"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse." --John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

"Reuters - Up To No Good, Again"

That was the message, from a friend, that accompanied the following clipping from the infamously, outrageously biased Reuters news service (emphasis mine):

Rice to Outline Foreign Policy Goals at Confirmation Hearing
By Saul Hudson
Reuters
Tuesday, January 18, 2005; 5:46 AM

Condoleezza Rice will likely hew to a hard-line U.S. foreign policy Tuesday when she outlines goals for the president's second term at her confirmation hearing as the first black woman nominated to be secretary of state.

Rice was President Bush's national security adviser for the four years of his tumultuous first term, which was marked by the Sept. 11 attacks, two wars and arguably the worst rift with Europe since World War II.

And now Bush wants the 50-year-old former Stanford university provost to replace Colin Powell, who was admired around the world and often perceived as a lonesome dove in an administration dominated by unilateralist hawks.

Here are a few random thoughts:
  • "Hard-line" is an interesting way to describe a liberal (in the classical sense) foreign policy dedicated to bringing democracy to the most undemocratic, dysfunctional region of the world.
  • I suppose the first term could be described as "tumultuous", what with 9/11 and the wars that it made necessary and all, but why is the U.S.'s "rift" with Europe never described as Europe's rift with us? After decades and billions spent to ensure the security of Europe, why shouldn't the U.S. expect more than sneers and back-stabbing?
  • Colin Powell is admired around the world? I'm sure there are some corners of the globe where people speak ill of the man. He is certainly admired in Bush-hating circles, because his State Department frequently worked at cross purposes to the efforts of the White House.
  • The "unilateralist" charge is a canard. And even if it weren't, why is unilateralism assumed to be a bad thing and multilateralism a good thing? As explained by more than one conservative pundit, the Axis powers of World War II acted multilaterally.