Fortunately we know better than to take him seriously, right? Right?

It seems the President's vision is scaring the hell out of those who can bring themselves to take it seriously.

DAVID BROOKS: I'll read the speech: We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require decent treatment of their own people. We will encourage reform. That means you sit with Putin, as the president already has, and said your treatment of your people is outrageous and we can't have successful relations unless you change. Does it mean you go to war with Putin? Does it mean you break off all relations? No, that's not going to happen.

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Again, I thought it showed this is an administration that feels, I think as the president mentioned, has had its accountability moment. It went to the people. It received a majority this time. And so the feeling is their instincts have been confirmed. They do not believe that the Iraq War is a failure. They do not believe that we are facing another Vietnam there. They believe we're winning. And they are ready to do more of this if they think they need to.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: If the speech, if the speech was to be taken literally, then clearly it would imply commitment to some sort of a global crusade vis-à-vis a variety of states with many of whom we have all sorts of mutual concerns, even if we don't like their practical policies. I mean, take a few examples. Take China; we have a major state instability with China, but China is hardly a democracy. What about the Tibetans? Take Russia; we have a common stake with regards to terrorism, but what about the Chechens? They're being treated in a tyrannical fashion. Take an even more complex issue: what about Israel, which is a friend of ours, and its security against Palestinian terrorists? But what about the oppression of the Palestinians and their desire for freedom?

The fact is that the speech was high-sounding. If it was to be taken literally, it would mean an American crusade throughout the entire world, and I don't know how that would be implemented practically. More Iraqs, perhaps, or is it just a general statement which doesn't give us much guide to policy, suited for the occasion but not to be taken as the point of departure for serious policy?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, I think it's a remarkable trip, a remarkable journey if you think of the campaign of 2000. Candidate George W. Bush upgraded the Democrats for their passion for nation building, criticizing them for using the United States' military for very limited activities in the Balkans at that point by comparison. Now we're into world building. Make no mistake about it. That's what this president outlined today. This is world building. We're not stopping at nations. We're going to rebuild the world.

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: you're going to see an administration which may always want to act in certain ways, sometimes not be able to, but I would say that it would be a real mistake to underestimate the degree to which what you heard was what the president really deeply believes. It seems to me this is his world view, and I would also say that possibly in this administration the idea of more Iraqs is not as frightening a thought as it might be for some -- for many of us maybe outside the administration.

And I would say some of the things we heard from the vice president recently about Iran make me think that this administration may press rather hard.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with Walter, though, that this sounds to him like really the president's deep-seated beliefs?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, maybe, but you know deep-seated beliefs are one thing; capabilities is the other. And what capabilities do we have actually at hand to pursue this global crusade?

Posted by Prometheus 6 on January 20, 2005 - 9:23pm :: Politics
 
 

Post new comment

*
*

*

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.