When Bush Speaks: Nation will want answers in State of the Union

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

“In tonight's address, Mr. Bush would do well to explain how his administration so misjudged the Palestinian electorate in advance of the vote. ‘I've asked why nobody saw it coming,’ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. The American people deserve a government that doesn't see the Mideast through rose-colored glasses.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Secretary Rice's comment is as memorable as President Bush's, after Hurricane Katrina, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Both are symptomatic of an administration floundering, an administration not only lacking control of events, but clueless even about what's happening until after it happens.

If America bears any responsibility at all for this election outcome, it might be simply a matter of incompetence in the execution of our foreign policy. But that comment about "rose-colored glasses" might hold a more profound explanation.

The goals of the Bush foreign policy have been hard to pin down. Oil interests (Cheney, Halliburton, Saudi Arabia) have seemingly been in control ever since America's attention was diverted from fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and redirected to deposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq. WMD was the original pretense for that war. When WMD proved illusory, spreading democracy became the justification for the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. Many thought it was only that: a convenient pretext.

But perhaps President Bush really is an idealist who believes in the uplifting power of American-style liberal democracy. Perhaps he sees his own Presidency at this time in history as a calling to do great things, to spread democracy around the globe.

If so, President Bush wouldn't be the first President with such idealistic vision. Woodrow Wilson's vision of a League of Nations that would abolish war and institute global democracy ended in utter failure. Not only could he not get his own country to support his vision, the League itself proved to be incapable of stopping Hitler and Stalin, the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking and World War II. Jimmy Carter is sometimes viewed as the most moral man to hold the office of President. His promotion of human rights around the world, his tireless working for peace in the Middle East, his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, none of this prevented his term in office from being widely viewed as a failure.

Today, we have another President with lofty visions. In last year's State of the Union address, President Bush said, "We are witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty. And in the coming years, we will add to that story. The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure."

If, in fact, President Bush actually believes his own rhetoric, we could be looking at the makings of another colossal failure by an American President with too much vision and not enough tough realism. What an irony that would turn out to be.