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?
It looks like the article did not require a subscription after all:
"What Is Bush Saying?
The inaugural address and the language used.
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 and the language in which it is conveyed.
The speech was the most committed endorsement of international human liberty ever made at an inaugural ceremony. The president seemed to be saying that unless liberty survives elsewhere, our own is vulnerable. He said that U.S. policy is “to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.” But that, of course, other nations and other cultures will “find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.”
The age-old aphorism says that hard cases make bad law. The meaning of this is that complexities piled on top of complexities can cause the governing law to gaggle in confusion. There is — let’s demonstrate — a law against murder. But how do you deal with the man who fired the bullet at the cuckolder in mid-stroke, egged on to do so by his daughter, who is suffering from a fatal illness? But even granted the difficulties in applying the Bush code everywhere, the American realist inevitably asked himself questions, upon hearing the soaring, Biblical rhetoric of the president. How to apply the presidential criteria?
Okay. Never mind the tyrannies in spotty little states in Africa. Those cases are so hard as to make very bad law. A foreign policy that insists on the hygiene of the Central African Republic may be asking too much.
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?
The sentiments of President Bush are fine, and his sincerity was transparent. But in speaking about bringing liberty to the rest of the world, he could have gone at it more platonically: but this would have required him to corral his enthusiasm for liberty everywhere with appropriately moderate rhetoric.
This he seemed resolute in not doing. But the confusion in language in the speech itself leaves some listeners wondering whether last-minute thoughts were had, which failed to iron out the policy statements, even as they had failed to iron out the language."
Thinking out Iraq...to withdraw or not?
Buckley is hesitantly crying 'Uncle'.
Bush is saying 'full steam ahead'.
Cut the guy some slack, he didn't write it, he just read it or possibly repeated it.
At least dick morris liked it.
Perhaps, Mr. Buckley, he was referring to the fact the creator endowed every human being with a special purpose which is uniquely theirs, unlike any other, i.e "matchless".
Perhaps.
...because Buckley's so well-known for his knack for speaking plainly, clearly, and so all can understand?
Dan
Buckley is one of them there, what you call, intellectuals, albeit one of conservative stripes. Intellectuals have a hard time with straight talk. They prefer pontification, embellishment, and bloviating. They use Cadillac words when Chevy words are sufficient. They get lost and confused when they hear simplistic matter-of-fact speech such as, America - good, terrorists - evil, freedom - good, tyranny - bad. It just blows their gourd.
Whatever. I understood what he was saying and thought he did a damn fine job doing it.
Well, let's start with not being able to simmer in tyranny. Why not? Do you thing that the people of Venezuela have not been simmering in tyranny, that fear of Chavez has not prevented a full boil of revolt?
All this brouhaha about the speech baffles me. IT WAS A SPEECH. My Gosh.
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.
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.
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.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." Mark Twain
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