in a practical sense, do your fine words mean?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm unaware of the case. You've asked me to comment on something that I didn't know took place. I urge my friend, His Majesty, to make sure that democracy continues to advance in Jordan. I noticed today that he put forth a reform that will help more people participate in future governments of Jordan. I appreciate His Majesty's understanding of the need for democracy to advance in the greater Middle East. We visited with him at the G8, and he has been a strong advocate of the advance of freedom and democracy.

Now, let me finish. Obviously, we're discussing a process. As I said in my speech, not every nation is going to immediately adopt America's vision of democracy, and I fully understand that. But we expect nations to adopt the values inherent in a democracy, which is human rights and human dignity, that every person matters and every person ought to have a voice. And His Majesty is making progress toward that goal.

I can't speak specifically to the case. You're asking me to speak about a case that I don't know the facts.

Q: Fair enough. If I could just follow up. Will you then -- does your inaugural address mean that when it comes to people like Mr. Hatar, you won't compromise because of a U.S. ally and you will stand --

THE PRESIDENT: Again, I don't know the facts, Terry. You're asking me to comment on something I do not know the facts. Perhaps you're accurate in your description of the facts, but I have not seen those facts. Now, nevertheless, we have spoken out in the past and we'll continue to speak out for human rights and human dignity, and the right for people to express themselves in the public square.

[NOTE: Some reports use "Hatar," and others "Hattar."] How smooth was that? George managed not to answer the question by saying he did not know anything about the arrest of Ali Hatar. This is a claim that I find dubious. According to this December 20, 2004, Reuters article, Hatar was arrested on December 19, one week after he gave his lecture "calling for a peaceful boycott of U.S. products in Jordan." That means Hatar gave his lecture just over six weeks before Bush's press conference and was arrested just over five weeks before the press conference. And George knew nothing about it? Yeah, right.

My doubt is not based merely on conjecture, however. As reported in the Washington Post, after the press conference Bush asked the State Department to get the U.S. embassy in Jordan to investigate the matter, but it turns out that

a senior State Department official said the embassy had been following the case and raising questions about it with the government. He said the incident and similar cases had already figured in the draft of the department's annual human rights report, scheduled to be released next month.

And still we are expected to believe that Bush had no knowledge about this incident? But wait, there's more. Reuters, the Washington Post, and Human Rights Watch describe Hatar as an engineer who is a member of a trade union, the professional association of engineers. The group (per the Post) "is among the most politically militant in the country," and its membership is largely of Palestinian descent. Hatar is also a member of the group's "Anti-Normalization Committee," which actively campaigns for Jordan to end relations with Israel. So we have a prominent anti-Israel activist who openly opposes a key U.S. policy, meaning that he poses a tangible threat to stability in the region. Given the importance of Israel in U.S. policy, I find it incredible that Bush knew absolutely nothing about the arrest of Ali Hatar. Do I have absolute proof? No, but my disbelief is based on facts.

Trying to find information on the Hatar case has been difficult, as there has been scant media coverage of it. For more information on that fact, check out this article from the Media Research Center.

A closer look at Jordan

Before proceeding with this analysis, I wish to make something clear. I am not arguing that the events in Jordan described herein are right or wrong, justified or unjustified. I am using these events to highlight the flaws in the Burning Bush doctrine. King Abdullah's father showed tremendous courage in taking a major step to establish peace in the Middle East--making peace and establishing official relations with Israel--and Abdullah inherited a very difficult situation upon his father's death. Nonetheless, the Jordanian actions discussed herein are without a doubt the very kinds of actions Bush described in his Inaugural Address.

According to Human Rights Watch, Hatar has been charged with violation of article 191 of the Jordanian Penal Code, which provides criminal penalties (up to two years in prison) for the “slander” of Jordanian government officials. The Washington Post reported that although the lecture did not mention the Jordanian government, in a question and answer period after the lecture, Hatar "used Jordan as an example of developing countries buying U.S. weapons for use against 'their own people.'" Ostensibly, then, Hatar was not arrested for giving an anti-American speech, but for criticizing his own government. From the express words Bush used in his Inaugural Address, Hatar is exactly the kind of person Bush said America would support. In case you might have forgotten, Bush said "America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains" and "America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights...are secured by free dissent[.]" And yet, Bush has done nothing as of yet (unless one considers telling the State Department to do something it had already done as "doing something").

Regarding the Hatar case, Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division, said

Yet again, the Jordanian government is using the vague wording of its penal code to crack down on free speech. These charges fly in the face of the government’s pledges to reform the political system and protect basic freedoms for Jordanian citizens.

There have been similar arrests in Jordan in the last year. From the Human Rights Watch report:

Jordanian officials have used criminal defamation laws to censor writers in the past. In May of this year, police officials detained Fahd al-Rimawi, editor of the weekly Al-Majd newspaper, for three days, and charged him with violating Article 118 of the Penal Code for “harming relations with a brotherly country,” in that case, Saudi Arabia.

Reuters described other arrests as follows:

Among those detained in recent weeks is Jamil Abu Bakr, a senior member of the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the country's largest political party. It has a vocal voice in a parliament dominated by pro-government deputies.

Another former Islamist deputy, Sheikh Anees Deeb, was interrogated after his religious lessons in a mosque were deemed by authorities to whip up anti-U.S. sentiment that could encourage violence, they added.

"Tens have been arrested in the last two weeks and many were released. I cannot understand what the justification is for these arrests and under what law. They want to silence people over what's happening in Iraq and Palestine," Sheikh Hamza Mansour, head of the IAF, told Reuters.

"The authorities have lost their patience and every time someone utters a word they shut him down by arresting him."

*******

Interior ministry officials told Reuters several Muslim clerics had been arrested for violating a law that forbids unlicensed sermons. Officials deny security forces arrest anyone merely for holding anti-government views.

The Washington Post reported that

In September, Interior Ministry agents arrested 38 men across the country, some of them during midnight raids on private homes. Those detained, including former government ministers and members of parliament, were associated with the country's Islamic movement, which has been gaining popularity in Jordan and across the region.

The Jordanian government, long among the most tolerant in the Middle East, said at the time that the men were arrested for slandering the monarchy and preaching in mosques without a government license.

To my knowledge, the Bush administration has said nothing about these arrests. Will he say something in the future? My guess is "no," and if that is the case, Bush will once again be exposed as hypocrite.

As Human Rights Watch's Whitson said, “Jordanians should be free to speak out on public issues without threat of government persecution The current laws don’t let them.”

How does Iraq affect this situation?

The BBC's Jon Leyne summarized the democratic reform process in Jordan thusly:

Jordan was meant to be a showpiece for democracy - an example of the sort of reform the Americans would like to see happening across the region.

Instead, the process of reform has stalled. If anything the king is acquiring more power.

