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 ...
I agree...his deconstruction of the speech was silly and gratuitous. What Dubya projected was the key here. Dissecting it word by word was an exercise in [best Buckley voice] precisely...what?
I cannot intend an inference without your consent, or your need for "victimization". I can only imply. The remainder is up entirely to you.
You forgot the
:-)
I'm afraid by not posting the entire article people came to the wrong conclusion if the didn't go to NRO. See post 63 for heart of the argument and post 41 for full article.
Buckley may have been smoking the weed!
So you think that the people of Venezuela have not been kept just below the boiling point out of fear?
While we have the leisure time in our free country to quibble about semantics and artful wording, in the part of the world where there you might actually get shot, hung, beheaded, etc., if you disagree with an oppressive government, it looks as if they understood President Bush...
*****
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 and the comments made by the Los Angeles based Iranian satellite TV and radio networks, such as, NITV or KRSI.
The speech and its package of hope have been, since late yesterday night and this morning, the main topics of most Iranians' conversations during their familial and friendly gatherings, in the collective taxis and buses, as well as, among groups of young Iranians who gather outside the cities on the Fridays.
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.
Many Iranians, who were looking for the World's super power firm moral support and financial aid to credible secularist opposition groups, are now becoming sure that Mr. Bush's agenda is indeed to help them to gain Freedom, Secularity and Democracy.
*****
Shall we leave them to rot? Especially since helping them win their freedom could help protect our own country's liberty and security? The mullahs and their associates wish to rain down ruin on our people. Every day the Iranian mullahs scheme to do so, by science and terror. Should we not help light the torch of freedom there?
"By our efforts, we have lit a fire...in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
Something somebody didn't understand about that? Despite the language barrier, it looks as if they understood it in the dark corners of Tehran.
-George
So I'll ask again - what else do you think their criticism of his speech says about them?
"... they simmer in resentment as they suffer under tyranny."
How about "They simmer in the sauce of resentment ,and bam! bam! (a la Emeril) they mix in the stew of tyranny"
Kind of grating to hear all these conservative pundits nit picking at this speech. I love WFB. I was very bothered by his article. But I was quickly uplifted by Rush Limbaugh's defense of it.
Buckley is about 80. he's confused a lot these days.
No, I am not brilliant, but I did not like his speech. I liked some parts of it, but I was not inspired and it did have some major flaws in structure, tempo, style, and substance in my opinion. That's all.
I think it is more wondering who exactly appointed us the guardians of the world and by what authority and justification that we are going to meddle in any country that strikes our fancy. Conservatives tend to have this odd notion that the providing for the common defense means that you defend against attacks against the Republic. Pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation might be justified in light of an imminent threat, as was thought to be the case in Iraq. But, carried to their logical extreme, the globalist interventionalist strategy outlined in yesterday's inaugural seem like nothing more than the foreign policy equivalent of hate crimes legislation domestically. We will now execute pre-emptively against perceived possible threats rather than actual ones. And of course, the immediate response will be "well, we aren't really going to go that far....just the threat will be enough." But given the tendency for governments to expand their authority and power by whatever means necessary, it won't be long before justifications will be made for just that type of policy. In any case, comfortingly, this was almost just rhetoric. Business with China and Pakistan and other beacons of "democracy" will continue. Principle will be sacrificed to expediency. Condi as much as said so to the Senate this week. You wash our hands and we'll turn a bit of a blind eye. We may frown a bit and stamp our feet, but don't worry....our bark is worse than our bite. But we will at least have conditioned the sheep that we can interfere in any manner we deem acceptable with other sovereign nations. We're just going to replace UN-dominated world government with US-dominated world government. After all....we mean well, and you'll get to like it after awhile.
Simply, their view of the world and what they choose to focus on.
Overreaching, impossible to achieve, focus on syntax over substance, questionable opinion of the 'proper' invocation of God.
While others are firmly convicted that freedom cannot be restrained, that it is the right of every human being to experience the freedom granted by our Creator. They aren't caught up in syntax but in the universal themes that have the potential to bear our repeat revolutions for freedom throughout generations.
One is cautionary, one is visionary. I'll take the revolutionary over the professor.
I recommend both. They both have much to add to the movement and reality is between them.
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.