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 ...
Cheerleading is not the point...but a diatribe that could have been written by Maureen Dowd is another...and completely mystifying. I have been and still am a great admirer of hers, but if anything, Peggy Noonan was "over-the-top" in her criticism. The jealousy thing hadn't occurred to me, but she is human...still she was the one who lacked vision and even a basic wisdom that I have always associted with her perspective, I am truly disappointed in her choice of words that are now touted by those who will never be accused of balanced intentions. It is just a shame. Oh well, upward and onward. No opinion, certainly not Noonan's or any of ours...can diminish President Bush's courage and vision. That does not mean we must always agree on every point or be "cheerleaders." All of integrity must just ask themselves are we first willing to listen and digest the whole..before picking apart for our own self-aggrandisement. The latter can be the real example of "Too much" and "over-reaching" We all can be guilty of embarrassing self-importance, and when the ego is painfully more important than principle...it becomes obvious to all. Even great writers like Noonan can fall victim, to this human flaw...but I think her column was misguided and it is a shame....because Noonan diminshed herself not the President and it is a shame. But unlike her dissection of a magnificent speech by GWB, I prefer to judge Noonan on the whole of her writings and not this lateset rather bizarre detour.
And I disagree with almost everything you said.
Equating the desire to help people gain their freedom throughout the world with some 'one-world-order' charge, doesn't hold water.
And you completely misunderstood if you believe the President said we were going to force freedom on anyone.
It's interesting, however, to see how your own pre-conceived ideology fogged up the words the President actually said, and how you imposed your own fears on his words in order to misconstrue their meaning.
No facts? Are our borders secure? No? Is our sovereignty at risk? Yes? Is our safety at risk? Yes? Is Mexico's second largest source of income the billions ripped out of the US economy and sent south by illegals? Yes?
What happens to concerned congressmen by this administration? They are told not to darken the White House doors.
Is Bush going to ram through the FTAA treaty Jan 25th using his newly gained Fast Track ability? Yes.
There is much more in the way of facts and evidence, but you are not interested. Your only aim is to chastise anyone who dares point the fact that your hero has glass heels.
It has been mentioned on this forum that the right should hold this administration, congress, and senates feet to the fire. Stop standing around with a fire hose and get busy.
I prefer a President who realizes his job is to protect and defend the United States, as Reagan did, and not engage in global ideological crusades. And I am unwilling to see a single American boy come home in a body bag in any war not necessary to protect our vital interests.
I know you don't like me much, and think I'm stupid, but could you please defend that charge with facts?
I'm not trying to 'chastise' anyone. I'm trying to get you to back up your charge that he is A. PIOUS, or B. a GLOBALIST. I'm not asking you to tell me what you disagree with in his foreign policy. (You do that well).
I'm asking you to defend the CONCLUSION you have drawn from the facts you used.
If you are unaware of the fact that this President doesn't spend a moment of any day without concern as to how best to protect and defend us, you know absolutely nothing about him.
And if you think that he, or any of his defenders are willing to have any American come home in a body bag for anything less than defending our security and freedom, you are ignorant beyond belief.
My son spent more than a year in harm's way to protect you and me from danger, and I frankly resent anyone who claims that he was doing anything less. He knows what he was doing, and so do most Americans.
Bringing in 'body bags' to bolster your argument against the President is frighteningly reminiscent of the wailing of the left in their faux concern for our troops.
You will have to go a long way to convince me now, that you are not a phony.
I didn't think President Bush's words were that evocative, but then, I don't think Peggy's article is as critical as others do. One phrase she called "over the top" and I believe that's the only criticism she didn't balance with equalizing words of praise.
Peggy obviously loves President Bush, but that doesn't mean she's in lock step with everything he says and does. And I'm with Rush...Peggy should be allowed her opinion on this speech, without having her conservative credentials impugned, as some have done.
I'm sure Peggy knew her words would be used by the left to create a wedge between conservatives. And quoted ad nauseum by the likes of Chris Matthews as proof the speech was seriously flawed. (The libs love it when one of our own goes "off the reservation".) But we gotta remember, even Laura chided hubby for his "dead or alive" comment. Bush can handle his women just fine. And would any among us want Peggy Noonan to become George Bush's slavish Eleanor Clift? I don't think so.
> I did read them. And I disagree with almost everything you said.>You completely misunderstood...>your own preconceived ideology fogged up the words the President...
>how you imposed your own fears on his words...<
My dear OWF. I thought this was a forum in which to discuss ideas and opinions on current events like adults.
I respect your point of view, and do not elect to cast apersions upon it. I speak from long experience, and cordially excuse you. God bless you, my friend.
As do I. That is why I went to look up some of her early writing. This is from her June 14, 2004 column, in which she reprinted a speech she made at a gathering of former Reagan hands, following President Reagan's funeral:
"Are we a government that has a country, or a country that has a government? We are the latter; hold it high. Can dictators who run a country the size of a continent in the name of a life-killing ideology, can they push freedom around? They cannot. Say it, hold it high. Is there a natural thing within man that tells him God is real and good, real as a rock, good as clean water--is that thing, that knowledge, natural to man? Yes it is. Hold it high. Should we as a people try to rid ourselves of the natural expressions of this natural knowledge? No. We must keep that and guard it and love it. We must hold it high."
This from her latest column:
"This world is not heaven.
The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."
It seemed a document produced by a White House on a mission. The United States, the speech said, has put the world on notice: Good governments that are just to their people are our friends, and those that are not are, essentially, not. We know the way: democracy. The president told every nondemocratic government in the world to shape up. "Success in our relations [with other governments] will require the decent treatment of their own people."
