Posted on 01/20/2005 9:33:31 PM PST by RWR8189
Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
It was an interesting Inauguration Day. Washington had warmed up, the swift storm of the previous day had passed, the sky was overcast but the air wasn't painful in a wind-chill way, and the capital was full of men in cowboy hats and women in long furs. In fact, the night of the inaugural balls became known this year as The Night of the Long Furs.
Laura Bush's beauty has grown more obvious; she was chic in shades of white, and smiled warmly. The Bush daughters looked exactly as they are, beautiful and young. A well-behaved city was on its best behavior, everyone from cops to doormen to journalists eager to help visitors in any way.
For me there was some unexpected merriness. In my hotel the night before the inauguration, all the guests were evacuated at 1:45 in the morning. There were fire alarms and flashing lights on each floor, and a public address system instructed us to take the stairs, not the elevators. Hundreds of people wound up outside in the slush, eventually gathering inside the lobby, waiting to find out what next.
The staff--kindly, clucking--tried to figure out if the fire existed and, if so, where it was. Hundreds of inaugural revelers wound up observing each other. Over there on the couch was Warren Buffet in bright blue pajamas and a white hotel robe. James Baker was in trench coat and throat scarf. I remembered my keys and eyeglasses but walked out without my shoes. After a while the "all clear" came,
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Tis a puzzle.
>Reagan's was prayerful, measured manuscript<
Icon, I think you just hit your third hole in one!
>(Bush) Related only in a vague and haughty way to the problems staring him in the face<
Perhaps not "haughty" but definitely vague, "in the clouds," manner. Condescending maybe a better word. Why disguise the true identity of the enemy? That's where the speech lost the power it was building up to.
They are replaying the day..I am now going to enjoy the parade and actually watch it without turning to post!!
The President knows where his source of strength is. His speech was only 'condescending' if you are unaware of that fact. And only 'vague' if you cannot grasp its point.
Agreed!
Noonan isn't complaining about references to God. She's complaining about Bush's belief that we can turn earth into Heaven. This is something conservatives used to worry about; in the Buckleyite slogan, "Don't immanentize the eschaton." It is foolhardy to think we can eliminate tyranny from the planet, and foolhardy to make such a task the goal of the United States. The Founders had a far more modest, and realistic, vision: to establish freedom here.
Did you also want him to speak in more modest, realistic tones?
And if so, when the Iron Curtain fell and millions were freed and fledgling democracies established, did you recognize that you were in error?
And many here have pointed out her error is assuming that premise. Evidently an error you share with her.
I agreed with Reagan, because Soviet Communism posed a clear threat to the United States. The Soviets had a massive military, a large nuclear arsenal, and many ideological allies in the West. We face no such comparable threat today.
Reagan had no trouble allying us with authoritarian regimes when it was in our interest. He criticized Carter for abandoning the Shah and Somoza, for example, because he placed the national interests of the United States above abstract appeals to "freedom."
By contrast, Bush's speech wasn't focused on our concrete national interests but on abstract appeals to freedome. Bush's speech even explicitly linked our freedom to the spread of freedom abroad. In other words, America is somehow in danger if Mali and Myanmar are ruled by dictators. Anyone who seriously believes that is insane.
I understand your Ohio mindset, but I see no common sense, responsibility, or logic being applied to a radical ideology. Competing cultures does not a community make.
Or maybe you would like to drive down and explain it to the gentleman that was robbed and shot on our parking lot by three illegals last week?
Rogue nations led by brutal dictators who hate us, and have the means to destroy us, do indeed infringe on our freedom. They are a 'clear threat' to our security and freedom to live as we choose.
btw, the Soviet Union was discovered to have been not nearly the threat as we supposed it was before the Iron Curtain fell...............their 'stockpiles of weapons,' as it were, and capability not as strong as we were led to believe by their bluster.
Read my posts 345 & 448.
There isn't a "rogue nation" out there with "the means to destroy us." North Korea has, at most, a few nukes; the Soviet Union had thousands. Yet we were able to defeat the Soviet Union without ever invading or engaging in a global crusade for democracy.
That said, it is irrelevant to your claim that the President's desiring freedom for other nations because they are a threat to us in their present form, and wanting liberty for those who presently live in tyranny, has anything to do with 'pious globalism.' It is a spurious charge.
I also thought of this, and of other columns Peggy Noonan has written, when I read her remarks on Bush's inaugural speech. How many of her columns have been "God-drenched"? And we all know that other inaugural speeches have referenced God and been sweepingly ambitious in their stated goals.
Those two facts, and the fact that her comments were petty and seemed timed to do the president the most damage and herself the most good (as far as boosting her visibility in the media), cause me to question her motives. I think it's fair to do so.
I'm not making a charge, charge time is over with, the evidence and facts are in. While you're so busy turning a blind eye, turn one to my posts why don't ya?
Many people would say that a good part of us was destroyed on 9/11, and that allowed to fester, many terrorist breeding grounds would chip away at our freedom.
It doesn't take thousands of nuclear bombs to threaten us.
I prefer having a President who has the same vision of democracy for the oppressed as Reagan did, to one who doesn't. This President is just taking it a step farther.
The 'fire of freedom' that the President referred to in his speech is exactly the 'fire of freedom' that Reagan knew existed in people's hearts behind the Iron Curtain when he said the words, ".....tear down this wall."
Yeah, Me too. Her stock went down a little on my ledger.
I DO read your posts, MAP, and this is a 'charge,' and a false one.
I know you believe it, but you can't back it up with actual facts, outside your own narrow ideology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.