Why not? What's wrong with that phrase? Sheesshh
It would have been better stated had Bush said:
"... they simmer in resentment as they suffer under tyranny."
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 agree...his deconstruction of the speech was silly and gratuitous. What Dubya projected was the key here. Dissecting it word by word was an exercise in [best Buckley voice] precisely...what?
"You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny."
Why not? What's wrong with that phrase? Sheesshh
What Bush meant was "simmer in resentment...[in the midst of] tyranny."
Why is Buckley so confused? I'm not all that smart, and I can easily understand stuff like this.
I once turned on Sean Hannity on the radio driving home from work, and there was a guy talking with Hannity who sounded like a drunk using big words. After listening for a little while, I realized it wasn't a drunk...it was Bill Buckley!