Will President Bush be able to fulfill the promises he made in his inaugural address for the second term at the White House? The presidential address prompts one to think that the most important thing is to make sensational speeches with a lot of impossible promises and not their actual implementation.

The president’s choice of words prompted Yale historian Lewis Gaddis to comment, “It’s very much in the tradition of great speeches of the past. This is where we want to be some distance from now. We understand we can’t get there tomorrow.” The echoes of the speech will be heard in the years to come. Yet, these years would also prove, judging from the past and contemporary political experience, that it would hardly be possible for the president to translate his words to deeds.

Will his speech be remembered when the gap between what he said and what he achieved appears more visible? There is no likelihood of any one remembering Bush’s words when in the future it becomes evident that his promises will never materialize. Or, does modern political etiquette require a leader to tell the people something far from reality but what they like to hear and then do what he wants to do? There would be no dearth of excuses and justifications if anyone criticizes the politician for his failures. All these justifications and excuses are meant to ward off serious criticisms.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent explanations in the US Congress justifying the miscalculations about the postwar Iraq, for instance, were accepted without any serious objection.

The views of the presidential candidate John Kerry about terrorism as expressed during his election campaign were more realistic than Bush’s. While Kerry promised to do everything possible to end the menace of terrorism Bush declared his plan to root it out totally during his second term.

Though Kerry’s promise appears to be realistic, the American people, apparently, preferred his rival who would weave dreams for them with scant regard for the reality. Bush’s inaugural address, obviously, suited well for the American people’s need for fantasy. It was full of morals and change in the international political environment that need not necessarily suit the people in many parts of the world.

The president assured all who live under the shadow of oppression and frustration that the United States would not be unmindful of the oppression they are suffering. He condemned those who oppress them. While they are struggling for their independence, Bush said, the US will indeed stand by them.

The policy statement of a new administration is not complete with a high-sounding foreign policy statement alone. Bush should have given more stress to policies at home explaining the schemes to solve domestic issues so that his administration gets strong public support. It is not within the power of even a superpower to offer solutions for all the world’s problems.

It may be difficult for a country even of the size of the US to solve its own domestic problems. The better economic climate in the US during Clinton’s presidency was because he did not interfere in the international controversies that would have drained the resources of his country. The economic stability that Bush inherited from the Clinton administration helped him broaden his foreign policy after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

A superpower may underestimate the potential of the country in whose affairs it seeks to intervene. The intervention would become more difficult if the other country is distant or the superpower behaves as if the other country did not matter — as happened in the case of Iraq. Smaller countries cannot always be expected to obey the US.

The US policy unveiled in the Bush speech would only heighten its confrontation with smaller nations, particularly if the opposing nations are ready for sacrifices and losses as happened in Somalia in 1993 and is currently happening in Iraq.

The great American values will, no doubt, be sacrificed while implementing its schemes abroad.

President Bush underscored the US right to intervene in other countries’ affairs in his speech that paradoxically stressed the need for freedom and democracy. Such interventionist policies will, no doubt, prove a burden on the US economic performance.

Due to some economic interests Bush may have some excuse for US activities in the Arab region. To match the essence of the message he conveyed, the electronic media presented the president bending his body slightly backward suggesting a great deal of arrogance while delivering the address. It would have been better if the speech gave preference to logic over transient populism.