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

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

[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...

[rocksblues]

He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.”

The Democrats/Leftist/Communists do not understand this statement?

Yeah! just keep going on Peoples Party!

[beezdotcom]

Fatigue, they are tired of defending Bush during their cocktail parties in NY and DC! That aside, they are both great, as is our President, they all love this country and its people.

That's as good an answer as any, I suppose. I just think their timing stinks.

[baseball_fan]

"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."


please see post 220. I love Bush and Buckley both.

[T.L.Sink]

I would agree but a possible example of where the word
"freedom" might be beneficially repeated is Iran. This is
a terrorist state under the mullahs but the young people
(i.e. the majority) hate the theocratic oppression of the
rulers and very much desire the freedoms of the West.
Since Iran is soon to have nukes at the disposal of the
ayatollahs it's the most dangerous of the axis of evil and
the repetition of that word (along with some other things)
might destabilize the regime. When we repeated that theme
during the Cold War to nations behind the Iron Curtain
it was heard and encouraged them -- and speeded up the
implosion of the Soviet Union.

[Publius6961]

I was simply stating my opinion and I respect yours.
Who is off the mark is itself an opinion, and I am content to let events and history decide.

Best regards.

[Publius6961]

Here is another culture where "freedom" has not (never) been available and yet...Iranians thirst for it.

That is obviously why they not only enjoy it but rattle their nuclear program at us daily...

[eleni121]

"Who is off the mark is itself an opinion,..."
____________________________________________________

Sorry but that doesn't fly.

Your posts are replete with judgmental attacks on those who disagree with you.

If you are going to play with the guys you have to play by the rules.

[SaltyJoe]

The world's elite will have their pride tested. There was a photo I saw in Yahoo! of Jeb Bush taking pictures with a disposable camera. There was another of his and the President's mom using her own (looked like a digital camera) to take pictures of her own family and friends). American leadership is becoming very unsophisticated. For me, and I hope for the world's majority, this is a great comfort. Conservative leadership has always been a "do-it-yourself" self-sufficiency. Furthermore, the is no show of this family playing "the common man". We all know that President Bush has a hard enough time reading a script let alone auditioning for a role that's not himself.

Though public fancies vary, it's good to see the most powerful family hasn't taken advantage of their status. How many other very wealthy and powerful families would turn to hired help and order, "Take a picture of 'my friend'."?

Expect to see more of the world's leadership, from high ranking state officials to high ranking corporate CEOs to come from very "unsophisticated" visionaries. Unsophistication holds greater trust when a leader shows no interest in scheming, avoids massive creative accounting, or just plain doesn't have interest in being overambitious (takes their alloted vacations and gets to bed early). It's easy for the elite to overlook such classical leadership and even poo poo "Forrest Gump" personalities. Likewise, it's easy for individuals with a fraction of pride and a whole lot of education to scrutinize traditional honorable human leadership of the classical sense. Thus, Bill Buckley and Peg Noonan might balk in their leap of faith for such human leadership. Their hope is built on that person's past, but also on historical observations of others' pasts too. All human leadership is susceptible to the corruption of power. Intellectual conservatives don't want to see our champion fall.

I hope that what life teaches us by having George W. Bush Jr. as President is that we don't have to heavily scrutinize on the man whose demonstrated a level of trust and ability to withstanding tyranny and corruption. His past plans have worked, and our future plans will continue to grow successfully. What checks and balances we've used to correct the same leader should still be their to keep him from faltering or falling. Those that have been obstructions can be dismissed. Those who prove worthy can stay or even be promoted.

[Publius6961]

This is a terrorist state under the mullahs but the young people (i.e. the majority) hate the theocratic oppression of the rulers and very much desire the freedoms of the West.

Iran, as any other theocratic terrorist state will only have and enjoy freedom when they grasp it themselves, regardless of whether we repeat the word endlessly or not.

