THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT FOR YOUR GRAND SPEECH!!!
Posted on 01/20/2005 9:33:31 PM PST by RWR8189
Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
It was an interesting Inauguration Day. Washington had warmed up, the swift storm of the previous day had passed, the sky was overcast but the air wasn't painful in a wind-chill way, and the capital was full of men in cowboy hats and women in long furs. In fact, the night of the inaugural balls became known this year as The Night of the Long Furs.
Laura Bush's beauty has grown more obvious; she was chic in shades of white, and smiled warmly. The Bush daughters looked exactly as they are, beautiful and young. A well-behaved city was on its best behavior, everyone from cops to doormen to journalists eager to help visitors in any way.
For me there was some unexpected merriness. In my hotel the night before the inauguration, all the guests were evacuated at 1:45 in the morning. There were fire alarms and flashing lights on each floor, and a public address system instructed us to take the stairs, not the elevators. Hundreds of people wound up outside in the slush, eventually gathering inside the lobby, waiting to find out what next.
The staff--kindly, clucking--tried to figure out if the fire existed and, if so, where it was. Hundreds of inaugural revelers wound up observing each other. Over there on the couch was Warren Buffet in bright blue pajamas and a white hotel robe. James Baker was in trench coat and throat scarf. I remembered my keys and eyeglasses but walked out without my shoes. After a while the "all clear" came,
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I'm not picking a fight with you, but judging by your recent comments, you might be laughing at my post for the wrong reason. So let me be clear to everyone: I think "NeoCon" is an offensive and deragotory term invented by elites to be used against Jewish Conservatives, much like "Uncle Tom" is used against Black Conservatives.
I was responding to someone who called Peggy Noonan a NeoCon, which I found ironic.
Yea, well Peggy, I feel uneasy everytime I hear you affected voice. She's one of those people who should just write and stay off TV.
That is a very exaggerated statement. What you label 'slavish devotion' may well be reaction to the constant need to defend against those on this forum who attack everything the President does, regardless of any merit in the criticism.
--Oh, PLEASE. You're talking to a self-labelled libertarian on FR. I don't know from constant need to defend against attack? You may find excuse or even good cause for their behavior, but you can't deny the presence of a group here that finds any criticism of Bush offensive and hounds those who remotely agree to it. I object to that and think these folks are deserving of replies in kind.
I, for one, disagree with things the President has done and some of his policies, but have been accused of being a kool-aid drinking, blind follower by many (who don't have a clue as to what they're talking about) who use that as a first defense against one with whom they disagree.
---The behavior you find excuse for in the folks who attack FOR Bush above is the same behavior you do not excuse in those that disagree with any facet of Bush's presidency. Is it not possible that both have excuse or reason for their actions? That they have good cause does not excuse their behavior.
Perhaps if you'd avoid the name calling, people would accept your opinion, and discuss it rationally. It is a valid opinion to agree with Peggy Noonan here. It is not a valid opinion that those who don't are all blind slaves.
---And I don't post that at all. If you'd read the post instead of leaping to be insulted, or defending those people who are deserving of insult, you'd note that I don't attack those who dislike Noonan's opinion, but those who are eager to insult Noonan, or insult anyone who DOES agree with Noonan. Those folks are simply blind, people who can't understand that criticism of the President isn't the same thing as hatred of him. THESE are the people I'm criticizing and find deserving of insult, NOT those who disagree with Noonan. I find fault with people who believe that the way to express their disagreement with those who criticize Bush is to insult them and demean them personally.
Actually, the problem with Peggy is that she raved about the speech immediately after it was given, and then began to rag on it a few hours later, and in this column.
One or the other opinion is disingenuos, and I, for one, think it's this one. IMO, she's trying to appease someone by her complete reversal of viewpoint, as written in this column.
---I agree that this is a serious question about how she reached her conclusion. That isn't an insult at all, but a legitimate question as to why her shift in opinion took place that may have some bearing on the validity of her opinion. BUT, to illustrate the problem of that kind of persuasion in an example, I can argue that pigs can't fly. You can state that some moments ago I said pigs CAN fly. It doesn't change the reality of my conclusion. It does create some doubt as to how I formed my opinion, and as a result, may cast some doubt on my conclusion for having been my work product. But it doesn't make the conclusion necessarily wrong.
