This best expresses what I mean. Read it all please.
INAUGURATION
Free From Specifics
President Bush opened his second term
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050120-1.html) with an "
assertively abstract
(http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110627259043832254,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain%5Fcommentaries)
" speech in which he promised to promote liberty and democracy "in every nation
and culture" on earth. The speech was " harnessed to almost no specifics
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24961-2005Jan20.html) " -- the
words "freedom," "free" and "liberty" appeared 49 times
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/opinion/21safire.html?oref=login&hp) , but
Bush " did not mention Iraq, Iran, North Korea
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24961-2005Jan20.html) -- or
indeed any country, friend or foe." The word "terrorism" did not appear, nor was
there mention of al Qaeda. And the war in Iraq, which has claimed the lives of
1,360 American troops and wounded upwards of 10,000, went unacknowledged
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/opinion/21herbert.html?hp) .
IRAQ? WHAT IRAQ?: While Bush mentioned the abstract notion of "freedom" 25 times
in a 17-minute speech (yes, that works out to 1.5 times a minute), the president
remained strangely silent
(http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050121-9999-1n21assess.html) on
the most important issue facing the country today, the increasingly unpopular
war in Iraq. Three other presidents gave their second inaugural addresses during
times of war: James Madison, Abraham Lincoln and Nixon. All three focused
heavily on the challenges faced by the country in a time of war. Bush, however,
never let the word Iraq pass his lips. And "while the war's costs mount, the
president pointedly did not ask the country for sacrifices to win the victory he
promises."
UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY: THE FIRST-TERM RECORD: President Bush's rhetoric on
promoting democracy abroad was undermined by several
(http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2005-01/15939747.pdf) of his first-term
actions. The Bush administration continued to cultivate a close relationship
with monarchic Saudi Arabia, for instance, despite that country being ranked by
the non-partisan Freedom House
(http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2005/table2005.pdf) as "one of
the world's least free nations." In Russia, President Bush stood idly by as his
" straightforward and trustworthy
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16119) " friend
Vladimir Putin eliminated political competition, canceled checks and balances,
and muzzled the press
(http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?hpFlag=Y&chklogin=N&autono=178584&leftnm=lmnu4&lselect=0&leftindx=4)
. According to the Washington Post, " even Putin's defenders have reservations
about calling Russia a democracy anymore
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16724-2005Jan17.html) ." And the
administration has been protective of Pakistan, "even though President Pervez
Musharraf, a general who seized power in 1999, reneged last year on his promise
to give up his role as chief of the armed forces
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess21jan21,0,2956388.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
."
PROMOTING DEMOCRACY: SECOND-TERM CHALLENGES: Bush's vow to spread freedom also
raises several second-term challenges: Will he " go to the mat for instance, to
bring democracy to China?
(http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/consumer_news/10697674.htm?1c)
To Iran?...How hard will he press for women's rights and free elections in Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt?" The challenge may be especially difficult in
autocratic China, where U.S. investments are valued at more than $35 billion.
The State Department cites " Well-documented abuses of human rights
(http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2005-01/15939747.pdf) in violation of
internationally recognized norms." Human Rights Watch accuses China of stifling
free discourse (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/23/china9930.htm) , rigging
elections in Hong Kong and repressing freedom
(http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/06/china9468.htm) in Tibet.
DOMESTIC DITHERING: The last third of Bush's speech was focused on his domestic
priorities for his upcoming term. He brushed off his rhetoric on the so-called
"ownership society," saying he wanted to "widen the ownership of homes and
businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, preparing our people for
the challenges of life in a free society." But over the past four years, Bush
has systematically shifted retirement and health care costs and risks onto
individuals while making sure financial services and health care providers get
billions in new fees and services. His plan for privatizing Social Security, for
example, leaves the elderly at the mercy of fickle financial markets, while
private financial management firms will collect an estimated $940 billion
windfall (http://gsb.uchicago.edu/pdf/ssec_goolsbee.pdf) in new fees. He has
advocated sharp cuts
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7862-2005Jan13.html) in the
budget for Housing and Urban Development (which helps the poor find housing);
today, HUD is poised to lose a quarter of its $31 billion budget.
THE WORLD MAY NOT FOLLOW: In his speech, Bush set forth the idea that the United
States would become a global leader for freedom and democracy. One big problem:
The world may no longer trust him. Over the past four years, President Bush and
his administration have systematically squandered international support and
undercut America's position as global leader. A new public opinion poll
conducted by BBC World Service shows that of 22,000 surveyed in Africa, Latin
America, North America, Asia, and Europe, "58 percent of those surveyed said
they believed US President George Bush will have a 'negative impact on [global]
peace and security.'" Doug Miller, president of the polling firm GlobeScan
(http://www.globescan.com/) , which helped conduct the survey, called the
results troubling: "Our research makes very clear that the re-election of
President Bush has further isolated America from the world," he said. "It also
supports the view of some Americans that unless his administration changes its
approach to world affairs in its second term, it will continue to erode
America's good name, and hence its ability to effectively influence world
affairs." |
