Methinks Brooksie was kicked in the head by an ostrich skin boot

David Brooks sits in Washington and watches the disgusting display of greed and unembarassed materialism while listening to Bush's "freedom is on the reign" speech and comes to the conclusion that Bush's newly-found idealism represents the true face of our country.

Maybe so (though, maneuvering through the sea of Hummers, Escalades, and Navigators this Saturday morning I'm...not so sure). But it sure ain't the true face of Washington and certainly not the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Two years from now, no one will remember the spending or the ostrich-skin cowboy boots. But Bush's speech, which is being derided for its vagueness and its supposed detachment from the concrete realities, will still be practical and present in the world, yielding consequences every day.

With that speech, President Bush's foreign policy doctrine transcended the war on terror. He laid down a standard against which everything he and his successors do will be judged.

When he goes to China, he will not be able to ignore the political prisoners there, because he called them the future leaders of their free nation. When he meets with dictators around the world, as in this flawed world he must, he will not be able to have warm relations with them, because he said no relations with tyrants can be successful.

Perhaps instead of criticizing Brooksie, I should bedfriend him and meet his dealer because the stuff is certainly mind-altering.

At what point is Bush going to take on the Saudis? Musharraf's Pakistan? Putin's Russia? And, I can almost certainly promise you human rights will not be a major topic when he visits "getting rich is glorious" China. No, ensuring that China continues to buy US dollars will be the major topic, along with a smattering of "what the ^&%$ do we do about North Korea?" Sure, he may not have "warm relations with these choir boys," maybe he'll sit at a different table with his clique in the lunch room or something, but his cliche-ridden speech on Thursday will most certainly not be "yielding consequences every day." The US has been dedicated to "freedom and liberty abroad" for two hundered years, never more so than in the last fifty. But that hasn't stopped us from, in Condaleeza's words when talking about Hussein's relationship with phantom terrorists, "cavorting" with some of the worst dictators in history.

The speech does not command us to go off on a global crusade, instantaneously pushing democracy on one and all. The president vowed merely to "encourage reform." He insisted that people must choose freedom for themselves. The pace of progress will vary from nation to nation.

Iraqis may be wondering if "encouraging reform" is what the U.S. has in mind there and when they got to make their choice.

And, no, it didn't command us to go off on a global crusade. It didn't ask us to make any sacrifices in the cause of global freedom or even in the cause of the war in Iraq, a conflict not mentioned -- once -- during the address. In fact, the speech didn't really say much of anything; it was about as inspiring and "practical" as the rendition of Ashcroft's "Let the Eagle Soar" that was the other highlight of the inauguration ceremonies.

Kevin Drum deals with another fuzzy-headed Republican who has suddenly adopted the language of Human Rights Watch.

There are good reasons for Bush to treat Saudi Arabia and Pakistan this way. Lots of presidents have done the same thing. But Bush hasn't rejected realism, he's fervently embraced it while telling his speechwriters to say the opposite.