I had to guffaw upon reading this. Yesterday, I criticized the speech here at FR and the bruises from the knee-jerk piling on response are still showing.
The minutiae of the apparent "boilerplate" sources and platitudes, as a substitute for thought, were too subtle for me to identify immediately, but Peggy Noonan and William Buckley have done a masterful job of it.
Mindless adulation for one of my favorite presidents seems to be a mindless requirement of the very young and the very rigid, here at FR.
Hey, kiss my grits. I understood the man perfectly but then you know, I'm, you know, one of those red neck dummies out here in the middle of nowhere. You know what I'm saying!
Example of "boilerplate" or "platitudes" in the speech, please.
And btw, it is really petty and juvenile for you to characterize those who were inspired by the speech as "knee jerk".
I, for example, can expound on the greatness of the speech citing examples while you hurl out baseless charges of "boilerplate" without buttressing your charge at all.
Pity.
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?
Have you considered that some of us just really liked the speech, and are not just mindless adulators of Bush?
You can say that again.
No, it's because your criticisms were groundless. It's really simple. Re-read Reagan's "Reagan Doctrine" speeches. Same exact thing.
The Iranians thought it was great so what are you complaining for?
While we have the leisure time in our free country to quibble about semantics and artful wording, in the part of the world where there you might actually get shot, hung, beheaded, etc., if you disagree with an oppressive government, it looks as if they understood President Bush...
*****
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 and the comments made by the Los Angeles based Iranian satellite TV and radio networks, such as, NITV or KRSI.
The speech and its package of hope have been, since late yesterday night and this morning, the main topics of most Iranians' conversations during their familial and friendly gatherings, in the collective taxis and buses, as well as, among groups of young Iranians who gather outside the cities on the Fridays.
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.
Many Iranians, who were looking for the World's super power firm moral support and financial aid to credible secularist opposition groups, are now becoming sure that Mr. Bush's agenda is indeed to help them to gain Freedom, Secularity and Democracy.
*****
Shall we leave them to rot? Especially since helping them win their freedom could help protect our own country's liberty and security? The mullahs and their associates wish to rain down ruin on our people. Every day the Iranian mullahs scheme to do so, by science and terror. Should we not help light the torch of freedom there?
"By our efforts, we have lit a fire...in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
Something somebody didn't understand about that? Despite the language barrier, it looks as if they understood it in the dark corners of Tehran.
-George
People were taking whacks at you because you applied a couple of negative adjectives to it, and stopped there.
If you have a beef with the speech, lay out your arguments.
So far, I think the message is pretty clear: Democracy is the antidote to foreign threats. It has the fringe benefit of providing open markets too. What people do in their countries are now our business, because we can no longer wait to be struck before striking back.
I do think Peggy Noonan and Bill Buckley are a bit jealous here.
If you look at our track record of supporting dictators, and the return on that investment to this point, it's been pretty low. We have enough modern history to support the observation that the only effective way of dealing with a tyrant is to motivate the people to freedom, and to assist any way we can.
It's a good clear policy with all kinds of fringe benefits. Not the least of which is that it occupies the very highest moral ground.
People are getting beat up because they are missing these points for the small semantic ones like "Can people simmer in resentment and tyranny at the same time?"
Gorbachev, after all, can't really tear down the wall all by himself, can he? Doesn't he farm that out?
I think you make some good points but I would put Buckley's
commentary into two categories. First, few conservative writers
know more about the proper use of language than Buckley
and Safire. Thus, perhaps in context, "guard" would be a
better word than "protect." One cannot literally "simmer
in tyranny". And "habit of control" obviously means a
tradition of keeping tight control over people. And "matchless value" refers to the sanctity of the individual given in Judeo-Christian tradition. But these
points all have to do with semantics and synonyms. Second,
the gravamen of Buckley's argument seems to have been lost
in disputes over phraseology. The really important question Buckley
raised was about the inconsistency of proclaiming "liberty"
in Wilsonian terms for all the world while we are aligned
with oppressive despotisms (and supporters of terrorism)
like Saudi Arabia. Noonan's commentary was critical but
in a totally way than Buckley's. She seemed to be more
bothered by its religious overtones. I've heard the pundits
criticize the address because it said too little about this
or too much about that. What can one expect in a 17 minute
speech? A catalogue and recipe for all the problems of
the world?
How is it that Buckley's and Noonan's 'masterful' editorials both say that the President's speech was not moderate enough, and too spiritual........precisely the opposite of your criticism that it was too formulaic........and yet you agree with them? There is a major inconsistency in your comments yesterday, and your agreement with Buckley OR Noonan (who, btw, did a 180 in her editorial from her initial comments about the speech yesterday).
And I'm sitting here rather amused that you're whining about the criticism you took for your 'boilerplate' analysis yesterday.
It would be nice if you were able to take criticism for your comments without in turn labelling those who disagree with you as 'mindless,' 'young' and 'rigid.'
One might come to the conclusion that you are a tad on the defensive side. :o)
I thought Peggy and Bill did just fine, too. Glad we agree re mindless adulation. Sorry about your bruises.