I just read the full text of Presidient Bush's inaugural address, and I must confess it does leave me somewhat stunned in that Dubya, beneath placating platitudes, seems to be announcing to the world that America is coming to its rescue.
I maintain that that is not America's calling. George W. Bush's may think it is his calling, but as head of state, his job is only to protect and govern the people of this nation, not those of all other nations. That he so feels, tells me that we must be on the very brink of the New World Order which will mean the demise of America's sovereignty.
Americans are generous. Americans are brave and courageous. Americans are not in need of being told to be so.
Speechwriters can only use the words which reflect the speaker's views. This speech, IMHO, seems to be a call to arms.
Yes, and someone on Fox asked her if it would have been a different speech if Peggy Noonan had written it. Oh no, she said.....Then, as an afterthought, this piece. How did she dispell her own clarity so quickly?
I have a completely different take on that. For example, if you look at the unwashed protesters in DC yesterday, excercising their "freedom" you'll see people who contribute nothing constructive to the rest of the world.
Bush's remarks were intended to reach deep into the far corners of the earth. Freedom, or liberty, does not mean freedom "from" anything and everything. It's not globalist, it's simple ethics.
He wasn't speaking to a church congregation either.
Perhaps you could provide a quote or three that illustrate what you perceive.
In context.
I'm laughing with you because I understand your comment to be poking fun at exactly those who would consider neocons some pro-Israeli Jewish cabal. I'm a little annoyed that you imply otherwise.
Further, I disagree entirely regarding the word neoconservative being "offensive and derogatory." If it is disparaging, it is in its fair application as the word "liberal" is disparaging. I don't find calling a communist "Red" offensive or derogatory--it's a label that immediately provides some quick insight to their politics, as is "libertarian" or "free-trader." To call the similarly useful word "neocon" offensive and derogatory doesn't make sense to me. I think there are plenty of neoconservatives that make their judgements based on what they consider best for the U.S. That some of the more influential neocons happen to be Jewish is irrelevant to the validity of their opinions or their Americanism. I certainly don't hold out any disdain for that group's loyalty to the U.S. because of their political beliefs regarding the U.S.'s role in promoting democracy.
But I won't accept the bowdlerization of this word because some want to make a descriptive term an unacceptable 'code word' in the way liberals tried to make words describing conservative programs 'code words' for racism or sexism. If you're going to advocate newspeak, you might consider working for the NYT.
And I provide the complete paragraph which contains the one sentence that so offended that poster:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325165/posts?page=328#328
It had zero to do with "globalism" as was being misrepresented and instead was yet another way of saying what President Bush has often said about neighbors taking care of one another and that being part of what makes this country great. (And he isn't talking about taxes)
A total throw-away statement. Bush is not a "nuance" kind 'o guy, Peggy. Keep sipping the mineral water.
Well said. I had to change the channel last night when Buchanan was on Scarborough.
I keep thinking of the line from Hamlet about how all great enterprises and the pitch and movements of men are carried awry. President Bush is not a man prone to the danger of hubris. We are mortals subject to the Will Of God and our breath and our souls are in His Keeping, Blessed Be His Name.
Read some of these "disagreement" posts. They don't say "Peggy tried, but she just got this one wrong". Instead they imply that she is a jealous, pretentious bitch that is angry that she wasn't chosen to write the inauguration speech or Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech.
The woman wrote something that a lot of people here disagree with. Why do they have to make such wild and crazy sounding accusations. People here disagree with the president's policy on immigration everyday, but that doesn't mean that they're just jealous that they're not making policy.
Agreed.
All of the caricature drawings in the Wall Street Journal look like that, so I wouldn't take offense in that aspect.
Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth.
You said..."I went back and read the speech..He did not imply that we were going to war to free the world..He talked about using our considerable influence to stand with those who want liberty.."
Thats your assumption. And its probably valid. Yes the speech is an idealistic statement of principle, and thats fine.
My point is that it is a valid question to ask what exactly it means when you say "stand with those who want liberty"
Does it mean stand and fight?
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.