Maybe Peggy wants Martha Stewart's job.Peggy Noonan's Certified Method of Terrorism Disposal
When dealing with terrorism,...
It's a good thing
to have plenty of twist ties on hand
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 ...
The most disturbing points in this column are that she appears to be accepting the idea that we caused more trouble by going into Iraq than if we had left well-wnough alone (eerily reminiscent of Evan Bayh's "we are the authors of our own misery" comment at Condi's confirmation debate) and also that some people are incabable of self-government.
These two ideas are polar opposite to the administration, and also seem to me to be more in the vein of the democrat spin lines.
I wonder if she is going to work for Evan Bayh? Just a thought, but I was struck by that same theme in both this column and his speech.
I thought it was quite wicked and didn't capture the meaning of the piece. When I pointed this out to the editor he promised in the future to be more nuanced. But it was my fault. Advice to self: don't go to cover a story before you've OK'd the headline on the previous one.
The headline was the single biggest cause for the hoopla. On the one hand, at first blush, it irked a lot of Peggy's fans (including me) but on the other hand, I bet Peggy never had a column read by so many people before.
self justification piece by noonan
Good thought.
Could be that PN would propose detente with AQ and other terrorist groups. After all, this whole WOT thing is so messy. </sarcasm>
Good find. I used to believe exactly the same thing. The Bush Doctrine forced me to rethink that position. I realized, ironically, that notion came out of my liberal college education! Forwarding American precepts of individual rights = bad hegemonic imperialist.
Glad we have conservative intellectuals who lead me to the light. Too bad Peggy hasn't seen it.
Peggy criticises Bush's speech but smarts at any critism of her own column. How dare we disagree w/her! Notice how she "answers" each criticism of her take on his speech EXCEPT the one about her being jealous of the speech writer.
Maybe Peggy wants Martha Stewart's job.Peggy Noonan's Certified Method of Terrorism Disposal
When dealing with terrorism,...
It's a good thing
to have plenty of twist ties on hand
critsm = criticism
Hard to see the forest when you're in the middle of it.
Thanks for the link to the Steyn article. It almost seems as though he was speaking to Peggy Noonan directly, mentioning the same metaphor about speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
Ok. I did see that one but thanks anyway. I didn't want to miss anything.
I'm glad to hear how the speech sounded to someone who was there while it was being delivered.
Thanks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329702/posts
Mark Steyn: Bush means business
The Spectator (U.K.)
In case anyone misses this.
Are you saying that it doesn't matter what speech Bush had given, the crowd would have all loved it just the same? I know that this isn't true for me.
Two Great Dissidents
Natan Sharansky’s vision, and President Bush’s.
At precisely 2 P.M., Sharansky and Dermer were ushered into the Oval Office for a private meeting with the president. They were scheduled for 45 minutes. They stayed for more than an hour. What the president told Sharansky was off the record. What Sharansky told the president was not.
"I told the president, 'There is a great difference between politicians and dissidents. Politicians are focused on polls and the press. They are constantly making compromises. But dissidents focus on ideas. They have a message burning inside of them. They would stand up for their convictions no matter what the consequences.'
"I told the president, 'In spite of all the polls warning you that talking about spreading democracy in the Middle East might be a losing issue — despite all the critics and the resistance you faced — you kept talking about the importance of free societies and free elections. You kept explaining that democracy is for everybody. You kept saying that only democracy will truly pave the way to peace and security. You, Mr. President, are a dissident among the leaders of the free world.'".........
Will Peggy come to her senses? I hope so.
Bill Buckley and David Frum also had critical reactions.>>>>>
Erm, I read William F Buckley's critique of Pres speech.
He didnt complain at all about the God references.
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.