This is a nice sound-bit. Everyone can agree and say "I want freedom and world peace too." But Bush is the president of the world's only superpower, not a competitor in a beauty pageant.
Unsurprisingly, given the long history of the US undermining freedom and democracy across the world, Bush's words meant as little as any uttered by Miss World. The Bush Junta's spokespeople quickly distanced itself from its head soaring rhetoric.
White House officials stressed that the inaugural speech represented no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. Rather than look forward, it was an attempt to clarify the policies being pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Nor, they stressed, will it lead to any quick shift in strategy for dealing with autocratic states (such as Russia, China, Egypt and Pakistan) whose regime and human rights record fall far short of Bush's proclaimed love of liberty. Bush's speech, they stressed, had been carefully written not to tie him to an inflexible or unrealistic application of his goal of ending tyranny. Bush confidants and senior aides, both named and unnamed, have scurried to the media to assure us that this was the case. Even his father got into the act.
So, the message is clear. Bush did not really mean anything he said. Friendly dictators around the world do not have a thing to worry about. So while we were subject to great deal of humanitarian rhetoric, Bush's actual policies in relation to the rest of the world reflect the right's long-standing affection for dictators who promote America's short-term interests. In fact, Bush has pursued a set of policies that have left the world substantially less free than it was before he took office. While Iraq and Afghanistan have (basically) swapped a set of native dictators for foreign occupiers and their puppets, countries like Russia, China, and Indonesia have moved backward using (like Bush) the "war on terror" as a convenient excuse, many states have reduced human rights and liberty. And the Bush Junta's response? Largely turning a blind eye -- except when it actively abetted them.
The most obvious case is Pakistan. Before 9-11, General Pervez Musharaff's military regime was an international pariah. Afterwards, it agreed to cooperate with America's anti-Taliban efforts and Bush soon described Musharaff as "a courageous leader and a friend of the United States."As a result, pressure on Musharaff to democratize has essentially vanished. The country, formerly a democracy, is now condemned to military rule for the foreseeable future. So, as usual, any ally will be supported regardless of their actual commitment to liberty or human rights. In the past, this was part of the fight against communism. Now, it is done in the name of the war against terrorism. And, at home, Bush will be continuing to restrict liberty while enhancing state power by means of such things as the PATRIOT act.
Well, we told you so. And, equally unsurprising, Bush lied in his augural speech.
At one of the many balls at Bush's coronation, impressionist Rich Little said he missed and adored the recently deceased Reagan. "I wish he was here tonight," he continued, "but as a matter of fact he is." He proceeded to impersonate Reagan, saying, "You know, somebody asked me, 'Do you think the war on poverty is over?' I said, 'Yes, the poor lost.' " The crowd went wild.
The week before the election took place, the US military was proclaiming its plan to keep 120,000 troops in Iraq for the next two years. This was according to Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace, Jr. He admitted that the number could fluctuate depending on the circumstances, but clearly Iraq will have a substantial US military presence for some time.
What is strange is that this announcement of a 24-month-long continued military presence occurred before the will of the new ("sovereign") parliament can be determined once it meets in mid to late February? According to the occupiers rhetoric, the US is in Iraq at the pleasure of the representatives of the Iraqi people. Currently, these "representatives" are US appointed puppets but the elections are meant to be free. To proclaim such long-term plans just before the election gives a clear perspective where power actually lies in "liberated" Iraq.
The occupiers are obvoiously hoping to present the new parliament with a fait accompli. Whether they will be disappointed is a moot point, although it would be interesting to see their response if they were. Or what would happen to the
$1.5 billion new U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Which leaves $78.5 billion for some other stuff.
Yes, the Bush Junta has decided to ask for another $80 billion in new funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is on top of the $25 billion in emergency spending that had already been approved for the current fiscal year and would push total 2005 funding for military operations and equipment to a staggering $105 billion. The Junta had said it would need another $25 billion when it asked for the original $25 billion extra funding meaning that the final $80 billion request is more than triple the original request.
Not bad for a conflict which Bush declared over on May 1st, 2003. Halliburton's profits should be healthy for some time to come.
To get these figures in context, this $105 billion for military operations (in just 2005) is more 13 times larger than Bush's budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. It is nearly as big as California's annual budget. Bush is getting his priorities right: Medicaid and Medicare are going to be cut because there is not enough money.
Perhaps this helps explain why 46% of Americans feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction. And an amazing 31% say that they are ashamed that Bush is their president (compared to 26% a month ago).