Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Is Bush Saying? (Speech confused even William F. Buckley Jr.)
National Review Online (may require subscription) ^ | January 21, 2005 | William F. Buckley Jr.

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bestspeechever; inauguraladdress; oratorfortheages; senility; w2; wfb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-288 next last
To: baseball_fan
Safire thought it was one of the top 5 of the 20 second-inaugurals in our history:

I rate it among the top 5 of the 20 second-inaugurals in our history. Lincoln's profound sermon "with malice toward none" is incomparable, but Bush's second was better than Jefferson's mean-spirited pouting at "the artillery of the press."
21 posted on 01/21/2005 12:41:53 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: baseball_fan

I thought it was a very good speech. It was uplifting and all. It was patriotic and strong. But it was "exhuberant in idealism". And I do have some reservations about getting our guys all shot up to spread democracy. And I'm not totally convinced that spreading democracy is the BEST way to stop terrorism. I figure if you kill all the terrorists that will go a long ways to stopping it. But it's not a very politically sound approach....


23 posted on 01/21/2005 12:42:47 PM PST by kjam22 (What you win them by, is what you win them to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monti Cello
Perhaps the blueblood conservatives are getting nervous

I think you've hit on it. The toppling of the elites in DC is going to take along not a few conservatives who have been the darlings of the conservative establishment for a long time.

The "little people" is a mighty giant just beginning to flex muscles.

24 posted on 01/21/2005 12:44:22 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MichaelP
What is it about plain language that confuses people?

In 2000, the problem with Bush was that he lacked "gravitas"
In 2004, the problem with Bush is that he has "hubris".

And, always, the problem is that he speaks in simple language!

25 posted on 01/21/2005 12:44:53 PM PST by ClearCase_guy (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: ClearCase_guy
In 2004, the problem with Bush is that he has "hubris".

And there numbers wane, wane, wane....

Mike

27 posted on 01/21/2005 12:47:47 PM PST by MichaelP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
No one has explained to me exactly how terrorism can't happen in a country that is a democracy. We're a democratic republic, yet we had a terrorist event by one of our own in my city.

So when it's explained exactly HOW democracy will prevent terroists from popping up.... then I might buy into the process a little more.

28 posted on 01/21/2005 12:47:51 PM PST by kjam22 (What you win them by, is what you win them to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
So you're brilliant and we're mindless.

Hey, kiss my grits. I understood the man perfectly but then you know, I'm, you know, one of those red neck dummies out here in the middle of nowhere. You know what I'm saying!

29 posted on 01/21/2005 12:48:09 PM PST by OldFriend (Isaiah 40:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

You can never kill them all. They just make more.


30 posted on 01/21/2005 12:48:31 PM PST by teenyelliott (Soilent green is made of liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Javelina

I don't think it's tyrany that breeds terrorists in Iran who want to kill us. I thinks it's Muslim fundamentalism.


31 posted on 01/21/2005 12:48:54 PM PST by kjam22 (What you win them by, is what you win them to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan
Buckley is suffering form either too much marijuana or a cocaine deficiency.
32 posted on 01/21/2005 12:49:16 PM PST by bayourod (America, the greatest nation in history is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are an asset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

I don't totally disagree that they "just make more". But how is democracy going to stop them from making more?


33 posted on 01/21/2005 12:49:42 PM PST by kjam22 (What you win them by, is what you win them to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan

Insert mom and apple pie in place of freedom and see if all people can agree...


34 posted on 01/21/2005 12:50:14 PM PST by woofie (Proudly posting inane comments since 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heldentat
President Bush's speech was crystal clear: It's open season on the bad guys, and we're going to roll them back like no one's business.

Really? How?

35 posted on 01/21/2005 12:50:25 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

Do not underestimate U.S. power.


36 posted on 01/21/2005 12:52:53 PM PST by Heldentat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan
Buckley is nit-picking about inconsequential aspects of the Presidents' use of language without really listening to the crystal clear message:

The United States will heretofore act to promote liberty and freedom [the "American Way of Life"] by means which are not necessarily military, but which may indeed be.

Let our enemies beware. We will not hesitate to invade and overthrow them to destroy their power.

We are the worlds' remaining superpower. It's ABOUT TIME we started acting like one.

Destroy our buildings, kill our people, and WE WILL COME FOR YOU!
37 posted on 01/21/2005 12:53:11 PM PST by Bushforlife (I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I agree. Isolation worked in the days of conventional threats, from conventional adversaries, with conventional weapons. Those were the good old days, and too many conservatives are still stuck there.

If you saw the movie, "Lord Of The Rings,", you might recall the very first words; "The world has changed."

It changed for all of us, including the President. The threat is no longer remote, even if our enemies are, and we need to deal with it wherever it exists. This speech outlined the most comprehensive response to that threat that I have heard, and merely criticising the speech without offering a better solution is quibbling.


38 posted on 01/21/2005 12:53:24 PM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan

Semantics aside, the speech struck the right tone. Bush's message was that freedom itself was the antitdote to terrorism, not just our military might. Bush IS the ideological heir to Ronaldus Magnus.


39 posted on 01/21/2005 12:53:57 PM PST by WestVirginiaRebel ("Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baseball_fan

I wasn't confused.

I'm still not confused.

Are you confused?


40 posted on 01/21/2005 12:55:35 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-288 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson