Is Bush's Speech To Be Trusted

The Demver Post ^ | 12-07 | Walter Cronkite

[vto]

Some knowledge of history and the memories of a long life have given me a sense of wonder at the shape-shifting habit of ideals and the ideologues who espouse them. What brings this to mind is the eloquent and idealistic foreign-policy speech that President Bush recently gave in London.

Some commentators liken Bush's rhetoric to the idealism of Ronald Reagan, but it has earlier, Democratic antecedents, both in Woodrow Wilson's war "to make the world safe for democracy" and in FDR's "Four Freedoms." In both cases, these ideals were carried forward on American bayonets.

Bush's London address was masterfully crafted to defend his foreign policy against widespread European hostility. And he seems to have been at least partially successful, though parts of it sounded a bit off-key.

Bush offered a softer, more human image than the one Europeans have become used to. He showed himself capable of disarming, self-deprecating humor. He was conciliatory, admitting that there were "good-faith disagreements in your country and mine" over the war in Iraq. And he added something with which I agree: "Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: to keep our word or to break our word."

Bush cited a number of liberal themes. He identified himself with Wilson. His confession that "your nation and mine in the past have been willing to make a bargain to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability" has been a liberal complaint from the days of the Cold War to the present. He even embraced Bill Clinton's intervention in the Balkans, likening it to his own actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, why did the speech sound off-key to me? For several reasons: In some instances, I have to question, if not Bush's sincerity, at least the depth of his conviction. That depth is suspect because of his poor record of following through. In Afghanistan, the pledge to reconstruct and democratize that country seemed all but abandoned in order to concentrate forces and finances on the invasion of Iraq.

Remember the "road map" for Israel/Palestine? Palestinian terrorists shredded it with their suicide bombs, but not before Bush had failed in his promise to pressure both sides to make critical concessions. He denounced and renounced Yasser Arafat, but seemed, as he had in the past, unwilling or incapable of holding Ariel Sharon's feet to the fire.

Today there is growing skepticism concerning his promise to stay the course in Iraq. With the security situation there worsening by the day, the decision to craft a new plan seemed not just defensible but mandatory. But suspicions were raised by the new timetable, which would put an Iraqi council in charge by next June and send a substantial number of American troops home.

It might be simply coincidental that this timing meshes with next year's re-election campaign. But coincidence does inspire some skepticism.

When questioned by reporters in London about the reduction of forces, the president said we might have fewer troops in Iraq, or stay at the current level, or have more troops there, whatever is needed to do the job. But the White House rushed to say the president didn't mean there would be more troops there next year. So it seems fair to ask just what's going on here.

A related issue that does go directly to Bush's sincerity is his acknowledgement in the London speech of "good-faith disagreements" over the war. How does that harmonize with the Republicans' egregious use of such disagreements to bludgeon the Democrats prior to the 2002 midterm elections - a political mugging we can expect to see more of next year? While admiring his rhetorical skill and honoring some genuine idealism, I still hear some sour notes in his London speech.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Cronkite has been a journalist for 60-plus years, including 19 as anchor of the "CBS Evening News."

[marktwain]

I read this to see if I still despised Uncle Walter. Yes, I do. There is no depth to him, and he, as the "most trusted man in America" has done enormous harm to this nation.

[stylin19a]

and the point ?

[PeteFromMontana]

I read a previous rant by Uncle Walter about a month ago, I copy and pasted several of his points that seemed like crap to me and politely asked him to provide his basis for the "facts" he was reciting.

Funny, I never did hear from him.

[Maria S]

Walter, Walter, Walter...you are so yesterday. Why don't you just go back to sailing on your nifty little craft (remember, the one that you took Bil and Hil on?) and have the grace to keep quiet.

[BenLurkin]

Cronkite's beef with the dictators we backed during the Cold War is that they were leaders who stood up against the Communists, whom Cronkite wanted to see win the Cold War.

[M Kehoe]

Good old Walter, still has his game. Hasn't changed a bit. Odd though, being an objective journalist that he didn't pen anything critical regarding the i42 administration. Maybe he was on an eight year sabatical. Yeah, that's it.

5.56mm

[speedy]

Nice to see that Uncle Walter, at his advanced age, hasn't lost a bit of his self-righteous bloviating. Kind of like a trip down memory lane.

[God luvs America]

Time to give it up Walter! He showed himself capable of disarming, self-deprecating humor.

The President has always poked fun at himself!

He even embraced Bill Clinton's intervention in the Balkans, likening it to his own actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our President stands for what is right, not what is popular or partisan!

So, why did the speech sound off-key to me?

Cause your an old geezer who forgot to put in his hearing aid!

That depth is suspect because of his poor record of following through. In Afghanistan, the pledge to reconstruct and democratize that country seemed all but abandoned in order to concentrate forces and finances on the invasion of Iraq.

I guess Europe's failure to anti-up as well as the ME states has nothing to do with this huh? Oh...and don't forget that very humanitarian and partial organization...the UN!

Remember the "road map" for Israel/Palestine? Palestinian terrorists shredded it with their suicide bombs, but not before Bush had failed in his promise to pressure both sides to make critical concessions. He denounced and renounced Yasser Arafat, but seemed, as he had in the past, unwilling or incapable of holding Ariel Sharon's feet to the fire.

A bit antisemitic to me....had the President sent a hit squad for Arafat Conkout would be decrying another liberal tune.

A related issue that does go directly to Bush's sincerity is his acknowledgement in the London speech of "good-faith disagreements" over the war. How does that harmonize with the Republicans' egregious use of such disagreements to bludgeon the Democrats prior to the 2002 midterm elections - a political mugging we can expect to see more of next year?

'Ol Walter must be part of the hate Bush crowd; seems he's turned a blind eye and deaf ear to all the partisan politics that attack our President on a daily basis...hey walt, Jimmy Carter was a miserable failure!

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I thought he died?

[cubreporter]

Walter, Walter, Walter. Poor Walter. He IS the past. He should find himself a hobby like making little things out of popsicle sticks or something constructive like that instead of ranting and blubbering, thereby proving himself the fool most people THINK he is.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"In Afghanistan, the pledge to reconstruct and democratize that country seemed all but abandoned in order to concentrate forces and finances on the invasion of Iraq."

There must be a place named "Afghanistan" on Planet Cronkite, because this statement cannot possibly apply to the newly-free country of the same name here on Earth.

[Howlin]

Today there is growing skepticism concerning his promise to stay the course in Iraq.

A$$HOLE.

BOOKMARK so I can come back and read the replies after you all have torn him a new one.

[Prime Choice]

Cronkite is soooooooooooo 20th century. Feh!

[Cicero]

The difference between Wilson and Bush is that Wilson turned the world upside down in order to put his "ideals" into practice, and as a result the cynics won out at Versailles and elsewhere.

Bush went into Iraq PRIMARILY because it was one of the state sponsors of Islamic terrorism. He would like to make the Arab states more democratic than they were before, in hopes that it would help turn Muslims away from extremism. That may be a vain hope, but it's both benevolent and practical at the same time, because it reduces support for terrorism, shows the Arabs that terrorism is counterproductive, and at least gives them a chance to improve their ways.

With somebody like Uncle Walter, a Republican can never please. If he sounds a conservative theme, he must be a fascist. If he sounds like a Democrat, he must be insincere, because only Democrats are allowed to say those things.

[Irene Adler]

Walter Kronkite: forgotten but not gone.

[Irene Adler]

I even misspelled his name.

[freedom1st]

Screw you Walter Cronkite.

[YaYa123]

Bugger off Walter!