...snip
"Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."
When I look at her latest column, in light of what she has written previously, I cannot see anything but hypocrisy.
Bush spent the last four years attaining the "Fast Track" ability to place before congress, for an up or down voice vote, any trade agreement he makes. Jan. 25th the FTAA treaty comes before congress. Go to google and read up on it. Tell me what you think about it.
Bush has been loath to secure our borders, to him everyone is an American just waiting to get here. He has shown no responsibility to his own countrymen and the impact illegals make on their lives, safety, wealth, and property. He has, and is, ignoring the very context of his Oath of Office, to the legitimate citizens of this nation to put their best interests and safety first.
Bush has been abusive and defensive with any other politician that demands he show some responsibility and duty towards his own nations best interests. A nuclear strike would not cause him to secure our borders. You can deny or ignore the evidence, that's your choice.
I have never thought you were stupid just agendized, too trusting, and hero worshiping, when you should be what your Founding Fathers cautioned you to be. Vigilant, suspicious, and demanding.
I don't agree with your ideas, and I said so.
I believe that to have drawn the extreme conclusions you have from words the President said that do not warrant them, that you are coming from an ideology that makes the real words unclear to you.
That is my opinion.
(And please don't say 'My dear,' 'God bless you' as a form of condescension. It belittles any merit you may have in your posts when you say words that you clearly don't mean).
Until the end. 'Hero worshippers' are stupid people. You can't call me one, without implying the other.
'Hero-worshippers' don't think for themselves, and they are gullible. And I am neither of those things.
I am vigilant, but I am not suspicious, especially of a brother in Christ whom I have been closely observing (whether you accept it or not, with a very critical eye) for the past four years, and then some.
I do agree with you about the borders, and don't understand this administration's laxity. I just don't draw the same conclusions as you do.
Thanks for the reasoned response to my question..........although I still don't see any defense of the 'pious' charge.
I don't know you from Adam. The only times you've posted to me, you have been condescending as you were in this post.
You are not now, nor likely will ever be 'my friend'.......so please don't use that phrase when posting to me in the future.
Thanks.
Perhaps my eye is more critical than yours, having spent 20 years in bible study, I don't know. Would you say that Bush believes he is right in his vision for the world? If so that makes him pious.
Do you never tire in your mission to mischaracterize what President Bush said and thinks?
He is exactly aligned with Reagan and your constant foot stamping "he is NOT" tantrums will not change that.
I believe President Bush has asked for God's guidance as he makes decisions as to how he must lead......because he has said so....... and I don't think any of us here (unless Ted Kennedy is lurking) thinks he's a liar.
I believe he is being obedient to what God is leading him to do in his life, and in his job (just like all Christians are to do......it's just that his job is to be the leader of the free world).
I do not see any arrogance in this man spiritually. I have seen over and over again, evidence that he is completely humble before God, and I pray often that he remains so.
I believe he thinks he is right, but that is because he believes it is how God is leading him.
Not (phony) piety, but God's call to lead others whom He loves equally, to live in freedom through the power and goodness of America.
That's how I see it, as a Christian of nearly 50 years, who has more respect for this President than any other leader I have ever seen.
We have had over 1300 killed in Iraq, and over 10,000 wounded. For an idea of what the latter can mean, I refer you to the Fred Reed article I posted last night. We lost these lives in an effort to find weapons that did not exist and are now losing them in an effort to impose democracy in an area of the world that has never had it, where popular sovereignty will inevitably mean Islamic rule. I had hoped Bush had learned from his mistakes. Apparently not.
>>>>>>>>You will have to go a long way to convince me now, that you are not a phony.
Frankly, I don't care if you think I'm a "phony" or not. Bush is not a conservative, and if he acts on the overblown rhetoric from his Second Inaugural, there'll sadly be many more Americans coming home in body bags.
To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
Cheerleading is not the point...but a diatribe that could have been written by Maureen Dowd is another...and completely mystifying. I have been and still am a great admirer of hers, but if anything, Peggy Noonan was "over-the-top" in her criticism. The jealousy thing hadn't occurred to me, but she is human...still she was the one who lacked vision and even a basic wisdom that I have always associted with her perspective, I am truly disappointed in her choice of words that are now touted by those who will never be accused of balanced intentions. It is just a shame. Oh well, upward and onward. No opinion, certainly not Noonan's or any of ours...can diminish President Bush's courage and vision. That does not mean we must always agree on every point or be "cheerleaders." All of integrity must just ask themselves are we first willing to listen and digest the whole..before picking apart for our own self-aggrandisement. The latter can be the real example of "Too much" and "over-reaching" We all can be guilty of embarrassing self-importance, and when the ego is painfully more important than principle...it becomes obvious to all. Even great writers like Noonan can fall victim, to this human flaw...but I think her column was misguided and it is a shame....because Noonan diminshed herself not the President and it is a shame. But unlike her dissection of a magnificent speech by GWB, I prefer to judge Noonan on the whole of her writings and not this lateset rather bizarre detour.
I am sorry you feel that way, ohio. I thought I was talking to another Christian, who would welcome an endearment and a blessing. At the risk of making you see red again, I can only wonder why you come across with such rage, and so quickly on the attack mode. (Maybe take a laxative, it may help.)
Just so you know, it is obvious to the average reader that your comments were not sincere and, as is your way, snotty.
So can the "I was just offering an endearment and a blessing" bit. We can all see that is a lie.
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.