What does Iraq have to do with any of this? A presentation on January 27, 2005, by Shirley Gordon on BBC radio's World Service provided some answers. Gordon noted that when King Abdullah spoke at the opening of Jordan's parliament in December, he said that security was now his top priority. Next she presented this explanation from Saad Hattar of the BBC Arabic Service:

The regional upheavals in Iraq and in Palestine are hampering the democratic path as authorities are saying because security should be maintained, and the authorities in Jordan are afraid of possible infiltration of extremist elements from Iraq, from Syria, (and) also from the Palestinian territories...and this put the democratic process on the back burner in favor of upholding this security as the prime interest of the leadership at the current time.

Gordon's conclusion was that "in Jordan at least the current situation in Iraq appears to have stalled democratic developments rather than encouraging them." The presentation also included this analysis from Samer Shehata of The Center for Arab Studies at Georgetown University:

There has been a lot of protest and activity and organization by political and civil society groups against the Iraq war and against the continuing occupation in countries like Jordan and Egypt and even in the Gulf countries, and the security forces, of course, of these regimes have had to put some of these demostrations down, and in some cases be somewhat heavy-handed toward some of these organizations and political parties, and that certainly also is a step backwards or away from democracy. So the Iraq war has played a part in this story of democracy in the Middle East and so on, but not in the way some of us, or at least the Bush administration had expected.

(emphasis added). In other words, the Iraq war has had a negative impact on "freedom's march" in Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East. But we can all take comfort in the fact that George has "planted the flag of Liberty" and "cast an anchor out in the future."

Rice's "Welcome remarks" in light of Bush's press conference

On January 27, 2005, Secretary of State Condi Rice gave some "Welcome Remarks to Employees" of the State Department. She began by saying "thanks" for the warm welcome and how much she admired Colin Powell, and then went right into the task ahead:

We've got a lot of challenges ahead of us. This is a really remarkable time in our country's history. The President has set forth a really bold agenda for American foreign policy and the State Department has got to be in the lead in this period in which diplomacy will be so important to solidifying the gains of the last few years and to pressing forward an agenda for a freer and more prosperous world. I can't think of a better call than to say that America will stand for freedom and for liberty, that America will stand with those who want their aspirations met for liberty and freedom. And I'm going to look and the President's going to look to this Department to lead that effort, and not just to implement policy, but we're going to need ideas, intellectual capital. I need your ideas. My door will be open. Please, understand that this is a time when the history is calling us. And I just look forward to working with each and every one of you toward that end.

The President has laid out a bold agenda and he expects a lot of us. I want you to know, too, that I'm going to be committed to you, the men and women of the Foreign Service, the Civil Service and our Foreign Service Nationals abroad; and you, in turn, will be committed, and we, in turn, will be committed, to carrying out that bold agenda.

With these words, Rice is following the lead of what Bush said in the Inaugural Address. However, as shown in Political buffoonery, Bush's press conference backtracked significantly from the "bold agenda" set out in the Inaugural Address.

An argument could be made that in the press conference Bush was only talking the actions that he would personally take. In other words, one could argue that while Bush only said that he would merely discuss Putin's decisions with him and constantly remind China and the rest of the world that America strongly believes in democracy, he would expect others--such as Rice--to be more agreesive and proactive.

There is, however, reason to seriously question such an argument. One reason is something he said in connection with his "planting the flag of liberty" comments. Bush said, "And I am excited by the challenge and am honored to be able to lead our nation in the quest of this noble goal[.]" Doing nothing but "discussing and reminding" while expecting others to do the heavy lifting is not being a leader. As I have said in Bush's designation of Dad and the Big Dog, "Bush is the 'leader' of this country, and to the rest of the world, he is the most visible representative of our country and symbolizes the U.S. for much of the world...It would be nice if our 'leader' would do something to lead by example." If Bush does not lead by example, the rest of the world is not likely to take notice.

Another reason to doubt the argument posited two paragraphs above is found in another exchange from the press conference.

Q: Mr. President, Dr. Rice again -- quoting your future Secretary of State, wrote in "Foreign Affairs Magazine" in 2000, outlining what a potential Bush administration foreign policy would be, talked about things like security interests, free trade pacts, confronting rogue nations, dealing with great powers like China and Russia -- but promotion of democracy and liberty around the world was not a signature element of that prescription. I'm wondering what's changed since 2000 that has made this such an important element of your foreign policy.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm the President; I set the course of this administration. I believe freedom is necessary in order to promote peace, Peter. I haven't seen the article you're referring to. I can assure you that Condi Rice agrees with me that it's necessary to promote democracy. I haven't seen the article, I didn't read the article. Obviously, it wasn't part of her job interview. Condi is a firm believer in democracy.

(emphasis added). Now Bush is sounding like a leader. He, not Rice, sets the course. If one takes him at his word, then the course of the Bush administration--and necessarily the course of Rice and the State Department--is to "discuss and remind."

A third reason to doubt that Rice and the State Department are going to do more than "discuss and remind" is that policy has been dominated by the Defense Department, and I do not see that changing any time soon. DoD was given control over the entire Iraq operation early on, and the State Department was shut out. Bush made the decision to put DoD in charge. Colin Powell was often not in agreement with Rumskull and the boys at DoD, and look where that got him. Rice has been little more than a "yes man" for Bush, which means that she has not been in disagreement with DoD, meaning further that Rice's appointment as Secretary of State could very well mean that there will be no further infighting in the administration. In other words, now that the competition (Powell) has been removed, Rumskull and his hawks are in a prime position to continue to rule the roost.

Assume for a moment that Rice does actually want to use more than a "discuss and remind" approach. Clearly, DoD has no interest in that. What are the chances that Rice would prevail in the inevitable battle with DoD where Powell--the highly respected general and war hero--failed? I do not think she would stand a chance, but maybe I am wrong.

DoD has shown it has no interest in diplomacy. However, as long as there is some sort of "discuss and remind" effort going on, there will be an excuse to say "we tried diplomacy and it did not work," which will then allow military action. Indeed, this is the scenario Seymour Hersh painted in his recent appearance on "The Daily Show," where he was discussing his latest article in The New Yorker, "The Coming Wars."

So maybe I have been wrong in saying that Bush's press conference showed that Bush would do nothing but "discuss and remind." However, that also means that maybe I was right in arguing that the primary means Bush plans to use to "free the world" is military force.

The Burning Bush

Here is one of the more inspirational statements from the Inaugural Address:

By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

As I have said, the speech also referenced the Divine. Here are some examples:

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

*******

Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people.

*******

God moves and chooses as He wills.

Because of these statements, I have decided to call the policy announced in the Inaugural Address "the Burning Bush doctrine."

UPDATE: I figured there was no chance that many others had not come up with the "Burning Bush" idea, and I was right. While I might be (and that's arguable) semi-clever, I am also a little slow. Run a search on Google or Yahoo with "Inaugural Address" & "Burning Bush" and you will see many others who deserve credit for the phrase. It seems that James Meek of The Guardian coined the term on January 21.

