. . . Oh, Never Mind (Bush's Freedom promises not really operative)

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33958-2005Jan24.html



washingtonpost.com
. . . Oh, Never Mind

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005; Page A15


Perhaps I owe readers an apology. While I was critical of President Bush's inaugural address in some respects, it appears that I took its promise of an expansive campaign on behalf of democracy too seriously.

Barely 24 hours after the last marching band paraded past the White House, the president's lieutenants were out there spinning that all those lovely words didn't mean quite as much as they seemed to have meant.

On the front page of The Post, Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei cited White House officials as saying on Friday that Bush's speech was "carefully written not to tie him to any inflexible or unrealistic application of his goal of ending tyranny."

The president's "soaring inaugural address," they wrote, would not lead "to any quick shift in strategy" for dealing with allies such as Russia, China, Egypt and Pakistan, nations "whose records on human rights fall well short of the values Bush said would become the basis of relations with all countries." Oh yes, and the same advisers said they "were not trying to roll back the speech on the day after."<snip>

For his own sake and ours, Bush and his advisers should not be making it easier for adversaries and skeptical allies to dismiss freedom as an advertising slogan used to justify whatever foreign policy the administration decides to pursue. All presidents need a dose of realism, but surely this president doesn't want it said that his willingness to stand up for freedom depends on what the definition of "freedom" is.

You can spin a lot of things. Freedom shouldn't be one of them.