Posted on 01/22/2005 2:12:21 AM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON - European and Mideast officials feared yesterday that President Bush's inaugural address left open a possibility of more costly American military action.Some foreign officials charged that Bush's "liberty" speech went overboard on thinly veiled threats to use force to promote freedom abroad.
"The neo-cons have lost in Iraq, but have won in Washington," said one European diplomat, referring to the hawkish Bush advisers who have pressed for war with Iraq, Syria and Iran, among other nations.
Bush-bashing Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko accused the President of promoting a pro-democracy agenda that is really a disguise for "pouring blood and smells of oil."
Lukashenko, who has been accused of human-rights abuses and running a Soviet-style dictatorship, mocked the religious overtones in Bush's speech, saying, "The United States says that it has orders from above to introduce freedoms in every country."
Even a senior member of the Republican foreign-policy establishment took a dim view of Bush's initiative, calling it idealistic but unworkable.
"Okay, we're going to commit ourselves to democratizing Africa," he said. "Are we going to focus on [U.S. ally] Egypt or Zimbabwe? Neither one is a democratic state. This just takes your breath away - and there wasn't a word of how the concept would actually work."
Foreign-affairs experts also questioned the language Bush used in his speech and argued that the international community would have preferred to hear dovish rhetoric, too, like trumpeting the success of the U.S. military's relief efforts in areas wiped out by the tsunamis.
California state political science Prof. As'ad Abukhalil called it "astonishing" that "Bush's rhetoric was shrouded in the religious language of televangelists."
"That will not go well in the Middle East and Muslim regions," added Abukhalil, author of the book "The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power."
With Thomas M. DeFrank
Bin Laddin's "war speech",,,,,,,anybody? Does he get a pass? Ever hear of him?
"The neo-cons have lost in Iraq, but ..."
They did? Last I heard, they were winning, putz.
Hmmm.
I listened to that speech and I didn't think there was anything "thin" or "veiled" about the threats.
These clowns that accuse America as "losing" really twists my shorts. If I were Rummy, I'd use some big guns... serious ordnance. Where's my Raptor. B52s, fuel up. Good to see the 130s are checked for take-off.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't (protect everyone and in our spare time, solve all their problems including preventing natural disasters and rebuilding entire countries.)
....Or turban or whatever it is they wear while running around that dead rock in Yecca.
Europe is being undermined by Arab money and sedition by muslims they have allowed, unwisely, in their midst.
We should take heed from this and act accordingly. We cannot allow the Trojan Horse of Islam to corrupt us.
ie STINK FEST '05
Don't you love these un-named sources. Brent Scowcroft perhaps?
Good. That means the speech got the desired message across.
If this scares some then so be it!
It frightens me far more to think that George Bush would be a psssive president.
European and Mideast officials feared yesterday that President Bush's inaugural address left open a possibility of more costly American military action.
Good. We want them to wonder what we might do next. That means our enemies will be wondering too. Unpredictability is a valuable weapon in war.
OK, I admit, my short term memory ain't what it used to be, however I specifically recall NOBODY mocking JFK or determining it 'idealistic but unworkable' when he said,
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Or when he said.....
"... But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
Hmm now what's the difference??
Wait, JFK was a Democrat. I think I see now..... (/s)
That the people in the dark corners catch a whiff. The response would be like the smell of Moms apple pie...irresistible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.