Political buffoonery (another update on "America's calling")

Overview

The previous post addresses the apparent backtracking from the Inaugural Address undertaken by the White House. I concluded the post thusly:

The Inaugural Address is bold and uncompromising. As I attempted to show in America's new calling, the speech sets a standard that cannot be met and thus sets the stage for abject hypocrisy by our nation. I think that is why White House officials and the Bush the Elder tried to tell us that the speech really did not mean what it so forcefully said. I believe that those efforts are in vain. Assuming that I wrong, then Kevin Drum's comments are highly relevant:

Even accepting that rhetorical BS is a politician's stock in trade, this is inexplicable. What's the point in giving a speech like this if you're going to spend the next week telling everyone to ignore it? This is political buffoonery of a high degree.

Indeed.

It looks like Kevin is right on target. I began writing the previous post while George was giving one of his rare press conferences. I tried watching, but after 30 seconds I simply could not take any more. I decided then that I would not read or listen to anything about the press conference until I finished the previous post. In that way I could compare my analysis to the explanation from The Man his ownself. There was the risk that George could somehow render my analysis incorrect, but I decided to live on the edge.

All right...I knew I was not taking much of a risk, and, as it turns out, there was no risk at all.

Shift? What shift?

The Inaugural Address was a popular topic at the press conference, and here is the first question and answer:

Q: Sir, your inaugural address has been interpreted as a new, aggressive posture against certain countries, in particular Iran. Should we view it that way?

THE PRESIDENT: My inaugural address reflected the policies of the past four years that said -- that we're implementing in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it talked about a way forward. I think America is at its best when it leads toward an ideal. And certainly, a world without tyranny is an ideal world. The spread of freedom is important for future generations of Americans. I firmly believe that free societies are peaceful societies, and I believe every person desires to be free. And so I look forward to leading the world in that direction for the next four years.

(emphasis added). In the previous post, I pointed out that the party line (stated by Dan Bartlett and the senior administration official) after the speech was that the Bush administration had already been implementing the policy announced in the speech. I then showed that the only places where that could be considered to be accurate would be Afghanistan and Iraq and that democracy was present in both places only because of military invasions. I made those points to argue that Bush's statement that "This is not primarily the task of arms" does not really indicate that Bush is not going to make military force the primary means by which to free the entire world. That argument is supported by the italicized sentence above. By saying that the speech reflected what was implemented in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has not done anything to reassure the world that he is not going to readily resort to military force. Then again, judging from some of his subsequent answers, he might not be doing much of anything...

Bush was next asked if he saw the speech as a policy shift, to which he replied,

THE PRESIDENT: No, as I said, it reflects the policy of the past, but it sets a bold, new goal for the future. And I believe this country is best when it heads toward an ideal world. We are at our best. And in doing so, we're reflecting universal values and universal ideas that honor each man and woman, that recognize human rights and human dignity depends upon human liberty. And it's -- I'm looking forward to the challenge, and I'm looking forward to reaching out to our friends and allies to convince them of the necessity to continue to work together to help liberate people.

(emphasis added). There you have it, boys and girls. The Prez sez his new policy really is not new and reflects the actions of his first term. And remember that "Mission Accomplished" only applied to the crew of one ship, "Bring 'em on" means "you're doing a good job," and Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Also, by saying he wants to continue to work together with our allies to liberate people, Bush is saying that we have already been doing that. Other than Britain and Australia, just who is he referring to? Does insulting long time allies, expressly refusing NATO's help in invading Afghanistan, and acting in an arrogant and moralistic fashion constitute "working together" with others? More to the point, given that the Inaugural Address emphatically spoke of "God, America's calling to free every man and woman on earth, America's freedom depending on ending tyranny in the world," did it really signal that Bush intends to work with other nations?

China and Russia

Now let's get back to the claim that the Bush Administration has already been doing the things expressed in the Inaugural Address. In examining this claim in the previous post (under Quote #1 from Dan Bartlett), I first looked at China and Russia and concluded that Bush had done pretty much nothing in regard to oppression and democracy in those countries. This topic was raised the press conference:

Q: Mr. President, if I could return for a moment to your inaugural address. Dr. Rice referred in her testimony to six outposts of tyranny, countries where we clearly, I think, have a pretty good idea of your policies. What we're confused by right now, I think -- or, at least, I'm confused by, is how you deal with those countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, with whom we have enormous broad interests. Should the leaders of those countries now be on notice that the primary measure of their relationship with the United States should be their progress toward liberty? Or can they rest assured that, in fact, you've got this broad agenda with them and you're willing to measure liberty up against what China does for you on North Korea, what Russia does for you in other areas?

Bush's first gave a general answer:

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think foreign policy is an either/or proposition. I think it is possible when you're a nation like the United States to be able to achieve both objectives -- one objective, the practical objective of dealing, for example, as you mentioned, with North Korea.

Then he talked about China:

But I -- in my meetings with Chinese leadership in the past, and my meetings with Chinese leadership in the future, I will constantly remind them of the benefits of a society that honors their people and respects human rights and human dignity. I have -- for example, in meetings with the Chinese in the past, I have brought up the Dalai Lama, I've brought up concerns of the Catholic church. I have discussed my belief that a society that welcomes religious freedom is a wholesome and -- religious freedom is a part of a wholesome society and an important part of a society.

(emphasis added). I am so sure that the Chinese leadship is so concerned about what the Catholic Church thinks. And George has "brought up" the Dalai Lama. What did he say? "Big hitter, the Lama" perhaps? A reasonable assumption is that Bush mentioned something about Tibet, and that raises a few questions in light of the Inaugural Address.

China invaded Tibet in 1949 and embarked on a campaign to rule the country. That campaign included killing thousands of Tibetans who resisted Chinese rule. In 1963, the Dalai Lama fled the country and established a Tibetan government-in-exile. That means for over 40 years, Tibet has been oppressed by China and a movement to free Tibet has been in existence. And yet Bush does not even mention Tibet by name. Given what Bush said in the Inaugural Address, this ommission is curious. In case you have forgotten what Bush said, here are few reminders:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

*******

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

*******

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

These statements--made without limitation or qualification--absolutely describe Tibet, and yet Bush said nothing about Tibet in the Inaugural Address or the press conference. Now there's a sign that indeed Bush did not mean what he so forcefully and eloquently said in his Inaugural Address AND that he has not already been implenting that policy. Another sign is how he described what he has done and will do with China: "I will constantly remind them of the benefits of a society that honors their people and respects human rights and human dignity." Compare the above excerpts from the Inaugural Address with Bush's resolve to "constantly remind" the Chinese leadership. The inescapable conclusion is that such reminders fall woefully short of the bold promises in the Inaugural Address.

