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.