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 thought Peggy and Bill did just fine, too. Glad we agree re mindless adulation. Sorry about your bruises.
Pat Buchanan was ranting and raving, saying Bush was going to invade all countries that did not agree with him. He also said why not invade Saudi Arabia. Anyway today was foul jealous news day, some nasty remarks on FOX with some Margaret bimbo this afternoon was interviewing some ass. Bush can't dance, Bush was home early last night. Bush can't dance, the parties this time were cheap the food was cafeteria style.......ect. who gives a rats ass! Lots of petty remarks. Even that witch Diane Sawyer had to say "he is no dancer". Boy if this is the only thing they have to pick on they are real desperate.
good post!
First thing you've said on this thread of consequence.
And from what you HAVE said, I'd say it's a really good thing you're not.
Millions of people are free, and millions more may be four years from now because of this President and the vision he has and expressed in this speech.......even though his verbalism doesn't meet up to your expectations.
That's what it's all about. Too bad you don't get it.
(btw, welcome to FR).
There is a time and place for everything: Rush rightly criticized Bush roundly on many occasions, but to "pile on" with the Left---especially when the criticisms were 180 degrees opposite, well, that's something only an elite member of the media does, even a conservative elite member of the media.
Of course the Iranians (or any other people)have to have
the desire and motivation to struggle to acquire their
their freedom. But are you suggesting that we should give
them NO assistance? The whole of American foreign policy
in the 20th century was based upon giving assistance to
peoples who were willing to struggle against oppression
whether it came from fascism or communism. No nation has
acquired its freedom without some outside assistance.
Speaking for ourselves, we can start with our own
Revolution.
These are your words.
Unless I'm missing something, your use of the words 'masterful job' imply that you agree with them.
I still say that your criticism of the speech is the opposite of theirs.
If I am confused by your choice of words, please illuminate me as to their meaning.
(Certainly if WFB is permitted to be confused, I may be as well.......)
That's fine. Now what will we use for more Soldiers and Marines to do these little chores? Your sons and grandsons (and you, perhaps}???
Buckley, OTOH, just lacks vision, even in his brilliance, and that's where his critique comes from.
But great men of vision......both Reagan and Bush 43......are unaffected by the criticism of those who can't see what they see.
"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."
I take it then that our policy should be to go into the Sudan in force tomorrow to save the large number of starving people who endure slavery, genocide and civil war and raise taxes to pay for it? That action would mean far more than the words we say. After that we need to mount a new Bay-of-Pigs expedition into Cuba? We will stand by you. If not, why not? Maybe we do so, the point is are people expecting our actions to match our rhetoric, and if not do we lose credibility and seriousness? I know you and I are both ready to sign up tomorrow, but Buckley is saying as I understand him that with finite resources heart-rending choices have to be made and losing credibility is a dangerous political precedent.
I thought this was so funny, this is from the Post today. LOL LOL the libs still cannot accept the win!
think Bush needs a wake-up call if he thinks his re-election was a vindication of his policies and the war in Iraq.
Bush barely won the election.
Like many other Americans, I do not approve of this senseless war and the loss of so many American lives.
Jim Corcoran
Brentwood
GWB made no carte blanche offer of troops, money, weapons, or anything close to that for people who want to be free.
"Help" can come in many forms. Verbal. Economic. Technology. Diplomacy. Medical. UN nudging.
People like Buckley (and other FR on this board) who claim we are biting off more than we can chew are simply projecting false thoughts that we will soon be sending troops and ammunition.
Agreed. No expansion of the Army and Marines...not to mention the time and $$$ it takes to train and equip them.
Does this speech not promise something that W has no intention of delivering? And is that not precisely what his father encouraged, by egging on the Kurds and the Shiites to overthrow their "leader", sodamnm?
And we'll do it all without increasing taxes or a draft, how?
Oh give me a break. Do you have any idea what I did to help get Dubya elected?
"GWB made no carte blanche offer of troops, money, weapons, or anything close to that for people who want to be free."
So what is different then than before he gave the speech? (Personally I think he was trying to establish as policy that put forward in "Making the Case for Democracy" by Nathan Sharansky which he was reading at the time but applying it not only to the Middle East but the entire world, with which I agree. We will find out in the State of the Union speech whether people feel mislead or not by what they read into the speech which is the danger.)
And let's not forget Afghanistan. It may not be perfect, but they have come a very long way in a short period of time. Once people taste freedom, there is no going back. I am proud of what the US has been able to do in Afghanistan and I pray Iraq will turn out well. Remember, history cannot be judged in the moment.
"...simply refuse to converse with anyone so clearly incoherent and lacking in basic comprehension..."
________________________________________
I never doubted you were a judgmental "my way or the highway" elitist.
Just discuss stuff with those how agree with you that's all...quite a learning experience that must be.
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.