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?
On a forum like this it is impossible, as you pointed out, to examine and debate all the historic, cultural and political factors that undelie an opinion. That is surely the way to create posts which are ignored, and a poor strategy to derail a simple comment, an opinion.
I choose to ignore the sophomoric technique.
I will cite but one intractable example: how does repeating the word "freedom" dozens of times to an audience where the word culturally does not exist, has not existed for generations accomplish anything?
I am assuming that most adults on this site appreciate that culture, religion, politics and philosophy for muslims are a homogenized single entity.