Inaugural Address Panned Outside U.S.

[TexasLawyer]

When the editorial writers are not on the RNC payroll, they seem to have a different take on the * inaugural address. Here are 2 pretty good ones, from Daily Star (Lebanon) and Asia Times:


Bush Does Little to Narrow a Wide Credibility Gap
Inauguration speech is heavy with rhetoric

By Rami G. Khouri
Daily Star (Lebanon) staff
Saturday, January 22, 2005

News analysis

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=11973


BEIRUT: The Arab world and most other parts of the Middle East will be unimpressed and unmoved by President George W. Bush's inauguration speech Thursday, while also wondering if his pledge to promote freedom signals possible new military or diplomatic campaigns to change more regimes in this region. The prevalent negative and skeptical Middle Eastern reaction to Bush's speech once again reflects the massive perceived gap in this region between America's rhetorical commitment to democracy and freedom and its foreign policy tendencies to support autocrats and dictators. Analysts and ordinary citizens alike will see at least seven specific problems with Bush's ideas and approach.

The first is that Bush's ringing endorsement of freedom and liberty - he used the words 42 times in his speech - do not necessarily match the priorities of most people in the developing world. For ordinary citizens and states alike in the Middle East, more urgent and common concerns focus on national liberation from foreign occupation, socio-economic development, dignity, justice, and meeting basic human needs. While Bush accurately echoed the powerful appeal and hallowed place of liberty in America's history and values, his speech will be seen in the Middle East as renewed proof that he does not grasp the nuanced order of multiple priorities that define the lives of individuals and entire societies in other lands.

Second, most Middle Easterners feel the United States' rhetorical commitment to freedom and democracy is sharply contradicted by enduring U.S. support for autocrats and dictators, 15 years after the end of the cold war. In the Middle East and Asia, its policy seems to favor governance systems that promote security and fighting terror rather than fostering liberalism and freedom.

<snip>

The fourth reason for doubting Bush's pledges is that most Arabs suspect his motive. Middle Easterners widely already reject Bush's simplistic analysis that "resentment and tyranny" in the Arab-Asian region are the causes of the terror that assaulted the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, and that the perpetrators were motivated by hatred for American notions of freedom. American policies "to promote freedom and democracy" in the Middle East are not seen as mainly designed altruistically to help the recipient people, but rather are seen as self-serving instruments of America's own defense. Washington will not be seen to be acting out of sincerity or solidarity, but urgent self-interest.

<snip>






******************************
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GA22Aa01.html


Bush Unclouded by Doubt
By Jim Lobe, Asia Times Jan 22, 2005

WASHINGTON - Kicking off his second four-year term, US President George W Bush on Thursday delivered an inaugural address filled with the righteous resolve and soaring rhetoric that are music to his core constituency, but will almost certainly grate on the nerves of almost everybody else, both here in the United States and abroad. The speech, which was studded with religious references, was dominated by a sense of certainty and even triumphalism about Washington's special mission to spread "freedom" and "liberty" - words he used more than 40 times in an 1,800-word address - throughout the world.


<snip>

Iraq represents a serious credibility problem for Bush's insistence that Washington does not wish to impose democracy on other countries, according to Ivan Eland of the California-based Independent Institute (II) and author of The Emperor Has No Clothes, a realist critique of Bush's foreign policy (see review, America undressed, November 13, 2004). "When he says freedom must be chosen," said Eland, "that's not what happened in Iraq. The Iraqis had no choice, because it was the US government that decided to 'liberate' it. Now, they're faced with what could be a full-blown civil war. Bush thinks it's going to work out, but most experts don't agree."

Indeed, according to recent polls, a growing majority of the public also lacks confidence in Washington's mission in Iraq, and Bush offered nothing to reassure them on Thursday other than to remind them that "Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals". "This really falls on a very divided nation," said Marina Ottaway, a democracy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an influential think-tank here.

"The speech was really tailored for hardcore Bush supporters, but for those who have become very skeptical, including many people who voted for Bush, the speech will very difficult to follow. It declares the success of our policies at a time when there are an increasingly large number of people who see Iraq as a mistake."