Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Is Bush Saying? (Speech confused even William F. Buckley Jr.)
National Review Online (may require subscription) ^ | January 21, 2005 | William F. Buckley Jr.

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bestspeechever; inauguraladdress; oratorfortheages; senility; w2; wfb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 281-288 next last
To: Heldentat
"the US has the resolve to do what its destiny demands that it do what it should have done many years ago."

Conquer the world and remake it in our image?

If that is what "conservatives" want, I've got to find another identifier.

101 posted on 01/21/2005 1:29:03 PM PST by lugsoul (Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan

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.


102 posted on 01/21/2005 1:29:26 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan

>> 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.


103 posted on 01/21/2005 1:30:14 PM PST by PhilipFreneau (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. -- Psalms 14: 1, 53:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Have you considered that some of us just really liked the speech, and are not just mindless adulators of Bush?

Absolutely.
Have you considered that some of us might not have been similarly impressed? For very valid reasons. Personal opinion needs no explanation.

104 posted on 01/21/2005 1:30:33 PM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen, ignorance and stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
You've got to be kidding.

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.

105 posted on 01/21/2005 1:30:38 PM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan

Buckley is, sometimes, too much the devoted pedant.


106 posted on 01/21/2005 1:31:03 PM PST by King Prout (trolls survive through a form of gastroenterotic oroborosity, a brownian "perpepetual movement")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan
Funny, more than 60% of Americans, including myself, were not confused at all about what Bush meant.

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.

107 posted on 01/21/2005 1:31:10 PM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news (there is no c in Amtrak and no truth in MSM news))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

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/


108 posted on 01/21/2005 1:32:38 PM PST by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Heldentat
That's exactly what I took out of it.

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.

109 posted on 01/21/2005 1:33:12 PM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news (there is no c in Amtrak and no truth in MSM news))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dad2Angels

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!


110 posted on 01/21/2005 1:33:18 PM PST by bowzer313
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
"He told the world that 'there can be no human rights without human liberty.'"

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!

111 posted on 01/21/2005 1:33:56 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

No, it's because your criticisms were groundless. It's really simple. Re-read Reagan's "Reagan Doctrine" speeches. Same exact thing.


112 posted on 01/21/2005 1:34:01 PM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news (there is no c in Amtrak and no truth in MSM news))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LS

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.


113 posted on 01/21/2005 1:35:45 PM PST by baseball_fan (Thank you Vets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan

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.


114 posted on 01/21/2005 1:37:51 PM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news (there is no c in Amtrak and no truth in MSM news))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan

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.


115 posted on 01/21/2005 1:38:32 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
Until we bring democracy to these nations, they will continue to breed terrorists. The best solution is to kill as many as we can, while setting up, in the long-term, a functioning democracy that will end the recruitment of terrorists. This is the Bush strategy, and it's a good one.

Yeah, it's a nice strategy. Too bad important trade partners are exempt, regardless of their ties to global terrorism.

116 posted on 01/21/2005 1:38:43 PM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Blowtorch

I agree with Buckley, and you and Pub. The speech was full of nonsense. All style (poorly stylized), little substance.


117 posted on 01/21/2005 1:38:48 PM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Heldentat; lugsoul
The basic problem is one of morale. After 9-11 the US has the resolve to do what its destiny demands that it do[--]what it should have done many years ago.

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.

118 posted on 01/21/2005 1:39:01 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Dad2Angels

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.


119 posted on 01/21/2005 1:40:14 PM PST by NJ Neocon (Democracy is tyranny of the masses. It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

The Iranians thought it was great so what are you complaining for?


120 posted on 01/21/2005 1:40:29 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 281-288 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson