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 are you refering to as "blueblood conservatives"?
If that is the best rebuttal you can return, I take it as a compliment. Inferring sentiments never spoken by me advances nothing on your part.
Add reading comprehension to mindlessness.
I was not characterizing the inspiration as knee-jerk, but rather (and clearly, I thought) the over-reaction to criticism.
'highfalutin gibberish'----that describes Buckley speaking to a 't'. Noonan, to a degree, too.
Between Buckley, Noonan, and, probably later, George Will, we are going to see a lot of the supposedly more sophisticated conservates show where they differ from those of us who see the world more in black and white.
Rush is doing a good job today discussing the notion that people are born with a desire to be free. Too many of our leaders in the gov't and media don't understand this.
-- Joe
I bought a book full of all the inaugural and farewell addresses of all the presidents up through the 1900's anyway. It sounded to me like those speeches were well studied by Bush's speechwriter. Noonan and Buckley are reading into it things that are not there.
This is silly: 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
Acknowledging human rights is not the realization of human rights. There can be no human rights without human liberty. The statement is true. Buckley claims to prove its untruth by making a completely different statement. Sure, first comes acknowledgment. But saying and doing are two different things.
I find Buckley's biblical rhetoric comment as offensive as I found Noonan's too much God comment. Again, the Bush comments were way more historical than they were biblical. Heck, he even mentioned the Koran I think (the only part you couldn't match up to previous speeches by previous presidents).
I love conservatives but they are a strange lot. They just can't take winning.
Oh for God's sake, Buck, you don't get it either? He's talking about those that oppress the freedoms of their people: speech, religion, redress, et al. Even a dummy like me understands that.
My gift to you. No crime is needed.
Didn't take long, did it? Hang on to your wallet.
Have you considered that some of us just really liked the speech, and are not just mindless adulators of Bush?
Case in point:
Bush Shocks Foreigners With 'Satanic' Sign
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145062,00.html
No matter what he / his family says or how they say it, they will be soundly criticized for just saying it => given that fact, they might as well have some fun in interim: - )
I agree with you entirely.
In the interest of charity and brotherhood, however, I shall refrain from characterizing government bean counters...
Before 9/11, the paleocons were right. Nation building was a foolish, unnecessary exercise that for eight years was simply a means of distracting the public from Bill Clinton's foibles.
But on 9/11, it became abundantly clear that old ideology would no longer serve us. We simply can't let mini-hitlers around the world foment hatred for America, fund, and train that hatred until it erupts in massive terrorist attacks.
In the new world, the little ayatollahs, muftis, grand shamans engaging in that sort of behavior will be dealt with. Kadaffi has already gotten the message and realized that he really does not want Uncle Sam coming to reform him.
While it will be bloody and politically unpopular, we probably need to direct our attention at Iran and Syria next, perhaps even North Korea. China and Russia aren't on that list because they simply are not the same animal. They aren't insane with bloodlust no matter the cost.
I don't like this. I don't relish the cost in lives and treasure. But simply ignoring the terrorists just encourages them to keep upping the ante.
Me thinks he may be experiencing the classic symptoms of the 'dreaded alz.'
Machiavelli understood the basic nature of states - they must expand, whether it be physically or in some other measurable way, or they will perish. We must cease being squeamish when contemplating this political constant.
Is there any other nation on the planet that we would allow to have any say-so in our own internal governance? I would think most would answer that question 'no'. Why is it so hard to understand that our use of power to dictate to other nations undermines the very concept of sovereignty - which ultimately limits our own sovereignty?
If you're calling me mindless you're even more clueless than you first appeared to be.
You can say that again.
Please keep your inferences to yourself.
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.