Inaugural address

And so, the interpretation begins:



"One day after U.S. President George Bush's inaugural address, political analysts say his pledge to end tyranny can be interpreted as an interventionist position."



I don't see how this can be considered "interventionist." Or maybe, I am not sure if they intend that as a compliment or a criticism. If Bush is an interventinoist, then so is the UN. The only reason Bush has stepped up to the plate is that the UN has backed away and become "irrelevant." The vision Bush outlined in his speech is indeed grand, but it is my no means new to him. He said in the speech what has been a core belief for him since 9/11. He expounded it in more sweeping language than he ever has before, but it is still the same tune. I truly hope he can accomplish many of his goals, but am realistic in thinking that he probably won't.