Posted on 01/21/2005 12:29:43 PM PST by baseball_fan
The inaugural address was in several respects confusing. The arresting feature of it was of course the exuberant idealism. But one wonders whether signals were crossed in its production, and a lead here is some of the language used.
The commentators divulged that the speech was unusual especially in one respect, namely that President Bush turned his attention to it the very next day after his reelection. Peggy Noonan and Karen Hughes, speaking in different television studios, agreed that this was unusual. Presidents attach great importance to inaugural addresses, but they don’t, as a rule, begin to think about them on the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But in this case, that is evidently what happened. And this leads the observer to wonder about some of the formulations that were used, and clumsiness that was tolerated.
Mr. Bush said that “whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny.” You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny. He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.” What does that mean? His most solemn duty as President, he said, was to protect America from “emerging threats.” Did he mean, guard against emerging threats? He told the world that “there can be no human rights without human liberty.” But that isn’t true. The acknowledgment of human rights leads to the realization of human liberty. “The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them.” What is a “habit of control”?
An inaugural address is a deliberate statement, not an improvisation. Having been informed about how long the president spent in preparing it, the listener is invited to pay special attention to its message...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Conquer the world and remake it in our image?
If that is what "conservatives" want, I've got to find another identifier.
Picky, picky, picky.
Buckley Jr. seems to be feigning ignorance as to what President Bush meant by certain words, such as the one in which GWB says much of the world is living in resentment or tyranny, and that he intends to protect America.
That is clear as a bell to me, Mr. Buckley. Please don't pretend that you are smarter than us all by claiming your own meanings for these phrases.
And please don't let me believe, Mr Buckley, that you are aging ungracefully.
>> When someone can confuse Bill Buckley, that's saying something.
When someone DOESN'T confuse Bill Buckley, that's saying something. LOL! Buckley is a blowhard.
Absolutely.
Have you considered that some of us might not have been similarly impressed? For very valid reasons. Personal opinion needs no explanation.
Bill Buckley single handedly drained the swamps of the Right and advanced the intellectual conservative revolution AND GOD's role in it, life, morality, and America for decades.
He is a devout Christian.
Buckley is, sometimes, too much the devoted pedant.
I have had lunch will Bill Buckley. He's a great intellect, but he can make a simple subject-verb-object sentence into a Disney adventure. He's not one to critique Bush on this.
good point - the other is that WFB is a polished wordsmith who loves the "choice " of words more than the content. He makes points about the way teh words are used not their intention. High School debate points off/
Why is it when Reagan announces the "Reagan Doctrine" of liberating Soviet states, no one has a problem, but when it's ending the sewer-breeding grounds of these Islamofacists, all of a sudden it's "too ambitious"? Nonsense.
The only thing Bush said in his speech that was "over the top", as Noonan put it, was his reference to the Koran as valuing freedom. We all know that was PC bulls**t!
I thought this was odd. I always thought the President thought that we all had human rights regardless of whether or not people lived without liberty.
It seems pretty clear to me what his point is: we cannot exercise our [inalienable] rights if we live in a political system or under political circumstances in which we lack the political freedom to do so. To which I respond, well duh!
No, it's because your criticisms were groundless. It's really simple. Re-read Reagan's "Reagan Doctrine" speeches. Same exact thing.
I didn't think I could post the whole article, that people would have to go to NRO see the rest, but it looks like most people only read the brief excerpt which does an injustice to his argument. Please see post 41 for the whole article.
I read the whole thing on NRO. I still don't see what his beef is. Bush said EXACTLY what Reagan said in the "Reagan Doctrine," except Bush virtually named names.
Amazing!!
Buckley Jr. criticizes the President for starting to think about the Inaugural speech that week after the election, which he claims in unusual.
Somehow I doubt that, Mr. Buckley.
If that is the kind of thing you think needs to be criticized, then you are obviously TRYING to be obstinate to what I felt was a spectacular day, and a fabulous Inaugural speech.
Yeah, it's a nice strategy. Too bad important trade partners are exempt, regardless of their ties to global terrorism.
I agree with Buckley, and you and Pub. The speech was full of nonsense. All style (poorly stylized), little substance.
Machiavelli understood the basic nature of states - they must expand, whether it be physically or in some other measurable way, or they will perish. We must cease being squeamish when contemplating this political constant.
I have to say, this one-ups the pie-eyed Wilsonian democrats, and goes straight into Napoleonic delusion.
I believe your interpretation is correct, or close to what the president meant, but WFB is right - it was a poor choice of words to convey the thought.
The Iranians thought it was great so what are you complaining for?
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.