Iran, as any other theocratic terrorist state will only have and enjoy freedom when they grasp it themselves, regardless of whether we repeat the word endlessly or not.
What I fear is that some here simply assume that the Iranians, or anyone else, for that matter, can rightfully demand American blood and wealth to get it for them.
I've been reading parts of this thread, and it occurs to me that maybe Americans should have the word "freedom" defined by the wordsmith who writes for the President. Maybe a vanity thread should be started whereby FReepers could define the term. One of my children had to do a Cub Scout assignment recently about "what America means to me." My son's initial response was, "Freedom." I wanted him to expound on that, and he had a little difficulty.
Buckley and Noonan didn't like the speech because of the way it was put together. From what little I heard of the speech, I have to agree with them. The overall message of the speech was fine. However, it could have been packaged more concisely and eloquently. And the world will keep on turning, and George W. Bush will still be President, and Buckley and Noonan will still be Bush supporters, and I bet Laura Bush did not read this speech before it was given. I could not write a speech for nuthin'. Well, I might try if it were for a hefty paycheck. But then folks like Buckley and Noonan would rip it to shreds, and I would cry. But that is irrelevant.
Of course the Iranians (or any other people)have to have
the desire and motivation to struggle to acquire their
their freedom. But are you suggesting that we should give
them NO assistance? The whole of American foreign policy
in the 20th century was based upon giving assistance to
peoples who were willing to struggle against oppression
whether it came from fascism or communism. No nation has
acquired its freedom without some outside assistance.
Speaking for ourselves, we can start with our own
Revolution.