WP: Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say

[kskiska]

Address Said to Clarify 'The Values We Cherish'

Saturday, January 22, 2005; Page A01

White House officials said yesterday that President Bush's soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Nor, they say, will it lead to any quick shift in strategy for dealing with countries such as Russia, China, Egypt and Pakistan, allies in the fight against terrorism whose records on human rights and democracy fall well short of the values Bush said would become the basis of relations with all countries.

Bush advisers said the speech was the rhetorical institutionalization of the Bush doctrine and reflected the president's deepest convictions about the purposes behind his foreign policies. But they said it was carefully written not to tie him to an inflexible or unrealistic application of his goal of ending tyranny.

"It has its own policy implications, but it is not to say we're not doing this already," said White House counselor Daniel J. Bartlett. "It is important to crystallize the debate to say this is what it is all about, to say what are our ideals, what are the values we cherish."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27672-2005Jan21.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. I thought this part was interesting

"Bush's grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters, who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary. "It was a rare inaugural speech that will go down as a historic speech, I believe," said William Kristol, editor and publisher of the Weekly Standard and a leading neoconservative thinker. He predicted the speech will drive policy for the rest of Bush's presidency.

But it has alarmed some critics, who say it suggests a major and potentially mistaken expansion of U.S. foreign policy goals or merely empty rhetoric. They have asked whether the speech's soaring language has any practical application as the president goes about the gritty work of day-to-day diplomacy, and, if it does not, what meaning does it have? Even some conservatives questioned the gap between ambition and practicality."

[SmartBomb]

14. The cat they let out of bag being called back for a little extra grooming

Was it simply a rhetorical bone thrown to the neocons, or did they reveal their hand a little early?

[Straight Shooter]

2. Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal like crazy

Apparently they got the hint that the world hated bush's speech

[Kimber Scott]

3. Everything that happens everywhere is because of us.

"The official stressed that he was not pulling back from the speech, which he repeatedly called "bold," but he also focused on what he called positive trends in close U.S. allies generally regarded as repressive. He said that Saudi Arabia is taking steps toward municipal elections and is having a "national dialogue" on reform, while Egypt last year held a conference that resulted in a declaration on political reform. "It's a step," he said."

Or, so it seems so many of "us" think. Could it be these reforms are coming from WITHIN these countries? No, it's because WE told them to be nice. (sarcasm off)

[Rose Siding]

4. Good. They got beat up

Excellent! They wouldn't have CLARIFIED anything if they hadn't taken some crap from our growing list of enemies.

I hope it paralyzes them in any future imperialistic adventures.

[Goldeneye]

5. This one goes out to all those who voted for Bush

so he could "fix the mess he made." :puke:

[asjr]

6. Bartlett is one of the worst toadies Shrub has. And I bet he was

bought on the cheap.

[paulk]

7. Seems like the inauguration speech is freaking some people out

but it's not any different than what he was saying on the campaign trail. He promised war. Maybe it's just that the media never really bothered to report it. And most Republicans never really bothered trying to understand what their candidate was all about.

[Rose Siding]

8. NYT has practically the SAME article

Oh, Miss Brooks- could you come in here and take this down please?

Bush Speech Not a Signal of New Policy, Aides Say

WASHINGTON, Jan. 21 - A day after President Bush's inaugural speech vowing to spread freedom in the world, administration officials said Friday that Mr. Bush was setting a long-term goal that did not portend dramatic changes in American foreign policy but rather an expansion of existing approaches.

A senior official said that the speech signaled Mr. Bush's intention to raise the need to expand freedoms in Russia, China and the Arab world but that this did not mean that such pressure would become the only factor in these relationships.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/politics/22diplo.html

[librechik]

9. good thing * never looks at polls, otherwise he would be

backpedalisng like crazy--oh, he is!

[orthogonal]

10. So it was just a... lie?

I'm shocked, shocked!

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

11. Of course this was not a "policy shift"...

... this was the same "fuck you" to rest of the world that is the hallmark of the Bush admitnothingastratation.

But then, we didn't expect anything different, did we?

[Career Prole]

12. IMO, the most puzzling thing about the speech

is that for someone the RW lauds as being a plain-spoken straightshooter the chimp sure is drawing a lot of line-by-line parsing and interpretation and explanation from the RW and the media over this particular address.
I have a very moderate acquaintance who told me anyone who paid real attention to that speech should be scared to death.
As for me, it made me that much more anxious to see the impeachment ball start a-rollin'.

[cosmicdot]

13. they even have had to haul out the ol'man, Poppy, to 'explain'

Bush Sr.: U.S. Policy Shift Not in Speech

January 22, 2005 1:39 PM EST

WASHINGTON - President Bush's inaugural address, with its emphasis on spreading democracy and battling tyranny anywhere in the world, was not meant to signal a new direction in U.S. foreign policy, his father said Saturday.

"People want to read a lot into it - that this means new aggression, or newly asserted military forces," former President Bush told reporters during a visit to the White House briefing room. "That's not what that speech is about. It's about freedom."
~snip~
http://start.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20050122/41f1ddd0_3ca6_1552620050122-1190680614

[kskiska]

15. Seems odd that everyone on Earth got the wrong message

from this speech.

[Just Me]

16. Debate has been squashed. Therefore, there is NO debate to crystallize!

You freakin' bullshitter!!!

These tyrants are certainly skilled manipulators of the human language.

:mad:

[Occulus]

17. In other news

officials claim water will not wet or drown you, fire will not burn you, and the sky is in fact a curious shade of dull, featureless green.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled "programming".

[snippy]

18. Anyone know how many times an innaugural speech had to be explained

by the White House the following day?

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

20. Just wait until Condi's confirmation hearings reconvene...

... I'm looking forward to her being grilled on how she will implement this.

[daleo]

19. I think Bush was serious about more invasions and wars.

But, they like to put out some mixed messages in the hope the world doesn't give up on appeasement policies too soon. It is an old trick, and Hitler was a master. Bush learns from the best, but then Prescott had connections. It runs in the family I guess.

[don954]

21. clean up & whitewash!

[leesa]

22. Certainly isn't...just more death and destruction