The speech was 4353 words with little interruption for applause.
George Walker Bush’s speech writers pulled out all the ghosts of this administration along with hostile language used to describe this administration over the previous five years and found a way to reclaim that language while assigning it to an imaginary enemy his base could relate to and hate. He would have his enemy and reassign his language of hate in a definition that in no way resembles democracy.
At that I realize this speech took place at the National Endowment for Democracy. A speech regarding democracy should decry all else and not be masked in war, hatred, excuses and blaming. Democracy and it’s promotion should be obvious in any presidential address. I defy anyone to find it’s definition within the speech given by Bush on Thursday, October 6, 2005.
“Since the day President Ronald Reagan set out the vision for this endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.”
The fall of the Berlin Wall and break down of the USSR is primarily what he is referring to. The role then and not now is that of passivity and economic wealth. International pressure from the Superpower that had economic durability to invest in burgeoning democracies and expansive capitalism. It worked. Without war. Now, the USA is among the needy while making the mistake that all third world countries make when in a war for natural resources. The treasury is used for war and NOT the promotion and well being of it’s own and greatest resource. It’s people. Bush never goes into oppression of economies in Third World countries which gave rise to terrorist networks. Bush has placed the USA in profound debt destined to last generations, unless this generation takes on the task of returning it's democracy in elections, that will result in the domination of autocratic governments that build wealth and excude other countries with war agendas. The cooperation for nuclear disarmament globally is actually an economic mandate for the USA if it is to reacquire it's economic strength and refashion it's support of expansionist democracy, hence, insuring it's own.
“In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies, determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom.”
I am assuming by New Century as simply crossing over from 1999 to 2000 because it hasn’t been a century since the touted events occurred and the collapse of that democratic movement begin under Bush’s watch while he went against world order invading a disarmed country that has seen civilian causalities 35 times that of the attacks of September 11, 2001. An invasion into an unarmed country which had nothing to do with September 11th causing the disruption of social order in Iraq itself as well as the entire region. Even today Egypt is seeing repeated terrorist attacks as is Bali. There have been successful attacks on nearly every coalition member and many have seceded from that alliance. Successful attacks indicating the coalition members are not even capable of warding off terrorist attacks within their own borders yet alone combat them in Iraq.
I see this ‘tone setting’ paragraph of the speech as an indirect apology for the War in Iraq while it blames fear on the enemy and not his own propaganda at home. In virtually leaving Afghanistan, which was never adequately manned to begin with, to Karzi’s political machinery in ‘handling’ but not ‘defeating’ the warlords; Bush entered into the very passivity he decries as the weakness of the USA prior to his administration.
continued …
