Symbolism and Rhetoric

TBILISI, Georgia, May 9 - After a morning spent watching columns of Russian troops goose-step across Red Square in Moscow, President Bush arrived Monday night in this former Soviet republic, climbed up on a street stage of Georgian dancers, then swiveled his hips in tune to blasting folk music.

Mr. Bush, whose previous dancing in public has been limited to brief waltzes with his wife, gyrated for only a few moments. But it was long enough to be captured in a scene that was replayed on Georgian television into the night.

The press corps is abuzz by how exuberant and excited W. was that evening in Tbilisi. Apparently nothing stirs W's blood more than loud martial music, phalanxes of goose-stepping soldiers, and banners with the faces of murderous autocrats. The image of the US President whose secretive administration has brought the skill of kremlinology back into vogue, actually sitting on the reviewing stand in Red Square for an early May military parade almost made my head explode. The amateur kremlinologist in me couldn't help but notice how close he sat to Chairman - er, I mean, President Putin.

Perhaps that was unkind of me. But I'm all in a spin; are we supposed to hate FDR for the Yalta agreement, or salute the bravery and sacrifice of all those Soviets? For a fellow whose underlings often speak of his "sense of history", Mr. Bush certainly seems inconsistent. If it was a mistake for us not to roll up the Red Army that already had control of Eastern Europe in 1945, why was he happily saluting them in Red Square? Does he really think we would have, and should have spent even more American lives to roll on to Leningrad and Moscow?

Maybe he does, but once you start talking about real wars and real choices, W's rhetoric does seem to get ahead of him. Is it

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability,"

or is it walking hand-in-hand with a modern tyrant through the bluebonnets? Is it

"We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable"

or is it

"-- I didn't say end tyranny tomorrow, I said, end tyranny over time."

The way he talks with such surety about the decisions made by stronger, smarter men in the 1940s, you'd think he'd have a better answer to this question in a recent interview with foreign reporters:

Q: You say you are a realistic person, but there's also a problem with the limits. What are the limits of your idealistic policy? Does every autocratic regime, like Iran, just fear -- just to have fear of the American military power?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, as I said, listen, I think issues ought to be solved diplomatically. My last choice is to commit military power. It's a very difficult, hard decision to put people in harm's way. On the other hand, I do believe people ought to be free. I said in my speech, I'm going to say it again in Europe, that we ought to have a goal to end tyranny. Why should we be content when we know people are living in fear? We should have a goal to end the pandemic of AIDS, as well.

In other words, these are big goals. If you don't set big goals, you never achieve big things. And I recognize it's -- I didn't say end tyranny tomorrow, I said, end tyranny over time. And in my speeches that I talk about, I always say, we need to work with friends to achieve -- and I believe we can achieve those goals. But I'm also recognizing that -- there's an issue, for example, in -- the idealistic position was to work with the world, the United Nations, France and the United States to get Syria out of Lebanon. But there's a consequence to that -- there will be a vacuum. And now we've got to work, if we get Syria completely out -- and I say, "if," because we're able to measure troops, it's harder to measure intelligence services -- but the statement is, all out -- not halfway out, not partially out, but all out, and meaning it when you say it, by the way.

But there's a consequence to that, and that consequence is, is that there will be a period of time when the government, a new government is going to have to try to figure out how to make sure there's minority rights. There's a lot of religious groups. And there the world needs to help this new democracy -- I say, "new democracy," a democracy without Syrian influence that basically determined the course of action -- to help that government go forward. That's another role we should play. But if you didn't have an idealistic streak in you, you wouldn't be saying, it's possible to achieve democracy in Lebanon. Yet, I believe a democracy will be achieved in Lebanon, and I know it will serve as an important example in a neighborhood that is desperate for democracy.

I could keep rolling, because I believe that -- I think you're seeing the beginning of great, historic change. And it's going to be bumpy, it's going to be rocky and it's not going to be easy. I just told you, we have our own government -- here we are, the proponents of democracy, and we, ourselves, were certainly not perfect for many years. And we've still got work to do here at home, don't get me wrong. But I feel passionately about the freedom movement because I truly believe that etched in everybody's soul is the desire to be free, and that there is universality in freedom. And I reject the concept that certain people cannot self-govern, or shouldn't be free because of the nature of their religion or the color of their skin.

Wow. Now that's some expert historical and political analysis. What was that he said about Iran?