I went back and read the speech..He did not imply that we were going to war to free the world..He talked about using our considerable influence to stand with those who want liberty..
It was an idealistic speech but not a sword rattler.
The point has been made over and over that we used to enable tyrants as a foreign policy move against an enemy..People here and on the left point that out..It was rampant during the cold war when the USSR and the US vied for spheres of influence..
.We cannot undo all that, it seemed quite necessary at the time, but we can gradually use it to encourage liberty in those countries where we have influence instead of continuing the same uncritical support.
Amusing, no? that she goes over the top in her critique of Bush's speech supposedly going over the top?
I agree with you, MEG; Bush made a thoughtful, determined, historic break with the past in this speech, wherein he makes our security and our idealism one and the same. Now it is not our policy to ignore the cancer of humanity in chains, while we prate on and bleed in wars about "security" alone, because our security is harmed by such, and because it is morally wrong to do so.
All he really did was recognize and highlight THE TRUTH of what goes on in this world, and his determination to deal with it on that truthful basis.
I heard her initial reaction, and she seemed sold that this was America at it's most traditionally optimistic best. She said Europeans say there's nothing we can do about the way of things in the world, while America always says, yes, maybe there is.
Something happened, in between there, perhaps to tick her off.
Whatever it was, no excuses, her piece is bunk. Coming from me, someone who has admired most of her efforts in the past.
You said..."I went back and read the speech..He did not imply that we were going to war to free the world..He talked about using our considerable influence to stand with those who want liberty.."
Thats your assumption. And its probably valid. Yes the speech is an idealistic statement of principle, and thats fine.
My point is that it is a valid question to ask what exactly it means when you say "stand with those who want liberty"
Does it mean stand and fight?