After delineating the ways in which he would end tyranny in China, Bush next went after Vladimir Putin:

Vladimir Putin -- I have discussed with Vladimir Putin some of his decisions. I will continue -- as you might remember in our meeting in Chile. I will continue to do so. I will remind him that if he intends to continue to look West, we in the West believe in Western values.

Un-freaking-believable. He has discussed and is going to discuss some of Putin's decisions. I bet Vladimir is about to crap his pants. At least with the Chinese Bush is going to remind them of the benefits of human rights and dignity. But he cannot even say he is going to do that with Putin. Instead, he's going to have a discussion with Putin about his decisions. Go back and read what I said about Putin in the discussion of the senior administration official's Quote #3 in the previous post. People might think Bush is an unflinching kick-ass tough guy, but trust me, compared to Putin, George is "all hat, no cattle."

Silly me...I forgot that Bush is also going to remind Putin "that if he intends to continue to look West, we in the West believe in Western values." That is just brilliant. Of course we believe in Western values. That is why we are "the West." Bush should also keep in mind that "the West" includes more than America. The EU is part of the West, and the EU, given its geographic proximity to Russia and a closer cultural relation, is in a good position to be as far west as Putin might look.

George also apparently declared that his approach to the rest of the world will be the same as for China and Russia:

And so I fully understand developing a democratic society in the -- adhering to the traditions and customs of other nations will be a work in process. That's why I said we're talking about the work of generations. And so in my talks, in my discussions with world leaders to solve the problem of the day, I will constantly remind them about our strong belief that democracy is the way forward.

(emphasis added). The oppressed and victims of tyranny--wherever they might be--can now take solace in the knowledge that Bush will fight for their freedom by constantly reminding all evil doers that America strongly believes in democracy.

Funny...that's not what I heard in the Inaugural Address.

The clever use of flags

This is a line from an Eddie Izzard HBO comedy special, "Dressed to Kill." Eddie described how the British expanded their empire by landing on the shore of a distant land and claiming the land for England by planting a flag in the ground. For instance, "I claim India for the British Empire!" and then the flag goes in the ground. When the Indian people already living there would point out that they were, well, already living there and that they could not be "claimed" by another country, the British would ask "Do you have a flag?"

I thought of that comedy routine as soon as I heard Bush say the following:

I am -- I am optimistic about the advance of freedom, and so should the American people. After all, look what's happened in a brief period of time -- Afghanistan; Palestinian elections, which I think are incredibly hopeful elections; as well as the Ukraine; and now Iraq. It is -- we're witnessing amazing history. And the fundamental question is: Can we advance that history? And that's what my inauguration speech said. It said, yes, we can. I firmly planted the flag of liberty, for all to see that the United States of America hears their concerns and believes in their aspirations. And I am excited by the challenge and am honored to be able to lead our nation in the quest of this noble goal, which is freeing people in the name of peace.

(emphasis added). Before discussing the flag planting metaphor, I am compelled to point out that "this noble goal" of "freeing people in the name of peace," has been carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq only through war. Irony is so...ironic. It's like one of those Western values we have here in the West.

Back to flags...Compare the above excerpt to the other excerpts from the press conference in this post. All right, George...Your Inaugural Address may have planted the flag of liberty, but your statements in the press conference show that you picked up the flag of liberty and replaced it with the flag of political buffoonery.

An update on "America's calling"

Overview

I said in I can't keep up... that "I came across a post by Kevin Drum of Political Animal that basically said that White House aides and Bush's father said that ol' George's speech did not really mean what it so forcefully said[.]" I had planned on writing a post on this topic tomorrow, and then ol' George has a press conference this morning (which is ongoing as I am writing at 9:20 a.m.) in which he is attempting to clarify just what he meant in his Inaugural Address. That means that I need to write about the previous explanatory comments of the White House aides and George's daddy now so I do not fall too far behind.

I am basing this post on two articles from the Washington Post. The first article is "Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say," by Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei. The lead paragraph says

White House officials said yesterday that President Bush's soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere.

If that is truly the case, then why did the speech not even once mention Iraq or Afghanistan? Still, this excerpt contains no quotes from White House officials and could thus merely reflect the views of the reporters. Then again, maybe not...

Dan Bartlett

• Quote #1: Policy implications and values beyond debate
  

The first quote in the article is from White House counsel Dan Bartlett (he was formerly White House communications director, meaning he was the ringleader of the "White House media magicians" described here):

It has its own policy implications, but it is not to say we're not doing this already. It is important to crystallize the debate to say this is what it is all about, to say what are our ideals, what are the values we cherish."

Let's look at the second sentence first. What debate is Bartlett talking about? The values and ideals mentioned in the speech are freedom, liberty, and democracy. I do not think there is any debate in this country as to whether we cherish those principles. Now let's look at the first sentence. At once it grossly understates the bloody obvious and fails to crystallize anything. The speech has policy implications? Well, no shit, Dan. Here are some sources of these implications from the speech:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

*******

America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

*******

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

*******

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

To be fair, I have not included excerpts that appear to add caveats and qualifiers to the speech. I will address those later. However, I will say now that none of those "nuances" change the fact that the above excerpts do not limit in any way the scope and sweep of this "calling." As stated in this Inaugural Address, Bush's policy--and, according to him, America's policy--is as follows:

• We will bring freedom and liberty to every man and woman in the world.
• We will try to develop democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.
• We will stand with every oppressed person and not excuse any oppressor.
• We will seek end tyranny in the entire world.
• And lastly, all of this must be done in order for liberty in the U.S. to survive and to protect our country from attack.

You damn skippy that has policy implications. There are no limiting factors present, and, as will be shown, any limitations expressed in the speech do not alter the policy points set out above.

So much for policy implications. Let's look at the second phrase in Bartlett's first sentence: "but it is not to say we're not doing this already." First of all, smooth choice of wording. Using "not" twice in the same clause makes for crystal clear communication. Speaking of implications, this clause certain implies that we are in fact "doing this already." And that leads me to ask "Where?" In China and Russia? I repeat an excerpt from the Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler article I quoted in America's new calling:

The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well.

"Au contaire," say White House representatives. Wait...that's French, so White House aides would not say that..."On the contrary," say White House representatives. From the Doyle McManus article quoted in America's new calling:

But Bush aides argue that the administration has challenged China and Russia publicly on their human rights records.

Vice President Dick Cheney politely admonished China's leaders during a speech in Shanghai last year, saying: Freedom "is something that successful societies, and wise leaders, have learned to embrace rather than to fear."

And last month, Bush publicly criticized Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, whom he once hailed as a personal friend, for Putin's attempt to intervene in the election in neighboring Ukraine.

You're kidding me, right? This is not my idea of "standing with" oppressed people, nor does it constitute "not excusing" oppressive rulers. This hardly rises even to the level of a slap on the wrist. So, "we are not not doing this already" in Russia and China, so how about Pakistan? According to Wright and Kessler,

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup, reneged last month on a promise to give up his title as army chief of staff, eliciting little protest from the administration. At her hearings, Rice said she felt that Pakistan has "come a long way" in recent years because Musharraf broke ties with the Taliban, which had ruled Afghanistan, and assisted in fighting al Qaeda.

