Replies

From Peggys article...

"And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts."

Ive always liked Peggy Noonan. She has a solid track record as a conservative woman, with strong moral convictions, who has championed the cause of the unborn. Being attractive and intelligent doesnt hurt either!

Seriously, I think this is not one of Peggys best articles. Having said that, I also think she has a valid point. I think, with all due respects, since I'm not a published author like she is, that she doesn't state her key thesis particularly well. The point about the invocation of God is a distraction from her main thesis, which IMHO can be recast as follows:

George Bushs speech is an inspirational, emotional exposition of a deeply held conviction for human freedom...borne out of a strong moral conviction. It represents unbridled idealism, and optimism. But lurking in the shadows is a harsh reality associated with that idealism.

Bush is writing a mighty big check with his idealism. The people who will be cashing that check are our men and women in uniform, and the American taxpayers who will be footing the bill.

Is the price worth it to defend American freedom and the American way of life...absolutely. Is it worth it to defend other peoples freedom and culture...maybe..maybe not.

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.

I think that an open ended call to abolish tyranny can also cast our foreign policy into a realm we don't particularly want to go.

Example...Kosovo, Bosnia...the Clinton quagmire. We were there to liberate the Bosnians from the Serbs. It was a regional, ethnic conflict. Should we have gotten involved? Its a judgment call. I was against that war, as were others on this site.

Would we want to send our troops to defend another countries freedom if it was a UN sponsored mission?

All legitimate questions.

Don't use WWII as an example...we were attacked on Dec7 1941, and drawn into a war many American people were resisting. Should we have fought...absolutely. Were we there to liberate France...not particularly...we were there to defeat the Axis powers, who had declared war on us.

While McArthur felt a particular responsibility to return to the Philippines...our Marine grunts fought like hell to defeat the Japanese, not to liberate the Philippines per se. Its a distinction that I feel is important.

To dismiss these types of questions under the guise of Peggys deduced motives...is she jealous, bad hair day, etc...is doing this site and the conservative movement a disservice, in my view.

I went back and read the speech..He did not imply that we were going to war to free the world..He talked about using our considerable influence to stand with those who want liberty..

It was an idealistic speech but not a sword rattler.

The point has been made over and over that we used to enable tyrants as a foreign policy move against an enemy..People here and on the left point that out..It was rampant during the cold war when the USSR and the US vied for spheres of influence..

.We cannot undo all that, it seemed quite necessary at the time, but we can gradually use it to encourage liberty in those countries where we have influence instead of continuing the same uncritical support.