for US military action beyond Iraq.  My guess is Iran is next, and that it may not stop with Iran.

He is setting the stage for more foreign military adventures like Iraq by saying that it is our safety that is at stake.

To justify the Iraq war, he claimed there were WMDs.  When it turned out there weren't, he tried to change his justification for the war by saying that Iraq was a "threat" to our safety, and that Saddam Hussein was a bad person.  Some critics of his Iraq policy ridiculed this reasoning, saying "so does that mean we should go to war against other dictators around the world just because they are dictators?  Is this a good enough reason for American boys to die?".  His new answer is yes, this is a good enough reason.  IMO, he is trying to lay the groundwork for the idea that this is a good enough reason to go to war, because the continued existence of those foreign dictators threatens the safety of Americans.

often the same?

Give it up.

-- Modified on 1/21/2005 11:17:58 AM

blustering macho!:

blustering- v.: To blow in loud, violent gusts, as the wind during a storm.  To speak in a loudly arrogant or bullying manner

macho- adj.: used of men; markedly masculine in appearance or manner

casual mockery:

casual- adj.: Unpremeditated; offhand:, Being without ceremony or formality; relaxed, Showing little interest or concern; nonchalant

mockery – n.: Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision.  A specific act of ridicule or derision. An object of scorn or ridicule

Hardly the same meaning by any stretch of logic. But that's not suprising, coming from a man who can't muster the cajones to admit a mistake.

RLTW

... Reagan saw himself as the president of the US and his job was to advance US interests.  Wilson thought this could only be accomplished through creating an international framework for peace.  

While Wilson ended up creating the framework for the UN, the american voting public handed him his head because of this internationalist perspective.  

The same thing may happen to Mr Bush if he persists in this attitude.

Reagan cared about international issues only inasmuch as they affected US interests.

There is certainly a middle ground between the two (Clinton?).  I hope we get back to a more middle course myself.

Harry

Upon first review of the post-speech spin, I was somewhat intrigued by an article by of all people, Peggy Noonan, who if you are not aware of her, is a well-known and well-respected (even by hard leftists) op-ed columnist and author for the Wall Street Journal.
Noonan is an unabashed supporter of the Bush administration and many of its policies, especially as they relate to Homeland Security and the "War on Terror". She is also a very religious woman. And yet, her article in reviewing the inauguration is headlined "Way Too Much God".

If Ms. Noonan, a Bush loyalist of long standing, can see past the fluffy rhetoric of the Inaugural Speech to the dark and dangerous subtext of the hidden implied message, then hopefully others will as well.

As far as Harry's comment, Bush has commented in the past on comparisons betwen himself and Reagan as torchbearers for the conservative and Republican cause. But the real similarities between the two men have more to do with the strings attached to their Higher Masters. But I honestly think Reagan would have been appalled at the Bush Doctrine, and would have been grateful for stem cell research.

Sure, he would like the help of our allies if he can get it.  But he is prepared to continue to go it alone if they are not on board.

As far as his commitment to worldwide democracy goes, he has nothing particularly against other countries becoming more democratic if it serves US business interests, but he will be more than willing to apply a double standard to different groups of foreign countries on the issue of their becoming more democratic.




-- Modified on 1/22/2005 9:45:27 AM

That's a nice take on the admin, in a way i've not been able to articulate myself.

... however, he links American prosperity and safety tightly to international concerns.  Unlike Wilson, he comes to the conclusion that force rather than diplomacy is the best way to keep Amereica safe.  

Both men were influenced by international issues (WW1 and 9/11), but had vastly different ways to handle it.  Reagan avoided international entanglements -- he was a bit of an isolationist.  Clinton saw the possibilities of diplomacy (as did Bush I).

Harry

world beyond our borders, and that is generally a good thing for a President to do.  But in his case, I think that has a lot to do with the fact that he has close ties to a multinational industry - the oil industry.

I hope we never have an isolationist President again.  The world doesn't work that way any more, if it ever did.





-- Modified on 1/22/2005 5:00:23 PM