Let me see if I understand...Pakistan has "come a long way" in part because its military dictator ended relations with a group that ruled a different country? I'm confused. What does that have to do with how Pakistan is governed and hows its citizens are treated? Moreover, what does assisting in the fight against Al Qaeda have to do with how Pakistan is governed? Moving right along, let's take a look at Uzbekistan. From Wright and Kessler:

The State Department, in its annual human rights report, has cited Uzbekistan for its "very poor" human rights record, including the torture and killing of citizens in custody for political reasons. There is virtually no freedom of speech or of the press.

Yet Bush met with Uzbekistan's president in 2002 and signed a declaration of "strategic partnership," and senior officials such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have visited the country. The United States "values Uzbekistan as a stable, moderate force in a turbulent region," the State Department said late last year.

So what is a "strategic partnership"? McManus provides an answer--and some more information:

As for Uzbekistan, an authoritarian state that has granted the U.S. military basing rights, the administration has been divided. The State Department has condemned the regime as repressive and blocked some U.S. aid; the Pentagon has praised the regime and sought to unblock the money.

Rice was not asked about Uzbekistan at her confirmation hearings this week, but the Central Asian country was not on the list of six "outposts of tyranny" that she said deserved special attention: Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe.

We have the ability to put military bases in Uzbekistan. Is there anybody out there that sincerely thinks we are going to risk that asset by taking Uzbekistan to task? If we were, wouldn't it have made sense for Rice to include as part of her "outposts of tyranny" a country that has no freedom of speech and tortures and kills political dissidents? Freedom is on the march, baby!

And there are Afghanistan and Iraq. It is true that progress has been made toward democracy in both places, but for the moment keep this in mind: in both instances that progress came about only because of military action by this country. Moreover, in Afghanistan, the Taliban started making a comeback and the old warlord system is still in place to a great degree, meaning that the central government is not fully in control of the country.

Here's the point: Bartlett's implication that the U.S. is already doing the things Bush spoke of in his Inaugural Address is dubious at best. As a result, a strong argument can be made that the speech does signal a shift in U.S. foreign policy.

• Quote #2: Anchors aweigh!
  

Balz and VandeHei note that Bartlett said that the State of the Union Address will offer more details on how this "calling" is to be achieved. As for the Inaugural Address, Bartlett described it as

a speech that required us to cast out into the future a beacon that we will strive to meet...It is a goal that is critically important, one that doesn't come to fruition overnight. It will move at different speeds and different paces in different countries. But he felt it was important to cast an anchor out into the future[.]

"Cast an achor out into the future?" What the hell does that mean? Once again, I am confused. Bartlett speaks of a process that moves. An anchor, on the other hand, is expressly designed to impede or prevent movement.

Michael J. Gerson

Gerson is Bush's chief speech writer, and that means he basically wrote the Inaugural Address.

• Quote #1: Nuance...really?
  

Gerson told the Washington Post that "The speech was carefully and purposely nuanced." Wow! Apparently it was so nuanced that most of the world did not notice. And that includes former Reagan speechwriter and ardent Bush supporter Peggy Noonan (who I quoted at length in America's new calling). In an editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Noonan mentions a difference between foreign policy idealists and realists, and then says

Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise. But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance.

(emphasis added). That should disprove any notion that the claim of no nuance is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Moreover, note that in America's new calling I quoted Noonan as saying that the ending of the speech was "over the top."

Still, I have to concede that the speech did contain some qualifiers and caveats that might be considered "nuance."

Right after Bush said “So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world,” he said the following:

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary.

At first blush, this seems to negate any notion that Bush will be militaristic in pursuing our new calling. However, please note that this is the only sentence in the entire speech that says military force is not the primary means of "ending tyranny in our world." Next, look at the last half of the sentence. Bush said that we will use force to defend ourselves. Now, recall that part of the policy announced by Bush is that freeing the entire world in order for liberty in the U.S. to survive and to protect our country from attack. So, the "nuance" could be that Bush could decide that freedom can march only when pushed by military action. And finally, remember 1) Bartlett's implication that the U.S. is already doing things to achieve the calling, 2) the only places where we are having anything approaching success are Afghanistan and Iraq, 3) in both places, democracy had to be preceded by military invasion, and 4) we still have military forces in both places.

The next "nuance" came in the same paragraph of the speech:

And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

This sounds pretty good. It indicates that Bush will allow countries to truly choose their own path. Then again--like with the single mention of arms not being the primary means--this is the only place in the speech where Bush expresses this concept. On the other hand, Bush followed the above statements with the following:

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.

*******

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed.

*******

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

I interpret this "nuance" to mean that countries are free to choose their own path and institutions, but those choices better not be different from ours; otherwise we will not have "success" in our relations. We will walk at the side of countries choosing the American way, and those that do not will have the choice "clarified" for them. It will not be enough that people in a country are treated decently. That treatment has to be the product of democratic movements. Is this the conclusive meaning of all these statements? Perhaps not, but that is not the point. The point is twofold: 1) this is a reasonable interpretation, and 2) because of that, this second "nuance" is lacking in nuance.

• Quote #2: Idealistic AND realistic
  

Balz and VandeHei write that "Bush's speech appeared to put the United States on a course in which moralism and idealism, rather than realpolitik, form the philosophical foundations of foreign policy. But White House officials said that is a misreading of how Bush operates." And then there is this quote from Gerson:

His goals are deeply idealistic. His methods are deeply realistic. In fact, that was one of the themes of the speech, that this traditional divide between realism and idealism is no longer adequate for the conduct of American foreign policy.

Methods? What methods? As is blatantly obvious on the surface of the text of the speech, Bush said nothing about methods. He said nothing about how his great calling will be accomplished. The whole speech has an idealism quotient exceeding a first-place winner in an Optimist Club "America is great because..." speech contest. As for the theme Gerson noted, I missed that. I said in America's new calling that the theme of the speech was "freedom and liberty," and that "freedom" was used 27 times and "liberty" 15. I went back and did a word count on some other words. "Ideals" was used 3 times. "Idealism" was used 2 times. "Idealistic" was used 1 time. "Realistic," "realism," and "reality" were used 0 times, as in never. Also, there was no direct expression of a divide between realism and idealism. How could I have missed this theme? I guess maybe there was some nuance after all.

• Quote #3: A generational struggle

Gerson also said that the speech addressed "a generational struggle. It's not the work of a year or two." So what? That does not change the fact that no American President since Woodrow Wilson has put forth anything like Bush's "calling." That means that the Inaugural Address--by its plain language--is a shift in American foreign policy. Furthermore, even if this is a generational struggle--meaning that the effort will continue long after Bush leaves office--the facts remain that Bush will oversee the first four years of the struggle and what he does will necessarily define what has to be done after he leaves. In other words, if he screws it up, it will become a huge struggle that someone else will have to clean up.

