George Bush: the next 4 years ...

[WhiteCrowUK]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6831823/site/newsweek/?GT1=6065

Window of Opportunity
By Richard Wolffe

He's hands-on, detail-oriented and hates 'yes' men. The George Bush you don't know has big dreams—and is racing the clock to realize them

Looking forward: From rewriting the tax code to remaking Social Security, Bush has big plans

NewsweekJan. 24 issue - It was time to clean out his cabinet. The top jobs in his administration, President Bush decided last fall, had left people burned out and too beholden to the perks of high office. Besides, he was planning a big new agenda for his second term and wanted fresh legs to power it through. When asked how many cabinet officials he would fire, Bush told one close friend: "Basically everybody." The official story was that many of the cabinet officials were ready to move on; members would volunteer their own resignations. But as the election neared, several began to waver; it became clear they'd need to be shown the door. Other presidents might leave the tough stuff to subordinates, but Bush wanted to do the job himself. When it came time to say farewell, the exchanges in the Oval Office were surprisingly emotional. "They were shocked and really hurt, and that hurt him," says one confidant.

advertisement

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson was one of the walking wounded. A former governor like Bush, he'd toiled on the president's first White House campaign and considered himself a friend. Thompson talked openly of moving to the private sector after 40 years in public life. Yet behind the scenes he also floated the idea of staying around as head of Homeland Security. Early in the new year, three weeks after Bernard Kerik's nomination had fallen apart, Thompson traveled to the Oval Office for one final chat as a cabinet member. Thompson grew tearful, saying he'd always be there for Bush, and hinted one more time that he would jump at the chance to stay on. But Bush stuck to his plan, and said goodbye. "There are strong emotions from the president and strong emotions from the people who are leaving," says White House chief of staff Andrew Card. "But he's looking for a new term and changes. Agents of change frequently are new people."

JAN. 24 ISSUE: BUSH'S SECOND TERM
• Window Of Opportunity
• The New Power Players
• Samuelson: Bush's New Worries for the Economy
• Alter: Democracy—Walking the Walk
• Meacham: A Road Map to Making History
• Jesus and Jack Daniel's
• Live Talk: Join Richard Wolffe for a talk about Bush's second term, Wednesday, Jan. 19, 12 noon ET.

As he starts his final four years in the White House, President Bush is by far the biggest agent of change in his own cabinet. Whether he's remaking his team or plotting his second-term policies, Bush's leadership style belies his caricature as a disengaged president who is blindly loyal, dislikes dissent and covets his own downtime. In fact, Bush's aides and friends describe the mirror image of a restless man who masters details and reads avidly, who chews over his mistakes and the failings of those around him, and who has grown ever more comfortable pulling the levers of power. Of course, those closest to Bush have a vested interest in singing his praises. But they also make a compelling case that the president is a more complex and engaged character than his popular image suggests. And that he—not Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or anyone else—bears the full weight of responsibility for the ultimate successes and failures of his reign.


Instead of scaling back his ambition like other second-termers in recent years, Bush has expanded it. From rewriting the entire tax code to remaking the 70-year-old safety net of Social Security, from securing Iraq to spreading democracy across the Muslim world, Bush is being driven by a self-confidence that was only boosted by his clear election victory. Bush likes to say he intends to spend the political capital he earned in November. Yet, faced with his approval numbers hovering around 50 percent and a restive Republican caucus on the Hill, it's unclear how much capital he's really got in the bank—and how much time he has left to spend it. With just two years before presidential candidates take to the stage for '08, Bush and his closest aides know they need to cash in before the clock runs out.

[WhiteCrowUK]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4198133.stm

Bush speaks - now what?
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website


President Bush's second inaugural speech has been praised as a promise by his supporters and criticised as a threat by his opponents - and it has left the world wondering what it will mean in practice.

Al-Qaeda's attacks on US soil paved the way for new policy
The central theme of his speech was the sentence that linked the security of the US to what is happening around the world.

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands," the president said.

The implication of this is that the US asserts the right to intervene around the world under the banner of "freedom", adding to its earlier declaration of the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike.

Mr Bush left it unclear as to what action might be taken in what crisis, but he has taken US foreign policy to a new level.

This was not how Jimmy Carter saw the world in his inaugural address in 1977. It was the other way round for him.

"Our nation can be strong abroad only if it is strong at home," was what he said.

Even Ronald Reagan, who happily intervened in Afghanistan, central America and elsewhere, did not go as far as Mr Bush.

In his first inaugural address, Mr Reagan concentrated on the need for a domestic renaissance.

In his second address, he did not say that freedom at home depended on freedom abroad. He simply stated: "Freedom is our best ally."

Lesson from Sharansky

Mr Bush sounded more like John Kennedy when he said: "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."




Arab press on Bush's speech
The president's reading list
Democrats block Bush team

John Kennedy did not make the link that Mr Bush did. But then none of the other presidents have had to face the phenomenon of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda was what this speech was really all about.

It was, like it or not, a philosophical statement, an assertion that the US stands for something.

What it stands for, in Mr Bush's view, is what the former Soviet dissident and later Israeli government minister, Natan Sharansky, wrote about in his recent book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.

In a lecture about the book, which Mr Bush himself has publicly endorsed, Mr Sharansky explained his theme.

"We... appreciate and recognise the power of weapons of mass construction which we in the free world possess - the power of freedom and democracy to change the world and to overcome tyranny and terrorism," he said.

Long-term goal

The Bush second inaugural has implications for America's friends and foes.

For friends, it should make uncomfortable reading.


This was the first inauguration since the war on terror began
"We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people," Mr Bush declared.

Does this mean that the Saudi royal family, the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and President Vladimir Putin of Russia, let alone a raft of obscure governments in Central America and Africa, not to mention China, have to radically change their ways?

It would be nice if they did, but not absolutely necessary, if comment by the White House is to be believed.

Officials there have said since the speech that several of these countries have undertaken reform already.

As White House official Daniel Bartlett said: "It is a goal that is critically important, one that doesn't come to fruition overnight. It will move at different speeds and different paces in different countries."

So the US might lecture such countries a bit more. But it will not turn its back on them.

Democratisation policy

Yet if the second Bush administration ignores the faults of its friends, it lays itself open to criticism under the principles laid down in this speech.


Condoleezza Rice named Iran as an 'outpost of tyranny'

The implication for the new Palestinian leadership perhaps is that it should not look to the United States to exert pressure on Israel, but that it should first look to offer "decent treatment" to its "own people."

Indeed, the new hurdle the Palestinians must overcome is a requirement for "democratisation".

The new Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice made this clear to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during her confirmation hearing this week.

She called for a "viable, independent and democratic state for the Palestinian people".

The word "democratic" used not to be mentioned in such US policy statements. Even now, Ms Rice did not use the word "Palestine."

Iraq omission

And what of America's foes? They of course have been on notice for some time under the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike.

The speech was not a manual of specific foreign policy goals. One has to look elsewhere for detailed policy objectives.

Condoleezza Rice listed six countries as "outposts of tyranny" to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe.

So they can expect some attention, especially Iran. Vice-President Cheney said, in an interview with MSNBC, that if diplomatic action did not stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then military action might be taken by Israel.

The strength of the speech was in what it said about freedom, its weakness was what it did not say about Iraq, which can be seen as an effort to impose that freedom.

Since the project in Iraq is likely to help define this presidency, it cannot be ignored.

Its absence suggests uneasiness in the White House, a sense that the reality in Iraq does not match the rhetoric of the speech.