Ace, I think it means just what it said. We're going to help people find freedom in any way we can. That way may be a lot or a little, depending on where those people are, but we'll help them.

In China, that may mean actually making the policy of our country that the Chinese people need to determine their own destines and not have to hide in shadows to worship whatever faith they wish or to protst the government or to give brith to female children. It may be a small thing, but you can't underestimate the effect our aprovale can have on building a demorcatic reform movement. In China it will take some time.

In Iran, things can go must faster. There's already a movement in place and the government is not so soldily in control. There, we can nudge a litle harder. We can speak out explicitly against the mullahs and embolden the reformers even more. We can call for immediate reforms like not executing teenage girls for being "saucy". We can demand that they either hold up their end of the agreements they made or move out of the way so that the people can put someone in place who will.

In Africa, it's a mixed bag. Some countries may call for some targeted aid through NGOs to the right places. Some may call for sanctions against a government.

None of this is going to bring about fruit tomorrow. But none of it will ever happen if we don't decide to begin now. That's what the President was calling for. He took this ideal, which has lived in words for decades in Presidential addresses, and made it the official policy of the nation. We basically said "This is too important to just talk about. We're going to put some actions to our words also".

What does it mean? It means nothing. It's an inaugural address: lofty rhetoric, high aspirations, then we all go to a party and dance.

We'll do what we can to live up to its ideals, and when we can't, no biggie. They're just words -- unless you're Andrew Sullivan, in which case, they're all that matters.

Allah has a point.

Just look at JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you..."
That's political heresy nowadays.

But I'm optimistic that Bush's ideal will be converted into actionable strategy. With all the illicit weapons traffic out there, marginalizing the worst regimes is a survival issue.

JFK would have been drawn and quartered as an extreme right wing war monger by today's left...

There's a few web site out there (google will find'em) that have inaugural speeched going back to Washington's. The vast majority are just fluffly posturing for the history books.

the thing is with China, is the more they allow capitalism to seep into its economy, the more the Chinese people are going to demand reform

this may be wrong but my impression is that China has had to open up to the rest of the world because it desparately needs foreign investment to keep its growth apace with its population or they will face a revolution from an very angry populace, or that is their fear

however that very fact is what will be the ultimate demise of the Communist regime

there must be some steps the US can take to push change and reform, even if they are baby steps

wannabe -

the thing is with China, is the more they allow capitalism to seep into its economy, the more the Chinese people are going to demand reform

Why? What reform? Standards of living have doubled, China's GNP is growing at 9% a year for the last 2 decades, another 15 years and they go by us. The people have job opportunities galore, free university, free medical care. China is becoming great, it's military is modernizing, and the people are very nationalistic - and looking forward to pushing America out of Asia with the exception of Japan and Australia. Especially with regards to Taiwan.

When everything is working, why upset the applecart?

With Bush's speech - well, Noonan was right about Bush slathering it in God allusions - about the only thing he didn't do was say he saw a burning bush while clearing brush in Crawford and Jesus himself told George to make the world free.

The other big problem was Bush's becoming so enamoured with "A Case for Democracy", the basis of his INaugural speech, that he forgot it was written by a right-Wing Israeli politician deeply involved not in bringing Democracy to Palestine but opposing every peace proposal so he can move more Colonists into Palestine.

The Neocon speechwriter thought it sounded so good....forgetting the "more liberation" like-words and association with Sharansky would make it go over like a lead balloon with foreigners, traditional conservatives, and much of America that got the impression Bush was itching for another "cakewalk" war to "liberate" another nation soon.

The wiser heads are backing Bush out of the corner , I hope, that he put himself into. If Bush doesn't bury it like his 1 trillion Man to Mars project, and raises it in his State of The Union Address, the wiser heads may walk and leave Bush's domestic programs and their support for Iraq hanging.

BTW - Britain, with Blair's approval, compiled a dossier saying that invasion of Iran is something the UK and every other European nation will not join in.

lauraw - Bush's rhetoric already has been put into action - in the Ukraine.

