Bush’s speech powerful; can he back it up with details?

  • Jim Hoagland / Washington Post columnist
  • Tuesday, June 25, 2002 9:00pm
  • Opinion

WASHINGTON — Once spoken or written, words no longer belong to you. They can take on an existence of their own and propel you down paths barely glimpsed at their creation. That may be the destiny of two sentences George W. Bush uttered on Monday as he delivered the right speech in the wrong circumstances.

"It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation," the president said. And: "Permanent occupation threatens Israel’s identity and democracy."

Those are powerful, far-reaching sentiments not easily walked back. They put the prestige of the American presidency behind the goal of ending Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, and do so with a moral force not expressed by Bush’s predecessors. For Bush, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is now and forever untenable. Yasser Arafat’s fate got the headlines, but the word "untenable" was the news.

It happens to be a notion with which I agree. A Middle East policy speech that Bush was manipulated into making got it right on two other big points as well: He called for an Arab population to be allowed to live in democracy and reject despotic leaders. And he once again ruled out double-dealing in the war on a global terrorism.

But circumstances and short-term expediency — not principle or reason — dictated the timing and outlines of the speech, delivered in Bush’s increasingly unconvincing apocalyptic rhetoric. The president edged toward sweeping U.S. commitments to bring democracy and prosperity to the world’s most explosive region. But Bush called into question his own sincerity and grasp by failing to offer even modest indications of how his goals could be accomplished.

Neither Bush’s sense of history nor the existence of a diplomatic strategy ready to be implemented prompted Monday’s speech. He needed to get the address out of the way before traveling to Canada for the summit of the Group of Seven industrial democracies and Russia. Instead of discussing thorny detail there, Bush can simply refer to the speech and cut off debate. That tactic is becoming a hallmark of this presidency.

Also forcing Bush’s hand was a relentless campaign by some members of his own administration and by Arab governments to impose their common agenda and timing on a president not secure in his own view of the Middle East.

Bush has let publicly aired quarrels between Colin Powell’s State Department and Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Department rage on and make him appear indecisive. Bush aides have undercut him by waging an orchestrated (and inaccurate) media campaign laying out what Bush would say before they could have known that.

In the end Bush chose bits from Powell’s Column A and pieces from Rumsfeld’s Column B. The object was to advance the president’s powerful April 4 Middle East speech — but not too far, as one participant in the debate said. The compromises reduced the impact of the earlier, more coherent statement.

Bush dropped any reference to Powell’s proposed ministerial peace conference, and he did not offer to send his chief diplomat out to the region to explain a speech that cried out for immediate follow-up. Bush offered a vision of a "provisional" Palestinian state so conditional and vague that neither Israelis nor Palestinians could decipher what he meant. That may have been the point.

Democracy in the Arab world and security for Israel will not come simply by shoving aside the shape-shifting Arafat and by showering money on downtrodden Palestinians as a reward for accepting new leadership. Why should democracy and American largesse be confined to one small group of Arabs? Because they have become proficient at blowing up Jews? That is one implication that will be drawn by some in the region.

In March, Palestinian and European diplomats consciously inserted into Security Council Resolution 1397 words that Bush had spoken in a Nov. 10, 2001, speech to the United Nations. They wanted protection against any U.S. backing off of the resolution’s endorsement of "a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side" in peace, and Bush’s words provided that protection.

The speech that Bush should have given on Monday would have addressed much more fully the ways in which the Arab world as a whole must adapt to modern political and economic democracy — and what the United States will do to help. That would have required discussion of Bush’s plans for dealing with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and other regional tyrants who rule by terror and support its use against Israel and Americans. Such plans have to be the starting point for the next presidential address on the future of the Middle East.

Jim Hoagland can be reached at The Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-9200 or hoaglandj@washpost.com.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Feb. 18

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE - In this Friday, Oct. 4, 2019, file photo, a man using an electronic cigarette exhales in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. On Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, the American Medical Association said it is calling for an immediate ban on all electronic cigarette and vaping devices. (AP Photo/Tony Dejak, File)
Editorial: Shut down flavored tobacco’s gateway to youths

Legislation in Olympia would bar the use of flavors and menthol in vape products and cigarettes.

Herald report of Everett protest inaccurate, biased

I was at the rally and protest in Everett last on Feb.… Continue reading

Media shouldn’t use ‘she’ for trans people

About 79 percent of Americans oppose those observed male at birth from… Continue reading

USAID freeze halts vital aid work

I am outraged the Trump administration is making the U.S. weaker in… Continue reading

Goldberg: Trump declares war on higher ed, not just woke parts

The move, aided by Elon Musk, to gut NIH funding, is part of a larger and debilitating attack on academia.

Comment: Trump’s Kennedy Center will narrow exposure to art

Trump’s move to takeover the Kennedy Center is not about the arts but about celebrating his tastes.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, Feb. 17

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Rivian, based in Irvine, Calif., has introduced its new R2 models, smaller and more affordable SUVs. (Rivian)
Editorial: Open electric vehicle market to direct sales

Legislation would allow EV makers to sell directly to customers, making lease or purchase easier.

Comment: No one saw Musk’s DOGE rampage coming or its threat

With no formal grant of authority, Musk is making cuts without fully understanding the consequences.

Douthat: Trump is chasing off lawyers he’ll need at some point

The deal to clear Adams serves Trump only as a way of identify whom he can consider loyal in the DOJ.

President Donald Trump listens alongside Elon Musk as he explains the administration’s cost-cutting efforts in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025. Musk has for weeks posted on social media about government spending, often amplifying and seeding false information. (Eric Lee/The New York Times)
Comment: This crisis can’t be left to courts alone

The courts can uphold the law, but they can’t match the speed of the executive branch in tearing down systems.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.