The Anti-Bush Movement

Foreign Policy Conundrum

In Slate, Fred Kaplan parses Bush's press conference and wonders if Bush even understands what he's talking about.

"The transcript contains so many mind-boggling statements that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's take them in chronological order.

" 'Everybody wants the violence to stop,' Bush said in answer to the session's first question. But of course this isn't true. If it were, he could have imposed a cease-fire in the first few days. . . .

"Then Bush moved on to his favorite theme -- the titanic struggle between good and evil, freedom and terrorism, and how it accounts for all the world's conflicts. 'The lynchpin of [American] policy,' he said, 'is to support democracies.' Speaking of Lebanon's prime minister, Fouad Siniora, he said, 'We want the Siniora government to survive and be strengthened.' . . .

"Once again, Bush demonstrated that he doesn't understand what makes young democracies flourish or why Hezbollah has appeal even to many nonterrorists. He doesn't seem to realize that democratic governments require democratic institutions and the resources to make them thrive. He evinces no awareness that the longer Israel bombs Beirut into oblivion, the harder it becomes for Siniora (who has few resources) to retain legitimacy -- and the easier it becomes for Hezbollah (which has many more resources) to gain still greater power."

His Master's Voice

Peter Wehner , who reports to Karl Rove, writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed section with what I'm guessing is a trial balloon of potential White House talking points.

The target: The line of argument that suggests that "Recent elections in the Middle East discredit the Bush administration's efforts to promote democracy in that region."

The rhetorical questions: "Do critics of democracy believe we would be significantly better off with the reign of an Arafat? Do they believe that Iraq, which consists of a freely elected, multiethnic government whose leadership is fighting terrorism instead of supporting it, was better under Saddam Hussein than it is now? Do they believe that it was better to have the Taliban control Afghanistan, not Hamid Karzai? Do they believe we should support more repression within Arab societies?"

The false choice: "In the words of President Bush, 'The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.' Those who disagree with him must believe, by the power of their own logic, that continued tyranny is the route to a better world. The president has a fundamentally different view, and his remarkable effort to promote human liberty and American security sets him apart from his critics."

Addicted to Oil

John D. McKinnon and Laura Meckler write in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that it's been six months since Bush "upbraided Americans in his State of the Union address for being 'addicted to oil' and urged them to look at ethanol as a cure.

"It was the signature moment in the energy strategy the president has developed in the year since Hurricane Katrina. Influenced by meetings behind the scenes with advocates of alternative fuels, Mr. Bush is using the bully pulpit to warn that America needs to change its gas-guzzling ways.

"But what the president isn't doing is just as important. He isn't proposing new mandates for ethanol use or new incentives for gasoline stations to stock the fuel. He isn't making tougher auto fuel-economy standards a high priority and doesn't support a higher gasoline tax."