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.
Perhaps you could provide a quote or three that illustrate what you perceive.
In context.
Sadly, you're pretty much a voice in the wilderness on this thread.
I maintain that that is not America's calling.
Agreed. Additionally, the "words of the Koran" bit was what really stunned me.
"Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth. Yet history has shown that peace will not come, nor will our freedom be preserved, by good will alone. There are those in the world who scorn our vision of human dignity and freedom. One nation, the Soviet Union, has conducted the greatest military buildup in the history of man, building arsenals of awesome offensive weapons. 30
We have made progress in restoring our defense capability. But much remains to be done. There must be no wavering by us, nor any doubts by others, that America will meet her responsibilities to remain free, secure, and at peace. 31
There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. 32
Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs? 33
I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction. 34
We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress. 35
America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally. 36
And it is the world's only hope, to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Every blow we inflict against poverty will be a blow against its dark allies of oppression and war. Every victory for human freedom will be a victory for world peace."
From :Ronald Reagan's second inaugural address.
I didn't think President Bush's words were that evocative, but then, I don't think Peggy's article is as critical as others do. One phrase she called "over the top" and I believe that's the only criticism she didn't balance with equalizing words of praise.
Peggy obviously loves President Bush, but that doesn't mean she's in lock step with everything he says and does. And I'm with Rush...Peggy should be allowed her opinion on this speech, without having her conservative credentials impugned, as some have done.
I'm sure Peggy knew her words would be used by the left to create a wedge between conservatives. And quoted ad nauseum by the likes of Chris Matthews as proof the speech was seriously flawed. (The libs love it when one of our own goes "off the reservation".) But we gotta remember, even Laura chided hubby for his "dead or alive" comment. Bush can handle his women just fine. And would any among us want Peggy Noonan to become George Bush's slavish Eleanor Clift? I don't think so.