Posted on 01/22/2005 1:28:29 PM PST by Destro
ABC Online
AM - Wall Street Journal declares Bush's agenda end to realpolitick
[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1286805.htm]
AM - Saturday, 22 January , 2005 08:18:20
Reporter: John Shovelan
ELIZABETH JACKSON: To politics overseas now, and after US President George W Bush's soaring rhetoric in his Inauguration address, pledging to export liberty and freedom to even the darkest corners of the globe, the question now being asked is how.
Today's Wall Street Journal said the President's "liberty agenda" clearly marked an end to "realpolitick", the diplomatic philosophy that puts national interest ahead of idealism.
And while that was one interpretation, another is that the President's address is inconsistent with his current policies in fighting terrorism, which have seen his administration forge alliances with some of the most authoritarian regimes in the world.
From Washington, John Shovelan reports the US State Department today played down the criticism, saying the address was as much about what the administration had done as what it intends to do.
JOHN SHOVELAN: The President hasn't got long before the pressure will be on to show that he means what he says.
GEORGE W BUSH: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
JOHN SHOVELAN: In a little over a month he goes to Europe, where he'll meet one-on-one with the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin.
The White House and the State Department have expressed concern over what they see as a winding back of democratic freedoms in Russia.
But Russia and President Putin, who President Bush regards as a friend, is a staunch ally in the war against terrorism, and the administration is unlikely to challenge President Putin if it would endanger that cooperation.
The fact is this administration includes among its allies countries ranked by the State Department as among the globe's worst human rights abusers - countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.
The war on terrorism has seen the US move closer to undemocratic regimes, and despite weak or non-existent democratic practices in these countries, the administration has so far not risked anti-terrorism cooperation.
And while, in the Inaugural address, the President said it was his goal to end tyranny in the world, the State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, played down the impact on policy, saying the speech looked back as much as it looked forward.
RICHARD BOUCHER: I think the first thing to note is that the President's Inaugural address is not only a statement of his future vision, but also a statement of what he's been doing: having defeated tyranny and brought democratic prospects to Afghanistan and Iraq; having initiated a number of programs to promote reform and change in the Middle East from the Middle East Partnership Initiative that Secretary Powell announced a few years ago to the Forum for the Future meetings that were held in Morocco and Coal Sea Island Georgia promotion of reform and change in the Middle East.
It's been a policy that we've carried out. In fact one shouldn't overlook things like the recent announcement of withholding $10-million rebate from Uzbekistan because of human rights problems there.
JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Washington columnist David Ignatius says he's concerned about the President can back up his pledges.
DAVID IGNATIUS: The issue is whether we're in a position to follow through on that. I mean, suppose somebody in Iran heard that speech and said the President of the United States stands behind me, you know, he's urging me to stand up for freedom, and did something about it. Would we be prepared to follow through? And I think the answer today would be no, we just don't have the resources, and that ought to worry people. We shouldn't make promises we're not prepared to back up.
JOHN SHOVELAN: US Government officials say the administration will reveal details of how the President's vision to spread liberty around the world can be achieved within weeks.
John Shovelan, Washington.
© 2005 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Do not assume bringing "liberty and democracy" to the world means fighting al-Qaeda and Islamo-terrorists.
It means NO SUCH THING. Will Bush overthrow the dictator of Pakistan? Guess which side will win that Pakistani democratic elections?
Does Bush only want to export democracy and liberty when the results will yield pro-American results? That is not supporting democracy if we means test the results. It is a false assumption to equate a democracy with being pro-American. You can be a democracy and hate America just fine.
Bush is under obligation to defend the constitution and America - not democracy (The word "Democracy" cannot be found in the American Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, or the Constitutions of any of the States.)
Nowhere can the argument be supported that bringing democracy to lands and peoples hostile to America will make America more secure. In fact it can be argued bringing democracy to some people will create more instability and hostility to America.
I am sure democracy was good for once autocratic France - eventually - after the guillotine's "reign of terror" and the bloody Napoleonic wars ended.
I don't understand why people simplistically believe the demagogic claims that democracy somehow brings peace (tell that to the Athenians who voted for war and often) and stability.
I would hate to spend my weekend in such a foul mood...
Now, how about the formulation of a win/win scenario predicated on the "democratic" consensus that keeping the US on one's good side is in one's best interest (diminishing maverick auto or plutocrats, such as... ta-dah!!! The former dictator of Iraq.
Wow. What a simplistic definition. Like when you ark a four-year old the definition of "sky" and he replies "blue".
It's like I was born into a world where Machiavelli never existed...
APf
Hardly. The Journal is too parochial in this. If it means the end to our involvement in realpolitick, that is one thing. The rest of the world will then have been given an advantage that they did not earn, and our interests will have been sacrificed.
Your own post, as opposed to the article, is right on the money, however.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
ROFL!
I have noticed a trend with this guy. Post after post of negativity.
