[Tolik]

Very Interesting!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[Kay]

Good one.

[PeterPrinciple]

The Bush administration, however – like Reagan’s, Roosevelt’s, Wilson’s Lincoln’s – understands that words carry weight. It is choosing them carefully. It is applying them strategically. And to the surprise of its critics, is getting results. It would be a mistake, then, not to listen.

Lots of nuggets in this.

[maro]

bump

[Paradox]

bump for a later read.

[Mister Baredog]

The art of rhetoric, within the academy, is largely a lost art – which probably helps to explain why the academy is as often as surprised as it is to discover that words really do still have meanings – and that consequences come from using them.

As I am listening to Rush this sentence is an example of the "Limbaugh Echo Syndrome", LOL.

Great speech from a Bush hater. It seems some libs do have a brain, although not many use theirs much.

[Da Bilge Troll]

We are seeing more and more liberals coming to the realization that even their goal of socialism does not justify treason and that the great liberal home - New York - still has a big bullseye painted on it.

My take on the 2nd Inaugural was that it was a speech for the ages that will eventually be revered by all.

[tophat9000]

Interesting

However the good Professor points in the latter half of the article are, from the beginning, the basic 101 of our response to the other side

Are these new revelations to them or just acceptance of what was already known

For example:

The simple logic of why the war was not "for oil", but the antiwar position of the "European, Axis of Weasels" was for oil, I.E the "for oil" position was to cut a deal with the dictator

That was obvious from the get go.

And if you accept that premise then the whole attack on the U.S. position for acting unilaterally and with out U.N. approval falls apart ...

The U.N. position was driven by greed and graft to the point that the U.S. was to leave its self vulnerable as to not to upset "U.N./Axis of Weasels"graft cash-flow

[wildbill]

Great read from a liberal who is willing to consider alternative points of view about Bush rather than resorting to their dogma about him.

A constructive speech IMHO.

[eureka!]

bump for later

[untenured]

Third, grand strategy requires the ability to respond rapidly to the unexpected. It acknowledges that trends can reverse themselves suddenly, that “tipping points” can occur, and that leaders must know how to exploit them. The academy loves this sort of thing when it happens on the basketball court or the hockey rink. In the classroom, though, it resists the idea: instead the emphasis is too often on theory, which promises predictability, and therefore no surprises. That’s why the academy tends to be so surprised when events like the end of the Cold War and 9/11 take place.

Interesting. One wonders whether there will be a sudden tipping point among the Arab thugocracies, or against the cutthroat Islamists. Will people suddenly have the courage to collectively say, "Enough!" or (with regard to death-cult Islamism) is what people have in the Islamic world really pretty much what they want?

[redhead]

bump

[hobson]

read later

[Billthedrill]

Wow - this sort of article is the reason I love FR so. Many thanks for taking the trouble to post it.

No time now for a thorough critique. There are too many good points to highlight them all (when I'm on the boss's dime, at least). Yet it strikes me that the author really does have an appreciation of the art of grand strategy and the significant differences between strategist and academic, however similar the two fields would seem to be. More later after I've given it some thought.

[Dilbert56]

The author shows an amazing ability to step back and view his own profession as an outsider would. His comments about scholarship vs. leadership crystalize what a lot of us saw in President Bush versus Al, the smartest kid in the room, Gore.

Parts I really enjoyed:

• The President is very different than the negative stereotypes about him.
• The author still doesn't like the way Saddam was taken out but doesn't think GWB lied, thinks the "it's all about oil" is crap, and ends up seeing Iraq as something a liberal should support.

He makes some rather large leaps of faith in presenting Abu Grahib abuse as a policy result and assuming the worst about Gitmo.

I would love it if all the Bush-haters would read this. Might get debate in this country to a more civilized level.

[nkycincinnatikid]

bump 4 later

[raivyn]

Long, but good! Nice to see some intellectual honesty amongst the "intellectual" crowd!

[dead]

read later

[baseballmom]

Thank you so much for the ping. I have not read such a great article in a long time.

As another poster said, this is the kind of discussion we should be having vis a vis Bush's policies, and the Grand Strategy of our nation.

Too often, and I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, the level of rhetoric has descended into the Bush is stupid realm. It adds nothing to the discussion.

I, too, was so moved and excited by GW's second inaugural address. This, to me, was and is, what our country is all about.

No, he is not perfect. Mistakes have been made, but he seems willing to adjust his course and keep moving towards the big prize. Freedom from terror. A worthy goal.

Pinging to those who I think will enjoy a great read, and please ping your lists.

[CaptRon]

Which raises the question of why the Clinton administration signed onto them [Kyoto] in the first place.

Come on professor, don't let your ideology blind you to this when you were doins so well.

Clinton signed onto Kyoto knowing full well it would never pass the Senate. But he didn't care. He could look like a greenie and not have to bear any of the consequences.

Deep down I think you know that Prof. Gaddis.