No Third Way
Perhaps because of domestic troubles, perhaps because of the accelerating spate of truly brutal attacks abroad, perhaps because of recent reports suggesting the demise of the “Bush Doctrine,” George W. Bush took the time yesterday to reiterate his abstract beliefs. His speech, once again, was excellent and inspiring. An excellent editorial in the Jerusalem Post discussing his speech an editorial culminated in the ultimate tragic observation:
Bush’s description of the war, its stakes, and what is needed to win it is cogent and undeniable. What is incredible is how alone he seems, both among the nations and in his own country, in seeing the world this way.
Bush, it seems, is a prophet without honor far beyond his own country. He often says the right things, particularly on matters of foreign policy. My concern remains that he rarely backs up his lofty goals with adequate resources. Nevertheless, those--including far too many Americans who describe themselves as Democrats and a significant majority of allegedly liberal-minded Europeans--seem to want him to fail. This desire is astonishing.
To them I say: By all means, point to the incompetence and corruption in both the Bush Administration and its allies on Capital Hill. Point to the many policy failures that we have seen since Bush arrived in town to reject Clintonism for the sake of rejection. Point to the mismatch between goals and resources. But at least have the courage to know when he’s right. The message must transcend the messenger. You need not like George W. Bush to appreciate the power and beauty of his foreign policy message. Pray that it prevails, or hang your head in shame. On this issue, there is no third way.
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://www.theinformationist.com/index/trackback/124/MTc4saSA/
Trackbacks:
No trackbacks yet.Comments:
Bruce:
You might want to point readers to Bush’s National Security Policy.
I agree that Bush announces well written words on foreign policy. I wonder, however, if he follows his policies half-heartedly, incompentently, or both. Mu gut tells me, though, that he can’t distinguish where government can and cannot be effective. He tends to focus on the peripheral (private savings accounts) while neglecting red meat Article II, Section II executive responsibilities.
Jeff
Next entry: Turkey's Road to the Future
Previous entry: On the Sad Demise of the Bush Doctrine