An unnamed senior administration official

Balz and VandeHei qoute an anonymous senior administration official at length. The official wanted to remain unnamed "because he wanted the focus to remain on the president's words and not his."

• Quote #1: There's nothing new here

According to this official, the speech "is not a discontinuity. It is not a right turn." As I said, this is the first time since Wilson that a President has announced a similar policy, which means that for well over a half a century there has been no such bold policy to free the entire world, which further means that Bush's new policy is a discontinuity. As for the speech not being a right turn, I am not so sure, but I am pretty certain that it is not a left turn, and it damn sure is not staying in the center.

• Quote #2: What Bartlett said

The senior official also said that the speech is nothing more than a "message we have been sending" for some time. Go back and read the analysis for Bartlett's Quote #1.

• Quote #3: Successful relationships

This quote, or group of related statements, deals with the second nuance I discussed under Gerson Quote #1. That nuance dealt with the possibility that Bush would allow countries to choose their own path and institutions.

Balz and VandeHei write that

The senior administration official pointed to Russia and China as countries that have a "successful relationship" with the United States. But he said Russia and China would need to embrace "a common set of values and principles" to have "a relationship that broadens and deepens."

Just what is this common set of values? And how does our relationship with Russia and China broaden and deepen? There is certainly the possibility that increased "success" in those relationships will come about only if Russia and China do what we want them to do. The senior official then gave this insight into how the new policy could affect Russia:

He said that if Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to take steps to restrict democracy, it will "have a consequence on our relations," adding that "it will depend on some sense whether he has heard the message and acted on it, or doesn't."

Somebody please explain how this does not translate to "do what we want or there will be adverse consequences." What if Putin somehow in the near future further restricts democracy but revives the Russian economy and makes life better for all Russians? What will Bush do then?

And lastly, the senior official "said that administration concerns might not be voiced publicly, but through private channels." And Condi Rice will then dress up as Glenda the Good Witch, wave her magic wand, and Putin will become Mr. Rogers. Then again, maybe that will not be necessary, for, after all, ol' George has seen Vladimir's soul. Listen up, folks. Voicing concerns to Putin through private channels ain't gonna do shit. Putin was a major player in the Soviet system (former head of the KGB), and history shows that anyone who survived in that system is one smart, tough sumbitch (that's Texan for SOB). Putin does not have ice water in his veins--he has liquid nitrogen. The chances of anyone forcing him to do anything are near non-existent, and a gnat flying around his head will concern him more than a private voicing of concerns. Want some proof? Look at Chechnya. Putin has been ruthless in dealing with rebels there. The Bush administration has expressed some concern, but not much, and Putin has ignored it. See, we are in no position to complain because of our "war on terror." Putin has said that the rebels are terrorists and include Al Qaeda members, and if the U.S. takes the position that it can undertake drastic means to combat terrorism, then so can he. It is rather hard to argue with Putin's logic, and no amount of "private voicing of concerns" is going to persuade him to change his approach.

This senior administration official is trying to say that the Inaugural Address is not really a big deal because its goals can and will be met with personal diplomacy and persuasion. That is not mentioned anywhere in the speech, and, furthermore, it is a dangerously incorrect assertion.

Papa Bush

VandeHei had a follow-up article on January 23 entitled "Bush's Father Warns Against Extrapolating From Speech." Here's what Daddy said about the speech:

"People want to read a lot into it -- that this means new aggression or newly asserted military forces," former president George H.W. Bush said. "That's not what that speech is about. It's about freedom."

*******

People "certainly ought to not read into [the speech] any arrogance on the part of the United States," the former president said during an impromptu visit to the White House briefing room.

To the contrary, I believe many do NOT want to read into the speech a meaning of new aggression. They want the meaning to be just the opposite. However, it is damn near impossible not to see that meaning. And while the elder Bush thinks people should not see arrogance in the speech, it oozes arrogance. With all the talk of God, America's calling to free every man and woman on earth, America's freedom depending on ending tyranny in the world, etc., there is arrogance throughout the speech. In I can't keep up..., I mentioned a article by Fareed Zakaria. This excerpt describes why most of the world sees Bush and his foreign policy as arrogant:

I often argue with an Indian businessman friend of mine that America is unfairly singled out for scrutiny abroad. “Why didn’t anyone criticize the French or Chinese for their meager response to the tsunami?” I asked him recently. His response was simple. “America positions itself as the moral arbiter of the world, it pronounces on the virtues of all other regimes, it tells the rest of the world whether they are good or evil,” he said. “No one else does that. America singles itself out.

Read the entire Inaugural Address for yourself. Then ask yourself how it does not send the very message mentioned by Zakaria's friend. To me, it clearly does send that message, and there is nothing in the speech--no nuance, if you will--that softens that message.

Conclusion

The Inaugural Address is bold and uncompromising. As I attempted to show in America's new calling, the speech sets a standard that cannot be met and thus sets the stage for abject hypocrisy by our nation. I think that is why White House officials and the Bush the Elder tried to tell us that the speech really did not mean what it so forcefully said. I believe that those efforts are in vain. Assuming that I wrong, then Kevin Drum's comments are highly relevant:

Even accepting that rhetorical BS is a politician's stock in trade, this is inexplicable. What's the point in giving a speech like this if you're going to spend the next week telling everyone to ignore it? This is political buffoonery of a high degree.

Indeed.

I can't keep up...

Trying to keep up with the Bush administration is almost impossible. I expressed similar problems in Some explanation about this blog...and a "thank you," but I raise them again in order to describe what I see as another component of the Bush SOP.

I spent a good deal of time putting together my initial analysis and commentary on Bush's Inaugural Address. Then I found an excellent article by Fareed Zakaria which I wanted to make the basis for some follow-up analysis. More specifically, as I started reading the article, I found one paragraph which I wanted to use. Although I downloaded the entire article, I did not read past that paragraph. Instead, I began searching for similar expressions elsewhere on the web. In the course of that endeavor, I came across a post by Kevin Drum of Political Animal that basically said that White House aides and Bush's father said that ol' George's speech did not really mean what it so forcefully said, so there was another topic I had to start working on. Then I went back and read the entire Zakaria article. And there I found this delicious passage:

Convinced that bringing freedom to a country meant simply getting rid of the tyrant, the Bush administration seems to have done virtually no serious postwar planning to keep law and order, let alone to build the institutions of a democratic state. If this sounds like an exaggeration, consider the extraordinary words in the “after-action report” of the most important division of the American Army in Iraq, the Third Infantry Division, quoted in a recent essay by Michael O’Hanlon. It reads: “Higher headquarters did not provide the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) with a plan for Phase IV [the postwar phase]. As a result, Third Infantry Division transitioned into Phase IV in the absence of guidance.”

