Posted on 01/27/2005 2:08:34 AM PST by bellevuesbest
I have been called old, jaded, a sourpuss. Far worse, I have been called French. A response is in order.
You know the dispute. Last week I slammed the president's inaugural address. I was not alone, but I came down hard, early and in one of the most highly read editorial pages in America. Bill Buckley and David Frum also had critical reactions. Bill Safire on the other hand called it one of the best second inaugurals ever, and commentators from right and left (Bill Kristol, E.J. Dionne) found much to praise and ponder. (To my mind the best response to the inaugural was the grave, passionate essay of Mark Helprin.) So herewith some questions and answers:
A week later, do I stand by my views?
Yes. If I wrote it today I wouldn't be softer, but harder.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
A foreign policy so 20th Century. She'd rather sweep the dust under rug just to pretend it doesn't even exists. She loves to boast she clings to Reagan's philosophies, but "tidy tyranny" was not one of Ronaldus Maximus' philosophies of dealing with evil.
I had a similar thought. I wonder if this White House, with its understandable but not always helpful Band of Brothers aspect, isn't different from previous White Houses in this. In other White Houses there were always too many people eager to show their worth by removing the meaning of the speech, or warning the president that such and such shouldn't be said.
I had heard posters remark on Frum criticizing the speech but had not heard or read him myself so did not know he said this. And Noonan agrees?
They are both flat out saying the President is too dumb? It's not as if he read it cold on inauguration day. In fact, I heard some commentary that morning that final touches were being put on it. I assumed (and still do) that that was at President Bush's direction.
I am getting more disgusted as I read this column....back to finish it.
She's acting like a liberal. To wit:
She screwed up.
She got taken to the shed for it.
In response, she's digging in her heels and redoubling her efforts. Thus deepening the hole.
Too bad, but not altogether surprising.
Dan
Good question.
Ah yes. Some poor folk are simply allergic to freedom. I can't believe she said this. Here's her excuse for wanting to keep Hussein in power. Better to rape a thousand Iraqi women and stay up nights worrying when the next attack is going to be, than to deal with it directly as we have.
We've done it her way for almost 100 years. What specifically did it by us? What's her model state in this scenario, Saudi Arabia?
Great explanation!!
I don't think Peggy realized how useful her imagery would turn out to be.
It was a starting point in helping us understand what is really going on, in this war on terrorists and those who aid them.
Does Peggy want her son to grow up in a pestilence-ridden world, stepping over and around piles of rotting garbage?
The one Peggy would have written for him would not have prompted 5 minutes' discussion. She may like that in certain "contexts", and call it whatever adjective her considerable talents can conjure to defend it; I call it a waste of the country's time.
You were a hero of mine.
You are wrong here and I am embarrassed for you,at the fool you are making out of yourself over it.It is unfortunate that this is how you chose to end your career as a conservative writer. You should have presented your opinion without insulting everyone who saw otherwise.
Peggy-you are not the Queen....and we are not the little people. You are not the only person who gets to use words to emit emotion over a grand concept. Words and flowery sentiments do not belong to you alone.
Answer this question for me: "We will never forget them this morning as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God."
Did those people really touch the face of God?
You are being a hypocrite.
Prior to a couple of hundred years ago, Democracies were pretty scarce. There were rumblings, and one came forth. In time, there were any number of Democracies, and I can't think of too many of them that came into being without blood being shed. There was no rush though to bring Democracy to the Middle East, because oil contracts could be negotiated with the ruling families, and the world settled into a "status quo" for a time, and those families treated their subjects however benevolently or cruelly as they saw fit. Enter Islamic fascism and suddenly, the free flow of oil, and the threat of unlimited terrorist funding imperils the Democracies of this world. Our choice is clear, and it is can be stated any number of ways. Fight or die, prevail or perish.
I didn't read her come back, but if she really said that some people have no capacity for self rule and must be led for authoritarian means, she has exposed her previous criticism as superficial, supercilious and pedantic because that is not what she said in the first piece.
Peggy is anti-war, obviously. But why is this the first that we are hearing this?
Thanks!
Sorry! I guess that it was just too early for me to get it.
What happens when Iraq or whatever country has democracy but does not allow for Christian missionaries? Are the people there free? Do we overturn their democracy until it meets our expectations? Or do we let the people of Iraq fight for their God-given freedoms?
great answer to peggy's quibbles in the Steyn column!
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.