Bushspeak Rattles

President George Bush’s ringing rhetoric about freedom and liberty may havebeen Wilsonian in its reach but Cheneyesque it will remain in reality.

The sweeping vision and the broad brush strokes of Bush’s inaugural addresswere reminiscent of great presidential addresses of the past but what happenedin the days to follow was unique -- the speech was qualified, explained,footnoted and curtailed. Even Papa Bush came out to rein in the runaway words.Once the managers realized that the world still takes an American president’swords seriously, they were desperately rolling back in the freedom carpet. Thebulging fervor of Bush’s evangelical talk wasn’t meant to change anything aspeople from Taipei to Teheran feared but to give a better context for hisblunders.

President Bush didn’t really mean what he said. His call to arms for"freedom" wasn’t serious. At least not all of it. True, he uttered theword "freedom" 27 times in 23 minutes but it was a literary device. If thoseliving under tyranny -- whom he so eloquently addressed -- are confused, it’sjust too bad. They are silly if they thought for those precious 24 hours beforethe White House message police corrected the record that Bush was addressingthem when he said: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world.All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States  willnot ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for yourliberty, we will stand with you."

Stark and emotive as they are, the words don’t mean any "shift" inforeign policy, the message police informed the world. They were meant "as acrystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq,Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere." Meaning, they are a retroactivejustification, meant to provide a far broader reason for the Iraq war, not oneanyone can really quarrel with. The WMD excuse didn’t work, but this one will.Who can quarrel with freedom? The freedom rationale can easily envelope pastwars and future adventures.

And if the ambassadors of those undemocratic and autocratic countries wereshaking in their winter boots for those 24 hours, they can chill with theirscotch and soda. Again, Bush didn’t mean it. He is not about to pushgovernments, pressure military leaders or extract any promises on behalf offreedom and liberty. He wasn’t really addressing them in these lines: "So itis the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democraticmovements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goalof ending tyranny in our world." Remember, he said it was the work of"generations" and all he is doing is starting the bidding.

If Bush said that he divided the world based on "oppression, which isalways wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right," and warned thatrelations with the United States will "require decent treatment of their ownpeople," he didn’t want to be taken literally. The ruling royalty, themullahs, the generals and the presidents-for-life have nothing to fear. Endingtyranny may be "an urgent requirement," as Bush said, but the message policecorrected the meaning of "urgent" the next day. It doesn’t mean what youthink. It is an unknowable time in the future.

So what of the when, how and where of freedom? Will Bush do an Iraq on Iran,something his vice president cheerily hinted at on radio? Cheney unleashedhimself on inaugural day on the Don Imus show, choosing the unpredictable radioshock jock over the safety net of Fox News. Imus asked Cheney about Iran, acountry where ace journalist Seymour Hersh says Donald Rumsfeld has already letloose special agents to spot nuclear installations with good help from thePakistanis for possible surgical strikes. .

Cheney, in perfect sync with Rumsfeld, said: "You look around at potentialtrouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list." He then breezily raisedthe possibility that the Israelis "might well decide to act first, and let therest of the world worry about cleaning up the mess afterwards." Iran alsotopped the list of "outposts of tyranny" given by Condoleezza Rice duringher senate confirmation hearings two days before the inauguration. It was anexpanded version of the "axis of evil" and included such perennials as Cuba,also rans like Myanmar and Zimbabwe (what’s tyranny without an African despotor two?) and new entrants like Belarus included apparently to alert VladimirPutin not to go too far.

The multiple messages have created a mess and sent confused signals aroundthe world. But this White House, breathtakingly bold when it comes torepackaging the president, his words, his policies, his history, his record,worked overtime to explain the complexities. With no hint of embarrassment, theminders said that Bush’s speech was "carefully written not to tie him to anyinflexible or unrealistic application of his goal of ending tyranny."

Their cynicism has crossed new lines. Yes, it is bald. And yes, the speechoutlining the great Bush Doctrine was a mere marketing exercise, a poll-testedsong. It wasn’t a march for freedom, but a Karl Rove jog.