Posted on 01/21/2005 3:31:21 PM PST by goldstategop
What a great post--thank you! It deserves a bump.
I can't listen to Rush anymore unless I'm on the computer, but that's a great analysis. Thanks for posting it.
Leave it to Rush to put things into perspective. Leave it to President Bush to encapsulate it in speech. Leave it to the Americans to put it into practice. This is history in the making and, it is not foreordained, as the democrats would prefer it to be, shackled to some idiotic socialist ideology. It's FREEDOM: It's DIFFICULT; and it's worth DYING for. Thank God Kerry was not elected!!!
Thanks for the post.
I thought Bush's speech beautiful. It choked me up.
I heard Rush talking about this today. Amazing stuff. There is nothing new under the sun.
Great reminder of the vision that has characterized so many that have held the office of President.
The speech they praised, the one given by the featured speaker Edward Everett, and the one no one remembers even a single word of, can be read here:
http://douglassarchives.org/ever_b21.htm
Peggy Noonan (as most of you know) did likewise to Bush today in the WSJ.
But Bush behaved in an even more "Christian" manner than she thought. Namely, she (and just about everyone else who didn't like the speech) made the mistake of thinking he meant that he would accomplish all this in 4 years.
Bush and his speechwriters were taking on the role of prophet, which if you have read them fairly closely, you know that they will be prophesying one moment about the events of the very near term, the next moment about events thousands of years away, the next somewhere in between.
Bush is hoping to establish a policy that is so successful that the presidents who follow him even long after we are all dead will have no choice but to pick up the baton and stay the course.
I seriously doubt that Bush thinks he can democratize and pacify the entire world in 4 years. I pretty sure he believes (as I do) that most of us alive right now will probably not live to see the end of this war.
I could sense in my soul the press attitudes starting to harden -- without even having heard them squawk -- within two or three hours after Bush gave his speech.
For one, they do not like him having THAT MUCH TIME TO SPEAK WITH REFUTATION and from such a vaunted platform to the whole *gasp* world.
For two, they think like ants, not understanding the giant boot waiting to crush them if the US chief executive does not act decisively and with a forward-thinking agenda.
For three, they are, in large part, blind.
For four, they are jealous of his power and influence.
History will prove him right and these nitpickers, these small-minded opinion pushers, will still be sitting in the dust, and they'll still be wondering, "How did he DO that? How did he get so much done? How is it that freedom is still spreading around the world long after he left office -- that freedom always being opposed, yes, but still spreading?"
Peggy Noonan, when did you get off the freedom train? And lady, you NEED more of God if you're chewing gristle over Bush's mentioning of and honoring Him. Ms. Noonan, you need to remember your Maker. He never forgets you. And you wouldn't have one single thing in this world if He hadn't given it to you.
bump for wekend issue
"I could sense in my soul the press attitudes starting to harden -- without even having heard them squawk -- within two or three hours after Bush gave his speech."
It's amazing. I was listening to talk radio in Ottawa from 9 to 10 this a.m. and the (conservative) host was discussing this.
He said, Okay, leftists are (predictably) criticizing George Bush's speech. The speech was a statement expressing the hope for an ultimately free world.
So apparently, the leftists are so eager for GW to fail that they want people to remain prisoners of tyrants and dictators.
It's sickening.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323501/posts?page=64 had an interesting discussion including some odd ideas about Sixteen.....
If GWB had held it to a few paragraphs focusing on the fine ideas he expressed, it might have had a shot at being long-remembered in specific, rather than for the feeling it invoked.....
"With Refutation" should be "Without Refutation" == the left doesn't like Bush getting to speak unchallenged.
They surely make up for it afterwards.
CBS is still working on a story about Lincoln missing a physical exam during the Black Hawk War.
Brings tears to your eyes, just re-reading the Gettysburg address.
Edward Everett's speech actually has some decent oratory, altho' most of it is unbearably ornate, flowery and detailed with minutae. (Link in post #8.)
The problem is that it would make a nice essay. But as a speech, it's way too long (at least for our time -- but he wasn't speaking to us was he?). He spoke for a little over two hours.
President LINCOLN allayed their fears, put up some money, sent for more beer and celebrated with them. Before leaving back for the White House (by foot), he allegedly told them that if any beer were left, they were to send it to "stuffy Old STANTON".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.