What I fear is that some here simply assume that the Iranians, or anyone else, for that matter, can rightfully demand American blood and wealth to get it for them.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Thank you for replying.

---

[Publius6961]

Sorry, I simply refuse to converse with anyone so clearly incoherent and lacking in basic comprehension.
Have a nice day.

[Publius6961]

Thank you all for the enjoyable last few hours. The passion is surely there and I learned a few things. It is so rewarding to be among informed adults for the most part.

Looking forward to the next time.

[ohioWfan]

The sentiments of President Bush are fine, and his sincerity was transparent. But in speaking about bringing liberty to the rest of the world, he could have gone at it more platonically: but this would have required him to corral his enthusiasm for liberty everywhere with appropriately moderate rhetoric.

How is it that Buckley's and Noonan's 'masterful' editorials both say that the President's speech was not moderate enough, and too spiritual........precisely the opposite of your criticism that it was too formulaic........and yet you agree with them? There is a major inconsistency in your comments yesterday, and your agreement with Buckley OR Noonan (who, btw, did a 180 in her editorial from her initial comments about the speech yesterday).

And I'm sitting here rather amused that you're whining about the criticism you took for your 'boilerplate' analysis yesterday.

It would be nice if you were able to take criticism for your comments without in turn labelling those who disagree with you as 'mindless,' 'young' and 'rigid.'

One might come to the conclusion that you are a tad on the defensive side. :o)

[baseball_fan]

"He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.”"

Does Al Zaqwari of Iraqi Al Qaeda fame who beheads people in front of the cameras have the same "matchless value" as the woman human rights worker that had been in Iraq serving the needy for 25 years and was killed in cold blood? I'm sure you would agree the answer is no. In principle we are all children of God from a religious standpoint, but a political leader is forced to make choices. Buckley is saying imho that loose use of vocabulary blurs thought. The deeper sentiments I think all of us agree on.

[Pagey]

Read tonight BUMP!

[Publius6961]

precisely the opposite of your criticism that it was too formulaic........and yet you agree with them?

There is a conspiracy to keep me here. And I can't resist responding to thoughtful but confused posts.

Please show me where I said that I "agreed" with anyone. I was simply amused that their criticism would unleash a passioned, often thoughtless defence not of any attack, but simple opinion.

Some people just can't tolerate others having an opinion. It makes for a lot of heat, but very little light.
I really do have to go for now.
Bon chance.

[nmh]

I agree with you on GWB.

[Edit35]

Will our allies find us unreliable when they cannot tell when our rhetoric can be counted on?

I think you are reading too much into GWB's admonition in support of freedom.

He gave no specifics other than to say the world would be better off if tyrants were to disappear, and that America, aka mankind, should seek the better angels of our nature.

I find it astonishing that so many hard core conservatives are shaking in their boots tonight at the thought that America, with all its might, should be willing to offer help to those seeking to get out from under the boot of despots and dictators.

[rocksblues]

"He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.”"

Unless of course they are deranged/corrupt and lacking respect for their fellow man and woman!

[petitfour]

I've been reading parts of this thread, and it occurs to me that maybe Americans should have the word "freedom" defined by the wordsmith who writes for the President. Maybe a vanity thread should be started whereby FReepers could define the term. One of my children had to do a Cub Scout assignment recently about "what America means to me." My son's initial response was, "Freedom." I wanted him to expound on that, and he had a little difficulty.

Buckley and Noonan didn't like the speech because of the way it was put together. From what little I heard of the speech, I have to agree with them. The overall message of the speech was fine. However, it could have been packaged more concisely and eloquently. And the world will keep on turning, and George W. Bush will still be President, and Buckley and Noonan will still be Bush supporters, and I bet Laura Bush did not read this speech before it was given. I could not write a speech for nuthin'. Well, I might try if it were for a hefty paycheck. But then folks like Buckley and Noonan would rip it to shreds, and I would cry. But that is irrelevant.