Paradigm Shift at Pravda: "The Truth" Praises Bush

Now, okay, that headline overstates the case. This opinion piece runs in Pravda, but it seems to be written by an American whose work is syndicated. So it is just a case of Pravda running a syndicated piece it finds interesting, and can't be taken to represent the editorial position of that red rag.

This piece ran quite a while ago: on January 26th, after Bush's Inaugural Address. It's not really current, and it can't be called part of post-30-January the "paradigm shift." Still-- let's say it prefigures the paradigm shift.

But it is very interesting that Pravda seems at least as willing, if not more so, to expressly praise Bush in an op-ed than, say, the New York Times. The New York Times seems to only run conservative-leaning guest op-ed writers when they're attacking Republicans. (Yeah, yeah, David Brooks, William Safire... but they're both tokens, you know.)

And of course Pravda ran this before the votes in Iraq and Palestine and the Orange and Cedar Revolutions. The New York Times refused to admit even the possibility of freedom working until the facts on the ground began to embarass them.

Some key bits:

In his speech the President put world leaders on notice: Either protect your people and provide them with democratic freedom and basic human rights or be prepared to answer to the United States. This notice applies to all countries, even our oil producing allies like Saudi Arabia. Oil is not an excuse for tyranny.

As predicted, liberals and Bush haters began accusing President Bush of being reckless and abusing his power, instead of giving him the credit and praise he deserves. Just once I would like to see liberals help the President in a noble cause, but I guess this will never happen. Liberals would rather try to make Bush look bad rather than help the oppressed, even though they claim to be the defenders of human rights.

I think liberals are afraid of taking an aggressive stand on world problems. They are more comfortable with Bill Clinton"s foreign policy of letting thugs drag dead Americans through the streets of Somalia than a foreign policy of strength. A plan for peace is outside their realm of thinking, unless appeasement and surrender is involved. They just cannot imagine winning a lasting peace by taking the fight to the enemy. No wonder John Kerry was loved by the French.

Thanks to RCL for the tip, and noting that the former communist house organ Pravda seemed, in this case, more amenable to the idea of the forward strategy of freedom than the American New York Times.

posted by Ace at 02:38 PM

| Access Comments