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 ...
Speaking of Chavez, I think that someone needs to look into a situation similar to the oil for food program in Venezuela. After listening to Lincoln Chaffee press Condelezza Rice on playing nice with Chavez, I am convinced that the Senatorial delegation that visited Venezuela have been offered something in return for their lobbying efforts.
To do what? Come on, lets get past the chest-thumping rhetoric, and hear what the "make-the-world-safe-for-democracy" folks really have in mind.
But what about China? Is it U.S. policy to importune Chinese dissidents “to start on this journey of progress and justice”? How will we manifest our readiness to “walk at [their] side”?
China, so massive, is maybe too massive a challenge for our liberationist policy, even as the Central African Republic is too exiguous. Then what about Saudi Arabia? Here is a country embedded in oppression. Does President Bush really intend to make a point of this? Where? At the U.N.? At the Organization of African Unity? Will we refuse to buy Saudi oil?
These paragraphs, not the goofy grammar lesson, are the important part of Buckley's article. That is, the President is promising something that we have absolutely no intention of taking concrete, consistent action to implement. My own reaction is that the speech was wildly inconsistent with Pres. Bush's statement in interviews last week that he will not increase the size of the Army.
His opinions, however on point, should not be given any additional weight because he is an "Engineer".
"No one has explained to me exactly how terrorism can't happen in a country that is a democracy."
Good question! I can only say that Bush already indicated that there is no way to eliminate terrorist acts completely, and was vilified for doing so. I think his idea is that democratic societies minimize the number of terrorists while rogue states multiply them. The OKC bombing was an aberration, but jihadis have been killing Americans for forty years. Its not likely that France would attack the US, even with their obvious disdain for America, but its highly likely that North Korea might with its seething hatred of the US. In the end, all we can do is play the percentages and hope for the best.
One too I think you'll agree with - There is too much criticism of President Bush.
I just finished Natan Sharansky's A Case For Democracy on the plane to DC and this speech was directly influenced by that book, IMHO. I highly recommend that book to one and all.
Sharansky was a Soviet refusenik who spent years in Soviet prisons for his unwillingness to shut up. He was encouraged by words he heard from Reagan while imprisoned.
Obviously, one of the target audiences for this speech was the dissidents being held prisoner in countries where tyranny rules (Sharansky calls them "fear societies"). Bush is telling them that we know they are there and we are on their side.
He is also telling the dictators that we are no longer planning to coddle them in the interests of maintaining stability, because you cannot have peace with dictators in the long run. They require external enemies to blame their failures on.
This is a speech like the "evil empire" speech that one day we will look back on (25-50 years?) and say that this was a turning point in the world's march to democracy. That is, if we really mean it.
I wonder what Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are thinking right now? We have been fairly clear re: Iran and Syria and North Korea, but the Pakis and Saudis have been largely given a free pass.
Excellent choice and my reply to you was going to be--wht choice do we have? We can't divide the party. We can't let these lunatics back in power.
How's that? I claimed to be brilliant? or are you making that claim for yourself?
I don't understand your over-reaction. Were you among the mob yesterday?
Bill Buckley is a nationalist.
He is also gifted in the use of language, even if you do have to consult three to four references to determine the meaning of the words he uses.
That he expressed dissatisfaction over GW's use of language is a way for him to express resentment over GW's brand of conservative thought.
Mindless adulation??????
IMHO the world is full of critics, that's way too easy. I had a great day yesterday.
If an inaugural speech is not to be oriented towards our loftiest goals then what's the point?
Lincoln's second inaugural speech was heavily criticized at the time he gave it too. I wasn't in on yesterday's critiques but you're certainly entitled to you own opinion, that's what FRee Republic is all about right?
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." Mark Twain
Damned traitors!
I say shoot 'em!
I understand the dangers of war and can even understand opposition, but it is absolutely essential for the world to move towards constitutional, secular democracy.
It's just amazing to hear liberals oppose efforts to bring democracy to the world.
Cerebus: Tell his Holiness that the Prime Minister finds ambiguity to be the very cornerstone of a successful foreign policy.
Cerebus the Aardvark: High Society
This is exactly what I got out of it as well. Frankly, I am surprised that conservatives like William F. Buckley and even Peggy Noonan (for crying out loud) are having trouble with this part of the speech. Someone needs to send them a memo to the effect that the world changed after 9/11 -- which is exactly what President Bush said yesterday with a crystal clarity and persuasiveness that most of us understand perfectly. It will no longer do to be the turkey who wrongly assumes that he is safe because we are still several months away from Thanksgiving and nothing bad has yet happened to him.
Wow. I guess that old phrase, "the world's policeman" - as in "we can't be the world's policeman" - is now, um, what would be the word? Quaint?
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.