Condoleezza Rice speaks:
There has been much talk about the goals associated with "regime change" in Iraq. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
- while not specifically about Iraq, mentions democracy as an objective. So, can we look forward to democracy in a post-Saddam Iraq? Apparently not. From Rice's opinion piece
in Sunday's (Oct 6) New York Post:
We do not seek to impose democracy on others, we seek only to help create conditions in which people can claim a freer future for themselves.
Okay. Got it. No democracy required. Dictatorship or monarchy will do fine.
Then she wrote:
Germany, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey show that freedom manifests itself differently around the globe - and that new liberties can find an honored place amidst ancient traditions.
of the administration's reports and speeches one encounters the word "freedom". Freedom is the sine qua non of their foreign policy - if you believe them. But apparently it's not Thomas Hobbes' kind of freedom. He defined it as "the absence of external impediments to motion," but in Rice's view, there are no absolutes. "... freedom manifests itself differently around the globe
..." She's a moral relativist
. Goodness gracious! Does Bill Bennett know?