Few Americans support Bush's empty ideals

[ivolsky]

Speaking to reporters for the first time since his second inauguration, President Bush distanced himself from speculations that his second term foreign policy will "confront all manner of autocrats around the planet" and acknowledged, like his handlers had on Friday , that the inaugural "reflected the policies of the last four years," not a major policy shift. But then, in an attempt to clarify his position, Bush contradicted himself, telling reporters that while "ending tyranny in our world" was a reflection of his first term policy (oh really ?), it also set "a bold new goal for the future."

So are we then to conclude that "ending tyranny in our world" by "persistently" challenging "every ruler and every nation" is an empty goal with no policy behind it? The president acknowledged that in order to attain this goal, a "policy shift" would be required. Thus currently, the United States is not in the business of "ending tyranny"-- and won't be in the next four years.

Bush maintained that as Americans "weep and mourn when soldiers lose their life," they must consider "the long-term objective... to spread freedom. Otherwise, the Middle East will continue to be a cauldron of resentment and hate." But most Americans disagree with this "long-term objective" and don't consider the tradeoff (death of American soldiers for so-called Bush-defined freedom) worth it.

In July 2004, a Pew Research Center for the People & and the Press poll found that among 19 foreign policy issues, "promote democracy abroad" rated 18th. Protecting the nation against terrorist attacks, securing the jobs of American workers, and reducing AIDS occupied the first three spots. But regardless, Bush's inaugural address dealt with a single foreign policy goal: the spread of democracy. According to pollsters, only 24% of Americans cited Bush’s “idealism” as a top policy priority.

Moreover, a Jan. 14-18, 2005 CBS News/New York Times Poll determined that 49% of Americans now believe that the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (compared to 45% who support the invasion), 55% disapprove of Bush's handling of the situation and 59% of the public say that the Bush administration was either hiding elements or mostly lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

Iraqis are even more disheartened. According to an April, 2004 poll , "only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm." Five percent of those polled in November of 2003, said that the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people," and only 1% believed it was to establish democracy there.

So as Bush uses empty rhetoric to define and shape a foreign policy of global intervention , the entire world shudders . But as this president likes to say , "we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election." The next moment comes this Sunday, when "thousands" of Iraqis (hopefully) head to the polls . Please visit and also comment on www.politicalthought.net

[MsConduct]

1. Great thread! Nice blog and welcome to DU ivolsky! n/t

[Wilms]

2. It's more proof of a stolen election.

Americans aren't that nuts after all.

[dusty64]

3. Well at least

not a majority of them.