Peace
I looked up the author..He has been censured for serious bias by an independent panel looking into complaints filed by an Australian official against ABC..all about US, Coalition,etc...It's the BBC of Australia.
Of course at other times our national interest only justifies a pat on the back for those spreading republicanism.
Leaders aren't afraid to respond to either situtation.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. – Voltaire
If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist. – Joseph Sobran (1995)
The President said, "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." There are many countries that won't. Places like Venezuela, Iran might be encouraged by this. I believe they will. But, they have to take a stand.
The Argument Clinic
A reception desk in a sort of office building.
Receptionist: Yes, sir?
Man: I'd like to have an argument please.
Receptionist: Certainly, sir, have you been here before...?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see. Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
Man: Well, what would be the cost?
Receptionist: Yes, it's one pound for a five-minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
Man: Well, I think it's probably best of I start with the one and see how it goes from there. OK?
Receptionist: Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment... Mr. Du-Bakey's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory... Yes, try Mr. Barnard -- Room 12.
Man: Thank you.
[...] The man knocks on the door.
Mr Vibrating:(from within) Come in.
The man enters the room. Mr Vibrating is sitting at a desk.
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Mr Vibrating: I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.
Man: When?
Mr Vibrating: Just now!
Man: No you didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!
Man: Didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Did.
Man: Didn't.
Mr Vibrating: I'm telling you I did!
Man: You did not!
Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?
Man: Oh, just a five minute one.
Mr Vibrating: Fine. (makes a note of it; the man sits down) Thank you. Anyway I did.
Man: You most certainly did not.
Mr Vibrating: Now, let's get one thing quite clear... I most definitely told you!
Man: You did not.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: You did not.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: Didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: Didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!!
Man: Look this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating: It is not.
Man: It is. You just contradicted me.
Mr Vibrating: No I didn't.
Man: Ooh, you did!
Mr Vibrating: No, no, no, no, no.
Man: You did, just then.
Mr Vibrating: No, nonsense!
Man: Oh, look this is futile.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look!
Mr Vibrating:(pressing the bell on his desk) Thank you, good morning.
Man: What?
Mr Vibrating: That's it. Good morning.
Man: But I was just getting interested.
Mr Vibrating: Sorry the five minutes is up.
Man: That was never five minutes just now!
Mr Vibrating: I'm afraid it was.
Man: No it wasn't.
Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
Man: What!?
Mr Vibrating: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
Man: But that was never five minutes just now... oh come on! (Vibrating looks round as though man was not there) This is ridiculous.
Mr Vibrating: I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
Man: Oh. All right. (pays) There you are.
Mr Vibrating: Thank you.
Man: Well?
Mr Vibrating: Well what?
Man: That was never five minutes just now.
Mr Vibrating: I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
Man: I've just paid.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.
Man: I did! I did! I did!
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.
Man: Look I don't want to argue about that.
Mr Vibrating: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay.
Man: Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing... got you!
Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.
Man: Yes I have... if you're arguing I must have paid.
Mr Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
Man: I've had enough of this.
Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.
[From "Monty Python's Flying Circus: Just the Words, Volume 2", episode 29.
Methuen, ISBN 0-413-62550-8 (hardback).]
Reagan said.." I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction. 34
We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress. 35
America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally. 36
And it is the world's only hope, to conquer poverty and preserve peace."
The now 700 post thread on Peggy Noonan's column..LOL
Well I agree with you that democracy should not be our overriding foreign policy objective, but rather the elimination of the Islamic threat. Democracy did not prevent WWI or WWII. Democracy (in most countries at least) is not preventing abortion, the sexual revolution of the 60's and is not going to stop Europe from being colonized by Islamofascists and voting for sharia law down the road.
I'm not saying democracy is always bad, but it did not define Western Civilization nearly as much as Christianity. I hope that elections go well in Iraq and Afganistan in the future, but I really have no idea if they will or not. Look at Turkey. It's population has become increasingly hostile to America in the last generation or two and now they view us even worse than France! Their population is becoming increasingly sympathetic to terrorism.
Don't get me wrong. I voted for the President and joined the 72 hour effort to help him win, and I agree Saddam needed to be overthrown. I just hope that democracy doesn't fail in Iraq and damage the Republican party for a generation.
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/..This is a "good news of Iraq source"..but scoll to Friday and see his survey of media reports.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Bad news from Iraq
Updated - see at the bottom of the post.
Being avid consumers of news, most of us are aware of the consistent stream of negative reporting coming out of Iraq. Death, violence, terrorism, precarious political situation, problems with reconstruction and public frustration (both in Iraq and America) dominate, if not overwhelm, the mainstream media coverage and commentary on Iraq. The readers' reactions to my fortnightly "Good news from Iraq" segments show just how little good news reaches people.
But it's one thing to have a gut feeling about media negativity and another to know exactly how negative the coverage is. So today I decided to do a little tally.
snip
This is just astounding
The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC
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.