[1Old Pro]

She gets paid to write, not analyze. There's a reason for that. She's not a policy maker, she's a writer. She's not a leader, she's a writer.

That said, this article was the latest in what has unfortunately become disappointing writings from her.

[Ronzo]

Direct quotes from Peggy's article:

"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."

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." "Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self government. . . . Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time." "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world."

"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.

Ronzo says:

Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will be Done, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN....

[GretchenM]

I quote myself from another thread: "Peggy Noonan, when did you get off the freedom train? And lady, you NEED more of God if you're chewing gristle over Bush's mentioning of and honoring Him. Ms. Noonan, you need to remember your Maker. He never forgets you. And you wouldn't have one single thing in this world if He hadn't given it to you."

RWR, I agree with your first comment. She changed her spots, she changed her tune, she wandered off the reservation. I wonder who got to her? Although I could tell that when Brit first asked her opinion and he called on her to be the FIRST one to speak, she was uncertain, hesitant, unwilling to commit very much to the superiority of the speech. If Brit had called on her second or third, having her follow very positive commentators, I think she would have even more crow to eat in order to make this reversal.

[Oreo Kookey]

Has Peggy changed her color from red to a shade of blue or was she just having a real bad day for reasons only she knows for certain? If it was the latter, time will bear her out. If the former, she has chameleon-ed herself into a position I suspect she will learn to regret.

[unspun]

Take a breath, Peggy.

[Dark Glasses and Corncob Pipe]

WAY TOO MUCH PEGGY

[Ciexyz]

WTF, I thought she was pro-conservative in most instances.

[F.J. Mitchell]

That wasn't an Ellen Goodman column ?

[winker]

With the fires of Hell licking at your boots you can never have enough of JESUS... I know him as GOD, JEHOVAH GOD Almighty Y-ALL!

[texasmountainman]

Chill out and take a breath, Peggy.

[samtheman]

One wonders if they shouldn't ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not.

This is hard core Arianna Huffington. What a wild and whacky misinterpretation. Poor Peggy. Huffing and puffing like an Arianna. So sad to behold.

[joyful1]

Perky Peg raises a question: Is it possible to mention God too much?

Peg tells us her answer: yes, it is possible to mention God too much. We must then pose Perky Peg another question..."how much is too much? in a 15 minute speech is it 10 times, 20 times, 30 times," how many times, Peg?

Or is it not the quantity of times God is mentioned, but rather the quality of His mention? Is it wrong to describe God as the King of the Universe, as Bush did? Is it wrong to give God credit for His eternal goodness, as Bush did? Should we limit the quality of credit we God to a yardstick of what our physical senses can actually measure, and therefore shut up about eternity and universal stuff?

So Peg, is what bothers you the number of times Bush gives God credit, or is what bothers you the degree of which Bush give God credit??

perky Peg needs to explain herself

[Ed_in_NJ]

Even PN has the right to be wrong upon occasion.

Upon this occasion, she may have been writing after a night of revelry and too much Inaugural Punch.

[bray]

Peggy is a classly Lady who has done much to advance our cause. She has the right to be wrong. This was a very Reaganesque speech that will go down as one of the Great Oratory Visions in history.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[hgro]

Peggy has started believing her press releases. Its obvious that Nancy Reagan had Ms. Noonan figured out.

[St.Chuck]

I was never a fan of Ms. Noonan's cheerleading for President Bush after 9/11, so I am pleased to see her recognize that his speech betrays a move toward an intolerable extremism. I am happy for her.

[MissAmericanPie]

Noonan makes some very painful but astute observations into Bush's ideology and psyche. Bush is a pious globalist.

Thus our lack of border security, the cheapening of the meaning of citizenship, the taxation of legit citizens to cover the cost of illegals, the ambitions of the FTAA treaty, and the new direction and goals of the WOT.

Perhaps Bush should study more scripture. He should go back to the "Tower of Babel" and read why man was separated into races and languages in the first place. God hates globalism.

