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 ...
Who know? Who ever really knows?
During the 2000 presidential debates, Bush clearly said that he did not believe in nation building, "...I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.". So what is this change of heart about? Did Bush decide, in the wake of 911, that Gore was right? Was Gore a Neocon all along and Bush only a recent convert? If this were Kerry, we would call it a flip-flop. But its Bush, so we read into it what we want.
Not exactly. Chavez was removed and promptly returned to power.
Why would we bring Democracy to the world when we, ourselves, are not a Democracy but a Republic? I find it endlessly irritating to hear our leaders praising the merits of Democracy and wonder why we shouldn't have that here if its all that wonderful. End of rant - thanks for reading.
I didn't particularly like the speech, but I do agree that "matchless value" is rather clear to me. Perhaps infinitely precious would be better, but not appropriate for a political speech.
"guard" from emerging threats" is more specific, agressive, and pre-emptive than "protect from emerging threats". The former involves high tech and far superior intel capacities; whereas the latter is less pre-emptive and implies a shield.
The libs, while they figure out their reactive "super-secret" plan to fight President Bush's speech, are rhubarbing currently about the word "freedom" just to divert the masses. Of course, that could have been President Bush's plan, teehee, all along and the liberals fell right into it. :) IMHO, of course.
"You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny."
Why not? What's wrong with that phrase? Sheesshh
What Bush meant was "simmer in resentment...[in the midst of] tyranny."
Why is Buckley so confused? I'm not all that smart, and I can easily understand stuff like this.
I once turned on Sean Hannity on the radio driving home from work, and there was a guy talking with Hannity who sounded like a drunk using big words. After listening for a little while, I realized it wasn't a drunk...it was Bill Buckley!
This particular argument: Spreading democracy is directly opposite the Liberal/Socialists proposal to remove all arms from all citizens, globally, in order to "control" terrorism. I got a choice. I vastly prefer the Bush plan. It restates the tenets of our Constition and Bill of Rights, and in his speech he makes clear the goal is NOT to remake any country in the image of the US -- but rather to lay the groundwork of a free nation, ours, for the people of each country to define their own constitution. Which is, of course, a royal pisser to those pushing the EU, of which Saddam, of course, was assisting.
The stage is definitely getting set up.
The stage is definitely getting set up.
"During the 2000 presidential debates, Bush clearly said that he did not believe in nation building, "...I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.". So what is this change of heart about? Did Bush decide, in the wake of 911, that Gore was right? Was Gore a Neocon all along and Bush only a recent convert? If this were Kerry, we would call it a flip-flop. But its Bush, so we read into it what we want."
FDR also said that he would keep the US out of World War II, but Pearl Harbor changed everything, obviously.
Bush was absolutely sincere when he said he opposed "nation building" back then. But between then and now was September 11th, a disaster of even more enormous proportions than Pearl Harbor. More people died on 9/11, and most of them were civilians in the heart of America's premier city.
Since 9/11, we have been at war, and Bush has been tested. He has seen who the enemy is, where they are, and what they are willing to do. And based on all of that, he has changed his mind. It's as simple as that. Gore was willing to run off and get the US entangled in all sorts of foreign operations, to nation build for the sake of nation building. Bush was a much more reluctant warrior, and a traditional conservative back then, not wanting to become entangled in overseas affairs that were not central to US interests.
What has happened is that Bush has come to realize that nation-building in the Middle East IS essential for US national security. That peace IN AMERICA requires establishing governments dedicated to peace and civil liberties over there.
Gore was no Neocon. Where did he want to nation-build?
Africa. Pure adventurism. Expend American lives and treasure for what? Not American security. Would Gore have had the guts to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and try to nation build THERE, in the very heart of the Middle East, against that much European opposition? No way.
Bush didn't want to nation build at all, but has discovered that to have peace and security from Islamist terror attacks, he HAS to put America on a nation-building mission in the heart of the Middle East. This is not a flip-flop. It's a change of position based on brutal realities. But even if it IS a Bush flip-flop, it is a wise and intelligent one, in the nation's best interest.
Imagine if FDR had continued to try to keep the country out of war AFTER Pearl Harbor!?
Kerry, on the other hand, used to be a nation-builder. Now, when it is necessary, he shrinks from the task.
He is a flip-flopper, in the unwise direction.
met=meant
What Is Bush Saying? When someone can confuse Bill Buckley, that's saying something.
ROTFLMAO! Very well put!
"You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny."
That statement alone tells me that the old man has lost it.
There is an old saying that may apply in this case: "Educated beyond one's intelligence."
They obviously don't understand that President Bush is driven by a desire to be One with Christ.
Glad to see you appreciate high school level diction, except for the elementary "contribute".
Oh, and, assuming that you're telling the truth about working hard to get the President reelected, you sure didn't give him long to stop supporting him, did you?
Not even past the Inaugural ceremony............
The leftists (and a few malcontents around here) seem to forget all about that.
Iraq is messier because of all the terrorists who have filtered in from other countries, but it's going to be a success story too.
Anyone who judges this President harshly on this speech (whether it be Noonan, Buckley, or joeblowfreeper), does not grasp the vision.
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.