(emphasis added). This is exactly what I have been saying in all my posts about planning for the post war period! I will discuss O'Hanlon's essay either today or tomorrow, and here's a preview. While my research and analysis is largely in agreement with O'Hanlon, he does not address the fact that Joint Publication 5-00.1, Joint Doctrine for Campaign Planning, squarely lays the primary and ultimate responsibility for such planning on the National Command Authorities, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. I covered this is detail in Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period, A note on the applicability of JP 5-00.1, and More on the principles in JP 5-00.1. But I digress...

This post shows an example of another component of the Bush administration SOP. These clowns have done so many things that are questionable at best and positively stupid at worst, and always there are several controversies going on at once. There has not been a "break in the action." The mistakes and controversies have been a continuous stream. For a time I could find absolutely no rational explanation for this pattern, but I have since come up with a theory...

I submit that this conduct is intentional and planned. See, if there are numerous problems at a given time, it is difficult for anyone to stay focused on any one problem. As soon as one problem starts receiving high scrutiny, along comes another one to take attention away from the first one. And then the Bush administration can turn its efforts back to the first problem or another matter altogether. In effect, the process becomes a shell game or a hand of three-card monte, with the primary objective being to make it impossible for anyone to keep an eye on the pea or winning card. The secondary objective is to get everyone so caught up in the chase (the effort to find the pea or winning card) that they lose sight of everything else. This process then gives the Bush adminstration flexibility in which to conduct all its massive bullshit.

Sound crazy? Perhaps, but show me another explanation. One alternative is that these clowns are really, really stupid and/or delusional. If my theory is correct, then they are supremely twisted and sick. Both choices are frightening.

America's new calling

The "Calling" presented by Bush

Bush's Inaugural Address had a definite theme, which Bush said over and over and over again. That theme took the form of two words: "freedom" and "liberty." As Jon Stewart showed on "The Daily Show," Bush said "freedom" 27 times and "liberty" 15 times. Bush used these terms to address domestic policy issues, but there is no question that the theme's greatest and boldest application was to foreign policy. Some of you right wingers probably don't want to agree with me, so maybe you will consider the views of Peggy Noonan, Reagan advisor, speechwriter for George H.W. Bush, and big-time supporter of George W. Bush. In an editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Noonan said "It was a foreign-policy speech," and "No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy."

Here are some excerpts from the Address which show how Bush applied the "freedom and liberty" theme to foreign policy:

Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

*******

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

*******

America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

(emphasis added). When I first heard these words, my immediate reaction was to ask, "And just how are we going to do all that?" And that led to other questions, but as I was surfing the 'net to find other reactions, I found that others were raising similar concerns.

The logistical problem

I'll start with some comments from Zbigniew Brzeninski on The News Hour:

The fact is that the speech was high-sounding. If it was to be taken literally, it would mean an American crusade throughout the entire world, and I don't know how that would be implemented practically. More Iraqs, perhaps, or is it just a general statement which doesn't give us much guide to policy, suited for the occasion but not to be taken as the point of departure for serious policy?

*******

It just makes me feel that the administration at this stage is really very unclear regarding its genuine strategic doctrine. It has high-sounding rhetoric, but it doesn't have a real sense of priorities or directions. If the rhetoric was to be taken seriously, we would be overstretched globally to a devastating degree.

(emphasis added). Our military is stretched to its limits right now because of Iraq, and we are likely to have most of our forces in Iraq for several years. Thus, it is unlikely that this "calling" can be accomplished through military force. Our economic dominance is being reduced, and with the prospect of China's economy really taking off, that dominance will be further reduced. And Bush's "calling" is going to cost money--lots of it. How else are we going to free the entire world? With diplomacy and gentle persuasion? Bush's first term ruined any chance we have of that any time in the near future.

The "What do we do about current relationships?" problem

As expressed by Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post,

President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world.

Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well.

(emphasis added). Aye, there's the rub. Brzezinski raised this dilemma at the beginning of the segment on The News Hour:

If the speech, if the speech was to be taken literally, then clearly it would imply commitment to some sort of a global crusade vis-à-vis a variety of states with many of whom we have all sorts of mutual concerns, even if we don't like their practical policies. I mean, take a few examples. Take China; we have a major state in stability with China, but China is hardly a democracy. What about the Tibetans? Take Russia; we have a common stake with regards to terrorism, but what about the Chechens? They're being treated in a tyrannical fashion. Take an even more complex issue: what about Israel, which is a friend of ours, and its security against Palestinian terrorists? But what about the oppression of the Palestinians and their desire for freedom?

Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times posed the issue this way:

If Bush carries through on that pledge, it will be a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, which has often oscillated between promoting democracy and defending narrower military and economic interests.

But making that change may not be easy. Will he press hard on China, a major trading partner; or Saudi Arabia, the source of 20% of the nation's imported oil; or Pakistan, a key ally in the hunt for terrorist leader Osama bin Laden?

*******

The test of Bush's sweeping new doctrine, though, won't come in Afghanistan, but in more powerful countries like China and Russia, where the United States wants to maintain cordial relationships with repressive governments for practical political and economic reasons.

The war on terror does present major problems for Bush's "calling." He said in the Inaugural Address that "My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. " So if that is his greatest duty, and if that duty is being fulfilled in part because of help from countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan, is Bush going to risk losing that help by trying to establish "democratic movements and institutions" in those countries? If so, is he not meeting his greatest duty?

The foreign credibility problem

Todd S. Purdam described this problem in a New York Times article:

James B. Steinberg, who was deputy national security adviser in the Clinton White House, said, "The objective is so sweeping that from here on in, every action of ours that falls short of this unequivocal commitment to freedom and to promoting the cause of freedom is going to be judged against the standard of 'You said you were going to do this.' "

Of course, none of you right wingers are going to believe anything anyone from the Clinton administration says, so you should be aware that McManus included this quote from leading conservative foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan:

"Now that Bush has made this his goal, he will constantly be challenged on how well he's living up to it. Take China, for example. When the president talks about 'captives in chains,' it's got to apply to China…We're going to come up short a lot."

In other words, Bush seems to have established, in an unequivocal, bold manner, a standard with no exceptions. And given his aversion to admitting mistakes or failings or doing anything but "staying the course," people across the world will necessarily think that is indeed the standard he has set. As indicated by Kagan and discussed throughout this post, this standard cannot possibly be met.

The domestic credibility problem

The description of this problem comes from Andrew Sullivan (and for really uninformed right wingers, Mr. Sullivan ain't no liberal):

There were times when the liberty theme became repetitive. And, of course, the relationship of rhetoric to reality is, as always with Bush, problematic. How do you reconcile the expansion of freedom with Bush's expansion of government? How do you square domestic freedom with the curtailment of civil liberties in a war on terror? How do you proclaim that America is a force for freeing dissidents, when the government now has unprecedented powers to detain anyone suspected of terror across the globe and subject them to coercive interrogation techniques that the government will not disclose? Perhaps these questions do not need to be answered in an inaugural address. But they linger in the air, even as Bush's eloquence and idealism lifts you up and gives you hope.

Indeed, these questions do linger, but if the Bush administration follows its SOP (standard operating procedure), there will never be any direct, substantive answers. Instead, we will continue to get this "eloquent idealism."

The "be careful what you ask for" problem

Wright and Kessler stated this problem succinctly: "Autocratic rulers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, moreover, would be likely to be replaced by opponents of U.S. policy if free and fair elections were held there today."

Todd Purdam expressed this problem in a question:

"When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

But stand how, and when, and where? When Mr. Bush warned that "the leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know to serve your people, you must learn to trust them," did he mean to endorse plebiscites in Saudi Arabia or Egypt that could produce anti-American governments?

Bush says he wants to establish democracy in the entire world, but a true democracy could very well result in a government "by the people and of the people" that is anti-American. Would that help protect this country? Would that fulfill what Bush his ownself has described as his morst solemn duty?

There are other aspects to this problem (and they are related to the Logistical Problem). Let's take a look at Iraq. The Shia are the majority in Iraq and were greatly repressed under Saddam. The Sunnis were the ruling group of Iraq all during Saddam's reign, meaning that any ties to Saddam are among the Sunnis, not the Shia, meaning that America surely does not want the Sunnis to be a significant part of a democratic Iraq. Generally speaking, if a straight-out democratic election was held in Iraq, the government would be run by the Shia. That's good, right? They are the ones who hated Saddam, right? Right, but they also have ties to the one government in the world that is also Shia--Iran. And we can't possibly have a democtratic country that could end up being an ally of part of the Axis of Evil. Moreover, if the Sunnis feel like they are being left out of the government, civil war could be on the horizon. And then there's the problem of Northern Iran, which is dominated by the Kurds. The Kurds want control of the vast oil reserves in the north, and there is still a desire for a separate nation among some Kurds.

What does all this mean? It means that Iraq is a mess, and a democratic election there (which is supposed to happen in one week) could establish a situation that is only slightly more stable than what exists now. Iraq is complex, and someone has to be there to help establish the democratic process--especially if we do not want Iraq to fall into civil war and anti-Americanism. And that "someone" is the U.S. So far, this process has taken over a year and a half, and it will not be over at the end of this month. The circumstances of different countries will be different and will require approaches suited to those unique circumstances. This will take a great deal of time, money, and other resources. Do we have the resources to spend? As everyone should have learned by now, the establishment of stability and new, democratic institutions is where the hardest work lies. We cannot just wave a magic wand and make democracy appear. So be careful what you ask for, George. Even if a democratic movement results in a government that is not anti-American, we likely will still have lots of work to do. And if Iraq is any accurate indication, there is no way we can realistically do that in multiple countries simultaneously.

The Pollyanna problem

"Pollyanna" is defined by Dictionary.com as "A person regarded as being foolishly or blindly optimistic." That would be one of the nicer ways for me to describe George W. Bush, and his Inaugural Address sure makes him look like a Pollyanna. For more of an explanation, I once again turn to Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal editorial.

The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."

It seemed a document produced by a White House on a mission. The United States, the speech said, has put the world on notice: Good governments that are just to their people are our friends, and those that are not are, essentially, not. We know the way: democracy. The president told every nondemocratic government in the world to shape up. "Success in our relations [with other governments] will require the decent treatment of their own people."

The speech did not deal with specifics--9/11, terrorism, particular alliances, Iraq. It was, instead, assertively abstract.

*******

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth.

Noonan discussed some parts of the Address she considered to be very good, and then finished with this:

And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.

One wonders if they shouldn't ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not.

Bush would do well to take heed of Noonan's words, but I have no reason to believe that he will. While "Pollyanna" is an accurate description, it is not comprehensive. While I find the Inaugural Address to be foolishly or blindly optimistic, I also find that it smacks of "Manifest Destiny" and "the White Man's Burden." Bush's "calling" as presented in his Inaugural Address is arrogant, myopically idealistic, and completely devoid of an explanation how it will be achieved. Then again, that's par for the course for the Bush administration.

America has a calling, but before that...

In his Inaugural Address, President Bush said that "the calling of our time" is for "the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture."

Now hold on there just a minute, George. Some of your most ardent supporters have decided there is a more insidious evil that must first be destroyed. Dr. James C. Dobson and his group Focus on the Family have declared that the very foundation of freedom faces a foe in the form of...are you ready, kids?...SpongeBob Squarepants.

As reported in the New York Times,

Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."

Screw spreading democracy, SpongeBob must be stopped!

The makers of the video denied Dobson's claims:

The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit "We Are Family," said Mr. Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding. Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity. The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not mentioned on the video and is available only on the group's Web site.

Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site belonging to another group called "We Are Family," which supports gay youth.

That's a good explanation, but I think the Foundation's lawyer, Mark Barondess, really hit the mark when he said that critics of the video "need medication."

Another Inauguration cost update--sort of

I wanted to see how much money the Inaugural Committee had raised since last Friday, so I went to the donors page of the official web site, only to scroll down and see that it had not been updated since last Friday.

Bush almost admits a mistake.

On January 13, 2005, George Bush had a roundtable interview session with reporters from 14 newspapers. Don't look for the transcript on the White House web site, however, because it is not there. As the AP reported (see link above) Bush discussed two of his most famous lines during the interview.

On July 2, 2003, two months after he had declared an end to major combat in Iraq, Bush promised U.S. forces would stay until the creation of a free government there. To those who would attack U.S. forces in an attempt to deter that mission, Bush said, “My answer is, Bring ’em on.”

*******

“Sometimes, words have consequences you don’t intend them to mean,” Bush said Thursday. “’Bring ’em on’ is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn’t the case.”

So "bring 'em on" actually means "you're doing a great job." Well, "that dog won't hunt," which means "bullshit."

And then George talked about his other classic line:

In the week after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush was asked if he wanted bin Laden, the terrorist leader blamed for the attacks, dead.

“I want justice,” Bush said. “And there’s an old poster out West, that I recall, that said, ’Wanted, Dead or Alive.”’

Recalling that remark, Bush told the reporters: “I can remember getting back to the White House, and Laura said, ’Why did you do that for?’ I said, ’Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn’t rehearse it.’

“I don’t know if you’d call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. ... I speak plainly sometimes, but you’ve got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don’t know if you’d call that a confession, a regret, something.”

(emphasis added). Yeah--he speaks plainly. You know, like it is plain that "bring 'em on" means "you're doing a good job." Now look at the italicized words. Are you telling me that the Leader of the Free World, the most recognizable person in the world, the leader whose words are scrutinized more than any other, did not know until now that he has to be mindful of the words he says? Someone better modify his signature education policy to include No President Left Behind.