Bush strays far from Republican tradition

The Star-Ledger ^ | Friday, January 21, 2005 | John Farmer

[Destro]

Bush strays far from Republican tradition

Friday, January 21, 2005

It wasn't a particularly lyrical speech that George W. Bush delivered yesterday at his second inauguration. It wasn't even a very Republican speech, for that matter. But it went a long way toward illuminating how far Bush has taken the Grand Old Party from its traditional conservative roots.

It was the most interventionist foreign policy speech heard in Washington in decades -- since John Kennedy's 1961 promise to "bear any burden" in defense of liberty around the globe. Bush's speech mechanics may indeed have been inspired in part by the success of the Kennedy speech and its focus on foreign policy in an equally dangerous time.

Domestic policy, as a result, got short shrift yesterday from Bush; presumably it will be dealt with in detail in next month's State of the Union message. So heavily tilted was the speech toward tyranny in the world that it seemed better aimed at a United Nations audience than an American inaugural celebration.

And therein lies a remarkable change for Republicanism. The GOP historically has been the party of restraint abroad, the heir to George Washington's admonition to avoid foreign entanglements. President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, had to overcome Republican resistance to American involvement in the First World War, and Franklin Roosevelt, another Democrat, encountered similar Republican hostility and suspicion as he tried to prepare the country for its inevitable involvement in World War II.

More recently, Republicans took Bill Clinton, another Democrat, to the woodshed for his involvement in ending ethnic cleansing by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo and in nation-building in Somalia. Bush himself, lest we forget, won election in 2000 with a campaign that condemned Clinton's overseas adventure and promised to steer clear of "nation-building."

[Rippin]

Of course 'W' mentioned 9/11 in his speech. It was the whole pretext, if you missed that you can't comprehend the whole thing.

After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical. And then there came a day of fire.

[meema]

bttt

[Destro]

If only the Saudis were a democracy - the Saudis in al-Qaeda would never have carried out that "day of fire" - sarcasm.

[cyncooper]

Bush did not mention 9/11 in his speech either - question that?

He did mention it.

It's been interesting reading so many who did not listen to or read the speech feel free to comment on it. Most interesting.

[TheDon]

"Bush is under obligation to defend the constitution and America - not democracy"

President Bush believes, unlike you, that democratically elected gov'ts are less likely to attack the US. Therefore, promoting the replacement of dictatorships with democratically elected gov'ts promotes the safety of the US.

Read Natan Sharansky's book, amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586482610/ref=ase_bookstorenow50-20/002-3920702-0220027?v=glance&s=books">The Case for Democracy if you want to understand why the President thinks as he does on this topic.

Excerpts of the book are available at NRO.

[Betaille]

Democracy's don't go to war against eachother.

[eleni121]

"Will Bush overthrow the dictator of Pakistan?"

---

President Musharraf has never declared was on America. In fact he has promised elections within 2 years I believe. His army willnever allow elections if the victors are to be radical islamics. Sometimes democracy delayed is democracy achieved.
__________________________________________________
"You can be a democracy and hate America just fine."

---

Millions of Muslims have wrongly perceived America as supporting corrupt and statist governments in the Muslim world during the Cold War era. In fact that was partly true, but times have changed and these nations need to change as well. Intervening in these countries will pre-empt any more headway made by Al Qaeda terrorist muslims.

The face of the Middle East is already changing...Qaddhafi brought to heel, the Saudis are plugging holes in the leaky dikes of sand, Afghanistan is progressing daily, and Iran contritely keeps quiet in the face of possible attacks from Israel and new governments next door not to mention trouble brewing within.

Again, doing nothing insures catastrophe. For 8 long disastrous years the US turned a blind eye to the enemies of America and attacked the wrong people in Europe. It's time now to take the "camel by the hump."

America on the move militarily and economically cannot be defeated but retreating to the bordelloes of the UN and behind our borders spells certain defeat in the long run. Bush is a reformer biht here and aborad. I just hope that Rice tackles the State Dept. miasma as aggresively as her reputation indicates.

[Valin]

We basically ignored the rise of Islamic terror for 20+ years, and what we get, 9-11.

As for Pakistan, think of what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan as two very large stones thrown into the pond called the middle east. IF we are successful the ripples will take care of the dictators.

" 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."

You appear to be saying that because we're not doing anything about A, B, or C we shouldn't do anything about D

[Rippin]

If only the Saudis were a democracy - the Saudis in al-Qaeda would never have carried out that "day of fire" - sarcasm.

I guess your fingers got crossed up, you meant to say 'Thanks for pointing out how I was mindlessly and incorrectly commenting on the Inaugural speech. I won't do it again.'

[Destro]

Democracy's don't go to war against each other. Of course they do.

[Betaille]

nope

[carlr]

Bush himself, lest we forget, won election in 2000 with a campaign that condemned Clinton's overseas adventure and promised to steer clear of "nation-building." Now Bush, if he's leveling with us, has committed his administration and his party to the most ambitious bit of nation-building ever undertaken -- the eradication of tyranny everywhere.

Bush did not mention 9/11 in his speech either - question that?

Yes he did,as has been shown but for the sake of it lets say he did`nt.

Anyone would have to have been asleep for the last 3 1/2 years to not realize that 9/11 is the basis for the Presidents foreign policy.He does not have to acknowledge 9/11 in every speech any more than Reagan had to state that he intended to win the cold war to explain his foreign policy.Both made it clear from the start and everything was viewed from that context.That is not a valid argument.

The part I highlighted from the article clearly implies that the President somehow has renounced a campaign pledge for no apparent reason.The fact that 9/11 did happen and did change our foreign policy agenda and the author chose to ignore it to continue with his point I would repeat is not intellectually honest.

[bayourod]

Economic of it aren't real good for the newspapers that use nanoprint on their websites. I'd have to upgrade to a 60" monitor to read this article.

Someone needs to develop a nanofish program to translate newspaper website print to lifesize font.

[loboinok]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't that change conventional wisdom on foreign policy forever?

Pretty much...but common sense isn't a RATS strong point.

[Destro]

Without the Cold War to unite the nations - democracies will go to war with each other again as they did right up to the end of WW1 and the run up to WW2.

[Destro]

How will making Saudi Arabia democratic mean that Arabs won't go on jihads?

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Bush never mentioned 9/11 in his speech."

From the President's Inaugural Address:

"After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose,
years of sabbatical -
and then there came a day of fire."

"My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against
further attacks and emerging threats."

"Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm."

"We have seen our vulnerability.."
"Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary .."

[Texasforever]

Without the Cold War to unite the nations - democracies will go to war with each other again as they did right up to the end of WW1 and the run up to WW2.

That is breathtaking in it's lack of historical knowledge.

[Destro]

Kaiser's Germany had representative Republican govt - with more voting rights than the British subjects enjoyed.

[Texasforever]

The German Empire was created in 1871. The supreme power in the empire was put in the hands of the Kaiser and the parliament had very limited powers. Under the rule of the Kaiser, Germany rose to lofty heights of political and cultural prestige. She became the industrial giant of the world and by 1914 she had surpassed Britain in many fields of industrial production. Most of the Germans were proud of their own economic and cultural achievements. Thus they did not complain about the loss of political liberty and developed a great respect for their monarchs.<

My God you are in way over your head around here.