History is history, it is not fluid and changeable. Lessons should be learned from history. Globalism ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism and rule under one ruler, this is why God hates it, and also tells us that at the end of time the world will be under the one rule of the anti-christ. No one, rich or poor, bond or free, will be able to buy or sell without the "Mark of the Beast".

Pure Democracy is the best form of government to insure totalitarianism over every action of the individuals life. This is why the founders gave us the Electoral College. This is why we are a Republic and in the Founding Fathers minds democracy was always suppose to be used with a little "d".

[Ohioan]

I clicked up this thread, just long enough ago to read Miss Noonan's article. I had read attacks on it on other threads, and expected something much more adverse to the President's theme than the article was.

Frankly, the impression being given, by some of the article's critics, was that Miss Noonan was objecting to references to God. In fact she was very quietly suggesting a bit of an overreach in the sense of a personal mission. Had I written the piece, it would have been quite a bit more negative.

It is not the President's Faith that is the issue. The President's Faith is no stronger, certainly, than was George Washington's. But the President is abandoning Washington's wise counsel, is a bout of very excessive self-importance. Miss Noonan did not say it, but it should be noted that whatever God's plan for humanity, it does not need George W. Bush's trashing the wise historic and Constitutional restraints on his office, to embark on a mission in applied fantasy. There is nothing in his approach that answers General Washington's very clear points, that used to guide American Presidents:

Farewell Address

William Flax

[Dat Mon]

I just jumped back on this thread for a quick scan, and its not surprising that its still going strong.

Mon...I'm glad that people have gotten away from the one line 'Peggy is a b*itch!...no shes not!' type posts.

Just a few more of my two cents worth. I'm excerpting Meg33 post on Reagan's speech...

Reagan said.." I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction. 34

We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress. 35

America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally. 36

And it is the world's only hope, to conquer poverty and preserve peace."

Reagan is a perfect model to use to ultimately compare and judge Bush's speech. Reagan, who IMHO will be ultimately be judged by history as the greatest American president of the 20th century, was a perfect combination of idealism...and pragmatism.

His vision, IMO was guided by an idealism,as you see in the speech...but he always framed it within the context of American peace and security, and its relationship to what the world IS...and how it functions...Reagan was no fool. Note that in his comments preceding his exposition on freedom, he talks about SDI...quite the pragmatist.

His steely determination to proceed ahead with SDI, much to the chagrin of Gorbachev, and the other 'peace' activists, was what ultimately brought down the Soviet Union. As Washington once said...'We strive for peace, let us prepare for war'...(my recollection of it)

From my post 212.. "I fully support our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I will fully support our efforts should we go into Iran, or Syria, or wherever...provided it is necessary to secure OUR peace and freedom."

My criteria IMO is in accordance with Reagan's, we must ultimately judge our actions as they relate to OUR peace, freedom, and security. That is the pragmatism...the reality of the world.

I believe that Peggys criticism of Bush's speech, and with others who echo it on this thread, is that Bush's speech is framed within the context of pursuing an ideal of freedom for all the world, as an intrinsically noble goal in itself. That is subtly, but definately different than the Reagan approach, in my view.

Another point that should be stated.

A speech is just a speech...a collection of words. We judge a speech ultimately within its historical context. Reagan's exhortation "Mr Gorbachev...tear down this wall" is judged as monumental because of the fact that those words were part of the Reagan assault that ultimately did bring down the Soviet empire, and the wall along with it.

Bush's speech will ultimately be judged in the same perspective. Its too early to tell what effect Bush's speech will have on the dynamics of the world. Will it lead the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the mullahs..if so...it will go down in history as a pivotal speech.

We have many tests coming (China, Taiwan, Iran) in which Bushs speech and its soaring idealism will be measured. But the speech must ultimately be judged in the context of Americas achievements of greater peace and security of its citizens.

[lawgirl]

Does Peggy have speechwriting envy? I am surprised at her criticism. Chil out Peggy. It's W's inauguration and a godly man is going to make a godly speech. And it's America so that's OK.