The Unilateralist Club

The Unilateralist Club

"When my love swears that she is made of truth

I do believe her, though I know she lies."

William Shakespeare. Sonnet CXXXVIII

"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, we impudently twist the facts so as to show that we were right. To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle."

George Orwell, "In Front of your Nose" Tribune, 1946

On the first day of his heavily publicized and protester-laden state visit to Britain, George Bush delivered a revealing speech entitled, "The Forward Strategy of Freedom." He challenged head-on his foreign policy critics, especially those against his Iraqi incursion and their squeamishness of the use of force:

Europe's peaceful unity is one of the great achievements of the last half-century [sic]. And because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved-by allied armies of liberation and NATO armies of defense. And let us never forget, beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security need defenders (applause).

[emphasis supplied]

Above reads the American president's promulgation of the age-old paradox, if people desire peace, they must prepare for war; consequently, the U.S. "will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise [their] right of self-defense by acting preemptively" against hostile states and terror groups. Bush's opponents see this as typical thinking from a typical American: a JR-Ewing-prototype that insensitively inflicts his will-and-wishes on others. For all the criticism heaped upon America's current "Going-it-Alone" foreign strategy, America is not alone because other leading world countries like Canada do what they want, where they want, when they want, irrespective of the consequences.

For many observers, George Walker Bush was born to rule. His grandfather was a wealthy prominent Connecticut senator, and his father-George Herbert-was U.S. ambassador to the UN and China, CIA director, a senator, a two-term U.S. vice-president, and a one-term U.S. president. It was, then, only natural that W. would be the second presidential son to reach the Oval office. As his biographer Bill Minutaglio recognized, "[George W.] grew up with an enormous almost Shakespearean set of expectations on him that he was the prince and the heir [to] this dynasty." Leading conservative Christians and Republican Party officials paved the way. To them, W. was a winner: a relatively popular Texas Governor that replaced his drunk-driving-love for alcohol with head-bowing-reverence for God, seemingly adept on securing ideological consensus, and most solvently of all, personified the backslapping, hair-rubbing, straight-talking common touch. During Campaign 2000, however, doubts of Bush's competency arouse when he conspicuously failed to name the leaders of potential hot spots:

Boston Globe Reporter: Can you name [the leader of Pakistan]?

Bush: General. I can name him General.

BG Reporter: What is his name?

Bush: General.