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 ...
At the risk of adding fuel to the ongoing emotional fire, that is precisely what led to my rhetorical lynching yesterday. Wanna see the marks?
Some things are better left unsaid in present company.
thats a good one....nice
You quoted my words.
Then you state Noonan and Buckley are traitors that should be hung, in your exagerated fashion.
I think no one is ignorant of your intended "inference". Since you have nothing worthy to contribute to anything I said, I repeat I take it as a compliment. :-)
Re-read what he said.
He did not say people who were inspired by the speech acted in a knee jerk fashion, he said that many Freepers have a tendency to exhibit a knee jerk reaction of pile-on to ANY criticisms of Bush.
See post 63 - I think that is the meat of the argument. Thanks
Quoting:
"Reports from across Iran are stating about the massive welcoming of President George W. Bush's inaugural speech and his promise of helping to bring down the last outposts of tyranny.
Millions of Iranians have been reported as having stayed home, on Thursday night which is their usual W.end and outgoing night, in order to see or hear the Presidential speech
Many were seen showing the " V " sign or their raised fists. Talks were focused on steps that need to be taken in order to use the first time ever favorable International condition. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325679/posts
Buckley may not get it, but they do. It reminds me of the reaction behind the Iron Curtain to Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech. The people in the gulag looked up and believed that maybe, somehow, help was on the way.
Buckley is being a pedant. Most people would understand perfectly well what Bush is saying. Bush wants to convey a major initiative, not dot i's and cross t's.
Let's take his pet complaints one at a time.
>>“whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny.” You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny.
Why not? Whole regions are in states of resentment and tyranny. Resentment directed not at the tyrants, but at us, because they live under tyranny and tyranny breeds and misdirects resentment. Maybe he should have used a second preposition, but he saved time and used "in" in two different ways. Big deal. What he meant is obvious.
>>He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.” What does that mean?
I take this to mean the same thing as the Christian (or Jewish) belief that in the eyes of God every soul is unique and matchless. Sure, it makes no sense if you're thinking in terms of a cash register. But every life is precious, unique, matchless, because God created it for a unique purpose. Moreover, in God's eyes an idiot may have more value than a genius.
>>His most solemn duty as President, he said, was to protect America from “emerging threats.”
Where's the problem? New threats are emerging, different from the ones we are used to. Not Soviet ICBMs, but hijacked airliners. Bush is saying that we are confronting new threats and must change or methods of response. Moreover, we will continue to confront still other, different threats which we may not have imagined, because they haven't yet emerged. Does he have to give a long disquisition on all this? Isn't "emerging threats" pretty clear to most people?
Maybe he should have said, "It's a new ball game, and people will keep trying to change the rules." But I think he put it well, directly, simply, and understandably to all but hair splitters and grammarians.
Incidentally, I'm a great fan of John Milton. He's a great poet and a great master of language. And he does this kind of thing all the time. Look at what he says too closely and his syntax grows uncertain and his meaning unclear. Yet it's clear enough unless you are determined to parse it according to eighth-grade rules.
Sorry-the "brilliant comment" wasn't yours. I still agree with what you said though.
Why is it so difficult for otherwise educated people to grasp the concept of "opinion"? The fact that you have one does not destroy my ability also to have a differing one.
sim·mer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smr) v. sim·mered, sim·mer·ing, sim·mers v. intr. To be cooked gently or remain just at or below the boiling point.
To be filled with pent-up emotion; seethe.
To be in a state of gentle ferment: thoughts simmering in the back of her mind.
The term is not the best at all for the thought Bush was trying to con-vie
The dictators, isolationists and elites cower as the oppressed world rejoices. Thank God for our President AND the American people that chose to give him the leverage to follow through.
Buckley should have been on with Pat Buchanan.
The Paleo-con view of America and the world is a pre-9-11 view, and has little relevance. Thinking in 20th century Cold War mode will do nothing to protect us from the ever growing menace of Islamo-fascism.
I recommend more David Horowitz, less Bill Buckley.
I don't need to. I correctly understood it the first time.
But those who are complaining or bemused about criticism such as Buckley's and Noonan's are those who were inspired by the speech and can back up the reasons why by citing examples.
(was it reeeeeeeeeeally necessary for me to point that out or do you both just like to pick nits and pretend you've discovered some flaw in someone's thinking?)
Like JFK's inaugural address (still hailed as one of the finest) Bush's speech focused not on details but on the underlying principles we will stand for in the world in opposition to an enemy that is intent on enslaving humanity. Bush used the word "freedom" more than JFK who, if I recall correctly and approvingly, spoke of "liberty". I'll leave it to people like Buckley to parse the differences between those terms but the underlying message seemed clear to me.
In 2004, the problem with Bush is that he has "hubris".
I thought the problem was :
He was an idiot
Now he is an evil genius
The man is not beyond criticism. For the love of God, if conservatives who support him cannot discuss his potential flaws, who can?
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.