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.
Picky, picky, picky.
Buckley Jr. seems to be feigning ignorance as to what President Bush meant by certain words, such as the one in which GWB says much of the world is living in resentment or tyranny, and that he intends to protect America.
That is clear as a bell to me, Mr. Buckley. Please don't pretend that you are smarter than us all by claiming your own meanings for these phrases.
And please don't let me believe, Mr Buckley, that you are aging ungracefully.
>> When someone can confuse Bill Buckley, that's saying something.
When someone DOESN'T confuse Bill Buckley, that's saying something. LOL! Buckley is a blowhard.
Buckley is, sometimes, too much the devoted pedant.
I have had lunch will Bill Buckley. He's a great intellect, but he can make a simple subject-verb-object sentence into a Disney adventure. He's not one to critique Bush on this.
Amazing!!
Buckley Jr. criticizes the President for starting to think about the Inaugural speech that week after the election, which he claims in unusual.
Somehow I doubt that, Mr. Buckley.
If that is the kind of thing you think needs to be criticized, then you are obviously TRYING to be obstinate to what I felt was a spectacular day, and a fabulous Inaugural speech.
Quoting:
"Reports from across Iran are stating about the massive welcoming of President George W. Bush's inaugural speech and his promise of helping to bring down the last outposts of tyranny.
Millions of Iranians have been reported as having stayed home, on Thursday night which is their usual W.end and outgoing night, in order to see or hear the Presidential speech
Many were seen showing the " V " sign or their raised fists. Talks were focused on steps that need to be taken in order to use the first time ever favorable International condition. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325679/posts
Buckley may not get it, but they do. It reminds me of the reaction behind the Iron Curtain to Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech. The people in the gulag looked up and believed that maybe, somehow, help was on the way.
Buckley is being a pedant. Most people would understand perfectly well what Bush is saying. Bush wants to convey a major initiative, not dot i's and cross t's.
Let's take his pet complaints one at a time.
>>“whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny.” You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny.
Why not? Whole regions are in states of resentment and tyranny. Resentment directed not at the tyrants, but at us, because they live under tyranny and tyranny breeds and misdirects resentment. Maybe he should have used a second preposition, but he saved time and used "in" in two different ways. Big deal. What he meant is obvious.
>>He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.” What does that mean?
I take this to mean the same thing as the Christian (or Jewish) belief that in the eyes of God every soul is unique and matchless. Sure, it makes no sense if you're thinking in terms of a cash register. But every life is precious, unique, matchless, because God created it for a unique purpose. Moreover, in God's eyes an idiot may have more value than a genius.
>>His most solemn duty as President, he said, was to protect America from “emerging threats.”
Where's the problem? New threats are emerging, different from the ones we are used to. Not Soviet ICBMs, but hijacked airliners. Bush is saying that we are confronting new threats and must change or methods of response. Moreover, we will continue to confront still other, different threats which we may not have imagined, because they haven't yet emerged. Does he have to give a long disquisition on all this? Isn't "emerging threats" pretty clear to most people?
Maybe he should have said, "It's a new ball game, and people will keep trying to change the rules." But I think he put it well, directly, simply, and understandably to all but hair splitters and grammarians.
Incidentally, I'm a great fan of John Milton. He's a great poet and a great master of language. And he does this kind of thing all the time. Look at what he says too closely and his syntax grows uncertain and his meaning unclear. Yet it's clear enough unless you are determined to parse it according to eighth-grade rules.
Buckley should have been on with Pat Buchanan.
The Paleo-con view of America and the world is a pre-9-11 view, and has little relevance. Thinking in 20th century Cold War mode will do nothing to protect us from the ever growing menace of Islamo-fascism.
I recommend more David Horowitz, less Bill Buckley.
Like JFK's inaugural address (still hailed as one of the finest) Bush's speech focused not on details but on the underlying principles we will stand for in the world in opposition to an enemy that is intent on enslaving humanity. Bush used the word "freedom" more than JFK who, if I recall correctly and approvingly, spoke of "liberty". I'll leave it to people like Buckley to parse the differences between those terms but the underlying message seemed clear to me.
Buckley may have been smoking the weed!
Kind of grating to hear all these conservative pundits nit picking at this speech. I love WFB. I was very bothered by his article. But I was quickly uplifted by Rush Limbaugh's defense of it.
Buckley is about 80. he's confused a lot these days.
All the New York City "Republicans" I have known felt threatened by the implications of ideological conviction. Mr. Buckley and Ms. Noonan are no exceptions to this arrogance of claiming to be above the moral duty the President so clearly described. Regardless of the prominent role they may have once have held, their day has thankfully passed.
I love Buckley, I really do, but all this amounts to is that Bush didn't use familiar phrases, he used new phrases. There is a difference between the imprecise expression and the unfamiliar expression, Bill, and these are the latter. What is a "habit of control"? Is it ok if it is a new way of evaluating political systems? And is it ok if the President of the United States coins just such a new rubric of critique in his second Inaugaral? Indeed, if you don't hear such new political heuristics at Inaugeration speeches where would you EXPECT to hear them?
Just because it is not in the State Department's thumbed lexicon doesn't mean it is not allowed to exist.
Buckley and Noonan are being petulant. They want to be consulted when there is an effort to break new rhetorical ground on the Right, and they weren't.
Either that, or the whole world has been so benumbed by 8 years of Clinton saying exactly NOTHING memorable that they now expect it.
Not really.
The speech wasn't foncusing. If Buckley doesn't know what "matchless value" means, he is a moron.
confusing, not foncusing...lol
"You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny."
That statement alone tells me that the old man has lost it.
Probably upset that the Prez is against legalizing weed.
Other than that, it's a whole lot of nothing.