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 ...
Democracy does not mean we can't have terrorism, but democracyies are much more conducive to their demise than tyrannical regimes.
Oh, and with OKC, Nichols and McVeigh had Muslim help.
I understand your point.
"You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny."
That statement alone tells me that the old man has lost it.
Something a little more memorable, little less PC, little less mushy, little more coherent.
But do you really think Bush was being that Nuanced?
On a forum like this it is impossible, as you pointed out, to examine and debate all the historic, cultural and political factors that undelie an opinion. That is surely the way to create posts which are ignored, and a poor strategy to derail a simple comment, an opinion.
I choose to ignore the sophomoric technique.
I will cite but one intractable example: how does repeating the word "freedom" dozens of times to an audience where the word culturally does not exist, has not existed for generations accomplish anything?
I am assuming that most adults on this site appreciate that culture, religion, politics and philosophy for muslims are a homogenized single entity.
Wow.
I had to think about what Dubya meant as well. Guess I am a moron. I am in good company.
I like your style.
At least you're not a pompous ass about it.
Probably upset that the Prez is against legalizing weed.
Other than that, it's a whole lot of nothing.
Indeed, that's precisely the case. One will never disagree with all of the policies of one's leaders, no matter who they are. But as Benjamin Franklin said, if we don't hang together, we will all surely hang separately.
Whether President Bush and the Neocons are right or wrong, time will tell. It is incumbent on everyone, including liberals and traditional conservatives who disagree with the war, to all lend their hands to the oars and pull hard together, because America is in a sticky war, and could lose if morale flags.
No one has said that. What has been said, is that democratic countries do not attack and wage war against other democratic countries. I can't think of a time when it has ever happened.
Pacifism has always been a basic belief of traditional conservatives. Look at the paleo-s--Buchanan, Rockwell and others.
If you were to go over every post in this thread, you will fail to find where I said the speech was bad.
I was amused by Noonan's and Buckley's comments simply because I could see what the reaction would be, after my experience yesterday.
My sole expressed criticism of the actual speech was the mandatory, positive PC reference to Islam, where silence was more appropriate.
Terrorism is the main problem that the next few presidents must face, and islam is the sole source of it, in significant international terms.
"...will cite but one intractable example: how does repeating the word "freedom" dozens of times to an audience where the word culturally does not exist, has not existed for generations accomplish anything?"
Hey CC guy I agree with you. Simple, sensible speeches don't lend themselves to "nuances". Nuanced is the media's latest favorite flavor. They can't find a way to "nuance" the President's speech. I didn't have any trouble understanding what he met.
Here is another culture where "freedom" has not (never) been available and yet...Iranians thirst for it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325679/posts
Not when it is used as a tool to silence honest criticism.
The Democrats/Leftist/Communists do not understand this statement?
Yeah! just keep going on Peoples Party!
"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."
My guess is that unless our actions match our perceived rhetoric (which is close to setting very high expectations), disillusionment and demoralization could set in that could make the situation more dangerous for the people involved. For example, the Kurds revolted against Saddam in the early 90's and when we didn't come to their rescue, he gassed them. In Somalia after our troops were dragged through the streets, we didn't intervene in Rwanda. If there is a small uprising in China, do we and how do we intervene? If we don't intervene because of practical considerations (we don't want to go to war), will they not feel betrayed? Will not the Chinese fail to see this as the wishes of their own people and instead interprete it as foreign influence that will then justify in their eyes even more draconian measures? Will our allies find us unreliable when they cannot tell when our rhetoric can be counted on? It has been everything we can do just to stay the course in Iraq when the stakes are huge.
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.