What Is Bush Saying? (Speech confused even William F. Buckley Jr.)

National Review Online (may require subscription) ^ | January 21, 2005 | William F. Buckley Jr.

[Shermy]

Buckley:

"There is — let’s demonstrate — a law against murder. But how do you deal with the man who fired the bullet at the cuckolder in mid-stroke, egged on to do so by his daughter, who is suffering from a fatal illness?"

TMI. And very weird. Buckeley has completely slidden off his chair.

[nmh]

Buckley and the other one are too LIBERALtarin for me. Buckly was stupid enough to want to legalize illegal drugs!

I agree with Safire and Rush a heck of alot more than Mr. Vocabulary, Buckley. It was clear enough to me also and it is a BOLD agenda that cowards wouldn't dare to utter let alone make their mission. Bush has bal*s. He's not effeminate like clinton.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

All the New York City "Republicans" I have known felt threatened by the implications of ideological conviction. Mr. Buckley and Ms. Noonan are no exceptions to this arrogance of claiming to be above the moral duty the President so clearly described. Regardless of the prominent role they may have once have held, their day has thankfully passed.

[Soul Seeker]

LOL!!!

[finnigan2]

"well now Buckley knows how I feel after listening to him all these years."

- My sentiments exactly. I don't know how many times I've listened to Buckley begin a debate with a killer first paragraph and then trail off into meaningless gobbledygook. I always had the impression that he had pre planned his great opening remarks and then trusted to his reputation to win the debate from that point on. In other words, he has become intellectually lazy and therefore ends up disappointing me all the time.

[BikerNYC]

Then he should have said that. Otherwise, it appears that he is subscribing to a theory in which human rights are created by the consent of the governed and not God.

[Edit35]

Now that I've read the entire Buckley article on post 41, I am even MORE convinced the aging man is fast becoming old school, similar, I'm afraid, to the old school media.

Buckley is effect is saying that simply because it would be difficult to promote freedom in many parts of the world, we should just throw up our hands and forget the whole thing.

After all, we must be pragmatic, eh Mr. Buckley??

[beezdotcom]

So I'll ask again - what else do you think their criticism of his speech says about them?

Hey, don't ask me, I'm just "Ross Perot"-ing this issue! :-)

Seriously, though, I think it says something. It could be anything as petty as "I didn't get invited to the right ball", or it could be something more serious. They're perfectly free NOT to like the speech, but I find it an odd choice of topic to base their column on, if they are indeed Bush supporters.

[JustAnotherSavage]

" 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."

I agree, and he needs to use it consistently, like on MEXICO.

[NJ Neocon]

(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?)

Clearly, we both thought you misunderstood the point.

You said And btw, it is really petty and juvenile for you to characterize those who were inspired by the speech as "knee jerk".

This seems to imply you read the comments as saying anyone who liked the speech was extending a knee jerk reaction. The comments was about many Freepers reflexive offensiveness for any criticism of Bush, even by conservative Bush supporters.

[Publius6961]

Some people are simply wound way too tight.

[iopscusa]

Assuming you are referring to Okla. City bombing, IMO that is an example of ME terrorist enabled from within by the BWC terror enabler....history should tell us eventually.

[woofie]

I agree, and he needs to use it consistently, like on MEXICO.

He should try New Mexico first and if it works here try some other counties.

[rmgatto]

Now I respect the P.E. certification, but how does it contribute to a deeper critical understanding of oratorical meaning? Elucidating his argument would be more useful.

[NJ Neocon]

Yeah, but why did these particular conservatives feel so compelled to publicly criticize Bush so quickly? I expected the Dems to do it, but can't we keep our family squabbles a little lower profile?

Why? Do we not want to SHOW the world that we can be intellectually honest and that we are transparent and allow dissension and discourse? Or do we want them to think we crush anyone who dares stray from the party line? That is the LEFT, not us.

[NJ Neocon]

I understnad Dubya's point. It is his word choice that could have been improved.

[Kenny Bunk]

Well, ah I can well intuit, which is not to say comprehend, the tergiversation you must feel upon even the most cursory perusal pari passu of the Buckleyan bon mots, not to mention his startling aperçus, vis-a-vis this shambling peripatesis of the inchoate often indulged by our President.

Of course, if you can read Ezra Pound without foot notes, Buckley's prose is ein kinderspiel. His breakthrough videotape on Celestial Navigation is an excellent example. Slightly dodgy information ... but somehow you still get there.

[Publius6961]

psssssst. The election is over.

There is a time and place for everything. If W could run again, I would vote for him again. He is not perfect. His strategy towards islam is particularly ill-advised.
Criticism should not be a capital crime in a free society. Certainly not over a choice of words!

Lighten up.

[RinaseaofDs]

People were taking whacks at you because you applied a couple of negative adjectives to it, and stopped there.

If you have a beef with the speech, lay out your arguments.

So far, I think the message is pretty clear: Democracy is the antidote to foreign threats. It has the fringe benefit of providing open markets too. What people do in their countries are now our business, because we can no longer wait to be struck before striking back.

I do think Peggy Noonan and Bill Buckley are a bit jealous here.

If you look at our track record of supporting dictators, and the return on that investment to this point, it's been pretty low. We have enough modern history to support the observation that the only effective way of dealing with a tyrant is to motivate the people to freedom, and to assist any way we can.

It's a good clear policy with all kinds of fringe benefits. Not the least of which is that it occupies the very highest moral ground.

People are getting beat up because they are missing these points for the small semantic ones like "Can people simmer in resentment and tyranny at the same time?"

Gorbachev, after all, can't really tear down the wall all by himself, can he? Doesn't he farm that out?

[Publius6961]

I have to say, this one-ups the pie-eyed Wilsonian democrats, and goes straight into Napoleonic delusion.

Keep it simple, dude!