I enjoyed the speech as well. It was a good speech, full of hope and optimism. But apparently, there are those who expected President Bush to change and become someone who speaks not from his heart about what he believes, but from a piece of paper full of politically correct phrases, devoid of any mention of God. Have you seen Peggy Noonan's column - she refers to the speech as being "God-drenched" and "over the top". Of course, that contrasts with what she said yesterday, shortly after Bush gave the speech. At that time she thought it was a wonderful speech. Apparently they all missed it when Bush said "At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together." at the beginning of the speech.
When they were all sitting around over at Fox, discussing the speech, someone (one of the other commentators) made the statement that they thought this speech was better than any inaugural address by any other President (including Reagan). Well, since Ms. Noonan wrote Reagan's speeches, I think she was insulted by that and went home and wrote that piece in which she said "It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike."
But, it may just be a speech-writer's "thing" to pick apart another's speech. On Bill O's show tonight, he had on a guy who USED to be Dubya's speech-writer and he, too, picked apart the speech and said it made him feel "nervous"...
All I can say is that I don't judge the President by his words, but by his deeds, his actions in office. But we've discussed this before, no? When talking about the difference between Kerry and Bush during the campaign. Bush is a plain-speaking, shoot from the hip, no nonsense man. He is not a former actor with a way with words (like Reagan), nor is he a smooth talking con man (like Clinton). If he says it, he believes it and I believe him.
Jamie,
I understand what you mean when you say, "I don't judge the President by his words, but by his deeds, his actions in office."
But even if we only heard words yesterday, words can sometimes be very powerful. Ideas matter. And I think that Bush was trying to plant the idea of freedom into the minds of those ruled by dictators (and this even includes "friendly" dictators like those in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt and Russia).
People ridiculed Reagan's "evil empire" speech and his "tear down that wall" speech in front the Berlin Wall. But it had an impact and I think Bush was trying to have a similar impact.
I agree. And that is why that speech was so good and I think that it will indeed have an impact. Bush was telling the world that we cannot and will not continue down the road of supporting tyrannical dictators just to keep the status quo. What has happened in Afghanistan and what is about to happen in Iraq are examples of what could happen in the rest of the Middle East. It started with Reagan standing up to the Soviets. Ms. Noonan seems to have forgotten what Reagan said and what he accomplished (just like many have forgotten what happened in Germany and Japan after WWII.)
Your President has a damn good speechwriter. Hey Jamie, who is this guy who USED to be his speechwriter?
Well, what does this speech promise? Is there any real hint to an uncompromising follow-up of the "impose democracy" style thus far? In other words, does this text threaten with further military action against, say, Iran and/or Syria?
There was some chatter on the web lately with regards to the military option, a.o. using 3rd ID against Syria. But for as far as I can see, that is an impossible option given the way the US armed forces are stretched thin right now.
I thought this speech meant we were going to stop the policy of rendition to torture -- sending people to dicatators to be tortured.
Then this morning I read this Wash Post headline:
"Bush Speech Not Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say"
I guess not.
I think it was a great speech, too, and was disappointed by Noonan's response.
And Mark, I agree with your comments about the speech and the spread of freedom.
Michael is right in that action must follow words. But inauguration speeches are not about detail, that's for the State of the Union speech later this month. JFK's famous inauguration speech contained no detail either.
And actus...your concern for the well-being of terrorists we capture is touching.
'And actus...your concern for the well-being of terrorists we capture is touching.'
I'm really more concerned about people like Maher Arar: non-terrorists. Not even a dissident, just an innocent.
Its not just about being concerned about terrorists mind you. Its about being concerned that the guy who says this:
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."
Isn't a liar. It's a great ideal. Lets live to it. Unfortunately that would require a policy shift, which we aren't doing.
So instead we get this weird realism in foreign policy (which has its merits for some people -- you like the fact that foreign oppressors exist and torture, cuz you think they only do it to terrorists) but that realism has the face of idealism on it. Strange beast.
I loved the speech, although I think a more passionate speaker with an ‘Alan Keyes’ type style could have delivered a lofty text like this one with more influencial impact on its intended audience.
Michael, I think the former speech-writer Jamie mentioned is David Frum.
Some people saw this speech as ..."we will now start kicking ass around the world in the name of ‘freedom’." I don’t think so. As Bush states:“This is not primarily the task of arms,...”
I think much of the message spoke to the pre-election Iraqis as well as prodding their neighbors the Iranians (excluding their regime)who are already working towards democratic change.
Larry F,
Allow me to disagree with you on this one. The former speech-writer that Jamie was referring to was Peggy Noonan, I believe.
But I'm only a 70 percent fan of Peggy Noonan anyways.
actus,
You are correct to notice that America does have its "friendly dictators" like those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Russia.
