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 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....
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.
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!
And there numbers wane, wane, wane....
Mike
So when it's explained exactly HOW democracy will prevent terroists from popping up.... then I might buy into the process a little more.
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!
You can never kill them all. They just make more.
I don't think it's tyrany that breeds terrorists in Iran who want to kill us. I thinks it's Muslim fundamentalism.
I don't totally disagree that they "just make more". But how is democracy going to stop them from making more?
Insert mom and apple pie in place of freedom and see if all people can agree...
Really? How?
Do not underestimate U.S. power.
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.
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.
I wasn't confused.
I'm still not confused.
Are you confused?
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.