It is not a stupid point, she makes the point herself that she worked for the campaign (at financial loss- sour grapes), maybe she either had been promised or thought she had been promised a role in this speech, and when Bush saw that she liked Clinton-lite policies better than Reagan-like he decided that her services were not of value.
I was at the Inauguration and everyone near me all thought it was great.
I met with David Frum that same afternoon, and we discussed the speech and he said he thought it was good, but too long by half. He said that it was the kind of speech that Bush would usually return and say "cut in in half". I told him I disagreed and thought it was a great speech, and that it was obviously influenced by Natan Sharansky: A Case For Democracy.
If America can't have a vision for a safe, and peaceful world, free of tyranny-- who else is going to have such a dream? France? Germany? Sweden? If these other democracies are going to help make this world safer, they NEED TO BE LED.
President Bush IS leading, and Ms. Noonan should show some restraint (oops too late) as someone who should know better.
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.
Hard to see the forest when you're in the middle of it.
I'm glad to hear how the speech sounded to someone who was there while it was being delivered.
Thanks.
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.'".........
"It is not a stupid point, she makes the point herself that she worked for the campaign (at financial loss- sour grapes)"
More stupdity. She worked as a *volunteer* for the Bush campaign, to help out any way she could. She left her job at WSJ so there would be no conflict of interest. Pretty pathetic how you would twist that into something sour.
Jealousy indeed.