Friday, January 21, 2005

Free, free, set them free... Boy, I was steaming yesterday. I couldn't believe Bush was talking about freedom, with everything that's gone wrong with his "freedom war" in Iraq. Not to mention - and he often tries not to mention - the tragedy of Afghanistan. So I was ready to write a diatribe about how his desire for freedom clashes with the torturers of Abu Ghraib, and how he was probably going to piss off half the world for being a cultural bigot... and then I thought to myself. And I thought, self, what if it's not just you? What if a lot of people thought his speech was a complete mistake, instead of the glorious triumph that Rush and Bill and Medved and the rest are almost certainly proclaiming it. So I'm going to leave the ranting and raving to Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post, who starts out his analysis of the inauguration speech like this: President Bush's lofty inaugural speech dedicating the United States to bringing liberty to every corner of the globe has raised a host of questions. Among them: Is he really committed to this? What is he going to do about it? Does this mean no more close relations with repressive governments? And Does he mean like in Iraq? In short, what's not at all clear is how his stirring script actually plays out in the real world -- or whether the White House has even thought that out. And although Bush used the words ''free," "freedom" and "liberty" 49 times in the speech, he didn't once use the words "terror" or "war" or "Iraq" -- even though his first term was defined by terror and war, and even though American blood was still being shed in Iraq as he spoke. Enjoy. If that doesn't do it for you, you could read the scathing editorial from the San Francisco Gate. Or maybe E.J. Dionne.  Or for a global view, see the analysis in the Christian Science Monitor. I feel better already. 7:56:47 PM     Speak up!  []