The old way would have been to ignore the claims of fraud, back the safe play, and get behind Putin. That would have mended a few fences with him, and smoothed over the world order. Stability, all nice and quiet.

But that's not what happened. Bush stood behind the Orange Revolution, stood against Putin and his handpicked guy, and now there's a properly and fairly-elected leader in the Ukraine.

What happened Thursday is that George Bush said - again - what he's been doing for the last couple of years.

      What's it all mean, Ace?  Exactly what it said.

      In the past, our policy was, 'He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch.'  G. H. W. Bush left Saddam in power because it wouldn't have been 'prudent' to remove him.  He sent envoys to secretly toast the Beijing butchers when they murdered peaceful dissidents.  That's all done now.

      Instead, it's W.'s policy, and the U. S.'s till changed, to do what we can to make non-free countries free.  We won't be going to war with Red China because it's a dictatorship.  We won't break off diplomatic relations.  We won't even refuse to trade with them.  But we will push for democratic reform there.  Prudence will limit what we do, but we have stopped pretending that democracy doesn't matter, or that squallid police states are really free.

      Remember Ronnie saying that the then-existing Soviet Union (OOH! I just love typing "then-existing Soviet Union!") was an "Evil Empire?"  It didn't change a thing, instantly.  But more than one former Soviet dissident said by describing it accurately, Reagan doomed the system.

      Similarly, I think just by pushing China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. to institute democracy will ultimately change those societies, and for the better.

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!

      And by the way, Bush and the White House aren't backing down from anything.  Some people choose to paint Bush as a trigger-happy war-monger, and they pretended the speach must mean he'd go charging into other countries to reform them at bayonet point.  Others would watch W. die, and criticize him for not doing it sooner.  They will say 'Well, what about Saudi Arabia, are you going to overthrow the Kingdom?'  (Anwer: Yes, or at least thoroughly change it.  The plan is already far advanced.  By invading Iraq, and sticking, he's made it clear that the Royal House has to crack down on support for terrorism, or else.  By planting a democracy on their border, President George Walker Bush is attempting to set loose forcers inside Saudi Arabia that will destroy the present social setup.)  Prudence will limit what we do, but the goal has changed from John Quincy Adam's Fuck you, foreigners, We're all right! "We are the friends of liberty everywhere, but the guardians only of our own," to "We are the friends of liberty everywhere, and we'll do what we can to free the world, while always doing our best not to make things worse."

      IMAO, that's pretty big stuff.

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED -- AND THEY WILL BE!

I think it means that we are looking at a long, multi-generational struggle. We will support democratization wherever and whenever we can. Yeah, we'll play realpolitick, but I think that's going to be more of a short-run answer now, with democratization being the long term answer.

I could be wrong, but I hope not.

Every president's inauguration speech in the last 40 years has pitted freedom and democracy against tyranny and oppression. Every inauguration speech called on America to spread freedom and held freedom as the only path. Since when did you have to defend yourself against freedom? If you don't support freedom for Chinese, do you support their suppression?

The continuous drive to free suppressed people has not changed in American history. Clinton got to celebrate in his inaugurations that "for the very first time in all of history, more people on this planet live under democracy than dictatorship." But no one expected any former president to succeed in that call during their administration. So why even feign at a question like "How are you going to change China", on the heels of two peaceful democratic elections in Palestine and Afghanistan on the eve of elections in Iraq.

No one attacked Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford or JFK for calls of freedom. Is it that 1) opponents fear Bushes strength in action or 2) opponents are so opposed to Bush's principles that they will even oppose a call for freedom? I think both.

When Nixon, Ford or Reagan pushed for freedom and democracy in Russia, no one expected it to be done in their administration. Every administration since WWII had opposed Soviet totalitarianism and communism through some type of policy. So how now can you attempt to belittle Bush’s because China won’t fall in three years?

For back up; I have pulled quotes on freedom and democracy from inaugurations in the past 40 years at my blog:

www.runningmate.blogspot.com

For Lauraw and Tony: When JFK made his "Ask not what your country can do for you..." he had in mind the Peace Corps, not Rummey's Mobile Flying Death Squad WE don't have to Answer to AnyBody Corps...