There was a great piece out of San Fransisco today.
THE BEAUTIFULLY crafted words in President Bush's second inaugural address would have been inspiring if not for the record of his first term.
An Inauguration speech is not an occasion for policy specifics, and Bush upheld that tradition with a thematic call for the expansion of freedom abroad and an extension of opportunity and tolerance at home. He invoked the words of Abraham Lincoln in saying, "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
His characterization of a muscular foreign policy as a cherished American value brought to mind John F. Kennedy's inaugural resolve to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
The idealism of the president's speech, however, was in sharp contrast to the reality of his administration's unilateralist approach to the world. Many of his passages about the priorities and obligations of this democracy in a post-Sept. 11 world could have just as easily been spoken by critics of his foreign policy.
"We have seen our vulnerability -- and we have seen its deepest source, " he said. "For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder -- violence will gather and multiply in destructive power and cross the most defended borders and raise a mortal threat.
"There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom."
In so many ways, the poignancy of Bush's prose about breaking "the reign of hatred and resentment" was undercut by his administration's approach to Iraq -- the snubbing of some of our closest allies before the war; the creation of a climate of disregard for legal and humanitarian standards in the detainment and treatment of prisoners; the hoarding of postwar spoils for favored U.S. companies; the deception behind the very rationale for this pre- emptive invasion; the serious miscalculations about its aftermath.
As he delivered his speech, Iraq is engulfed in violence and uncertainty as elections approach, Osama bin Laden remains at large and there is no sign that Bush's policies have done anything to temper hatred and resentment toward the United States. If anything, it is building.
The words President Bush spoke yesterday can mean only one of two things. First, it could mean that the administration has learned its lesson and is preparing for a significant shift in its approach to the world. I have to admit, I think this would be a bit unbelievable since they have failed to demonstrate even the slightest hint of this sort of idealism in their past actions. They have only fought oppression when it has served its interests, allying itself with some of the world's most repressive regimes in Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and has at best demonstrated a stunning lack of interest in their own application of human rights in places like Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
Applying Occum's Razor, we can probably assume that there is more truth in the second explanation, which is that this new rhetoric's real purpose is to provide political cover for an increasing disparate situation in Iraq. This would be the obvious explanation since it was not until after it became clear there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that issues like the oppression of other peoples became such a salient issue for Bush and the Republicans.
Today the Post wrote:
Those seeking hints of policy might focus on Mr. Bush's declaration that "our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon," which presumably applies to Iraq and Afghanistan. He suggested that his administration would henceforth refuse to "ignore" or "excuse" oppression, by standing with "democratic reformers facing repression" and by "making clear that success in our relations" with other countries "will require the decent treatment of their own people."
That's a policy with which we agree -- and which, until now, Mr. Bush has not pursued. He has promoted democracy when it has coincided with other U.S. interests, as in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian territories. When opposition to tyranny has been at odds with security or economic policy -- in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in Russia, in China -- the Bush administration of the past four years consistently chose to ignore and excuse oppression. Anyone judging by Mr. Bush's speech yesterday would have to conclude that U.S. policy toward those countries, and many others, is on the verge of a historic change. If not, his promise of "the greatest achievements in the history of freedom" will be remembered as grandiose and hollow.
In truth, the President's rhetoric, if it displays anything, it would have to be desperation. Polls have recently begun to show that the majority of American's now consider the Iraq War to be the wrong decision. Bush and his advisers know that with numbers like those, they are unlikely to get anything done in the future. It is imparative, therefore, that they change those numbers. With little real world evidence to support the wisdom of their policies, they are, like all Orwellian leaders, being forced to resort to idealistic defenses of their actions. Its a disparate ploy, and one that will become increasingly untenable for them.
The clock is ticking on this administration. There is only so many times Bush will be able to raise the rhetorical bar before he is called to account for his wrongheaded policies by the American people. The question is, how much damage will he be able to do in the process.