Printer-Friendly Version

Sometimes, when a plain man speaks, those who are paid to analyze his words are instead mystified by them. In an elegant inaugural address last week, President Bush gave words to the deeds undertaken on the world's behalf by the United States and its military for the last hundred or so years; the spreading and defense of freedom.

He spoke of our nation's founding and of the founders' assertion that all people have natural rights, chief among them that of liberty. And he spoke of the simple notion that liberty breeds peace and that this nation has not and will not hesitate to encourage and assist those who seek it.

After his address, the president was accordingly pilloried and accused of, among other things; arrogance, imperialism, overreaching and this year's favorite, hubris. One TV pundit even called the address 'radical' and 'unapologetic', as if the man who received more votes than any other president in U.S. history should somehow be contrite, or that talk of liberty by the leader of the free world is extreme.

In a press conference on Wednesday, the president sought to expand and clarify his inaugural remarks:

"I am optimistic about the advance of freedom...after all, look what's happened in a brief period of time - Afghanistan, Palestinian elections, which I think are incredibly hopeful elections; as well as the Ukraine; and now Iraq. We're witnessing amazing history. And the fundamental question is: Can we advance that history?

"And that's what my inauguration speech said. It said, yes, we can. I firmly planted the flag of liberty, for all to see that the United States of America hears their concerns and believes in their aspirations. And I am excited by the challenge and am honored to be able to lead our nation in the quest of this noble goal, which is freeing people in the name of peace."

Peace through liberty is not just a noble goal, it is as crucial a weapon in the War on Terror as it was in the Cold War and President Bush is determined to use it. Does anyone think that the Ukrainian people would have been in a position to demand a halt to the Kremlin-backed election interference had they not been sure they had American backing? Would there even be a new Europe without same?

Self-governed nations do not often go to war with each other or actively sponsor terrorist networks. Those who wish for our failure in Iraq know this well and are determined to try to interrupt the election process. But it seems they and their backers are in for a rude surprise. Polls predict close to eighty percent of Iraqis intend to visit the ballot box regardless of threatened violence.

Says one Baghdad resident on an Iraq blog, "I'll go to vote and I will not fear the terrorist. I will vote on the 30th and I don't care if I could get killed by the bombs of the killers because my vote will be for my kids' future." Another says plainly, "Go away cowards. We will go to visit our beloved box!"

>> Continued -- Page 1 2