She challenged the very heart of the Bush policy: that we will support and encourage every single "freedom-movement" around the world.
That's very odd, IMO, especially since there have been reports from the tsunami areas indicating that the people are getting the idea that "America will be there for us." They know we'll stand with them if they challenge the tyrannies in their lands.
Noonan basically threw cold water on the very ideal that this country stands for, that Reagan stood for, that "shining city on a hill".
Didn't she pen that very line?
Former admirers of hers are left shaking their heads, wondering if she hasn't been attending too many New York cocktail parties.
Noonan: Am I saying we shouldn't support freedom then? Hardly. But we should remember as we do it that history, while full of opportunity, is also a long tale of woe. And human vanity--not only that of others, but our own--only complicates our endeavors. Thomas Jefferson was a genius, a great man who loved liberty. But that love led him to headlong support of a French Revolution that proved more demonic than liberating. He was right to encourage the fire of liberty but wrong to lend his great name to Robespierre, Marat and the rest. So much of life is case-by-case, so many of our decisions must be discrete and particular and not "thematic."
Sounds more to me like she is reminding us of the need for moderation.
Regardless, I'm not going to get into a point-by-point rebuttal of her position - since I don't support it. But isn't it amazing how much more interesting this conversation has gotten since we dropped the personal attacks on her?