And our policy of "outsourcing" torture to dictatorships can credibly be described as a policy that strengthens dictatorships, since these dictators might torture both human rights advocates and terrorists.
But words are better than nothing and so is liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from dictatorship.
'But words are better than nothing and so is liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from dictatorship.'
The problem is that when the words contradict the facts they are lies. And thus 'nothing' would be better. Yes we get rid of some dictators, and yes we strengthen others. But its a lie to call this a policy of blanket liberation.
actus,
But its a lie to call this a policy of blanket liberation.
President Bush didn't announce a policy of "blanket liberation." He simply argued that liberty is on the march, that the United States sees this march as a positive one and that the United States will use its large influence (both military and non-military) to encourage this march.
Ever heard of United States arms sales to Taiwan? Ever heard of the United States encouraging democracy in the Ukraine?
actus
I am so sorry we are not perfect enough for you. I'm so sorry that we cannot meet your standards. I am sorry we cannot instantly liberate all countries and free all people. I am sorry that we must sometimes work with undesirable regimes in order to get rid of even less desireable ones.
BTY,my next post (on my Redhunter site) in my "Just War Theory" series will be on Comparative Justice. You'll want to read it.
I guess we could return to Carterism. He was concerned with human rights, but failed to advance it while president. On the other hand, Reagan's policies ended Soviet communism.
But tell us, actus what is your grand recipe for the world? What would you do if you were president? You won't find an answer on your web site, actus; I know because I looked and can't find any policy recommendations there.
You ought to try tackling tough subjects once in a while. Here and on my site we try to address the issues of our day. We look at history and ph
continued:
We look at history and philosophy as a guide. We may not always get it right, but we try.
I just thought I'd throw this into the soup:
Jeff Jacoby writes in a column titled Same man, different president that
Americans trust Bush's judgment on the greatest issue of our time: the West's life-and-death struggle against Islamist fascism. Whatever he may have gotten wrong over the past four years, he got the central meaning of Sept. 11 right. In the war on terrorism, Bush has been most truly a leader -- 61 percent of the public approves of the job he is doing, and 70 percent expect him to make even more progress in the years ahead.
"President Bush didn't announce a policy of "blanket liberation.""
yes he did:
'We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.'
'I am sorry we cannot instantly liberate all countries and free all people. '
I'm not saying we should have to. I'm just saying we shouldn't say that we will and then not do it.
Read the quote again, actus, he did not say he would instantly liberate all countries and free all peoples. He was announcing a process that will take time.
Sure, we could go back to Carterism, is that what you want? Where we pontificate from on high, insist on perfection everywhere all at once, and cut them off instantly if they do not meet our standards.
You still haven't told us what you would do. You think yourself clever at picking apart what others say, but you offer no policy prescriptions yourself.
actus,
With all due respect, I think you have misinterpreted the statements from President Bush's speech that you quoted.
What President Bush was saying is that liberal democracy is the only legitimate and moral form of political organization. He did not, however, elaborate in detail exactly how he would attempt to transform the dictatorships of the world into liberal democracies.
As Tom stated, that might take decades and a variety of tactics under a variety of circumstances.
Like Tom, I am curious about what you would propose in the foreign policy arena.
' Read the quote again, actus, he did not say he would instantly liberate all countries and free all peoples.'
Neither did I. But if oppression is 'always wrong' is it not wrong to render people unto oppressive governments to be tortured?
'Sure, we could go back to Carterism, is that what you want? '
I'm agnostic on whether to be idealists or realists. What I'm not agnostic on is whether we should say one thing and do another.
'You think yourself clever at picking apart what others say, but you offer no policy prescriptions yourself.'
I wouldn't proclaim an idealistic policy while having a realist one.
And I wouldn't have sent Maher Arar to be tortured.
actus,
And I wouldn't have sent Maher Arar to be tortured.
I think I agree with your argument on this point.
As to whether the President Bush is "saying one thing and doing another," I still believe that rhetoric in favor of human rights is better than nothing.
So, while I would like to see President Bush ask Congress to cut off aid to Egypt unless they start the process of liberalization and democratization, I support the values expressed by President Bush in his second inaugural address.
You may argue (as you have) that Bush doesn't believe what he said on Thursday. In my opinion, that's a separate argument.
I am still glad that President Bush said what he said on that cold Thursday afternoon.
'I am still glad that President Bush said what he said on that cold Thursday afternoon.'
I'd be more glad if we could actually hold it up to him, but the spin that's been following has been pretty clear: it'll be business as usual.
Whose spin? The Bush Administration's or the mainstream media?
Mr. Arar was arrested on 9/26/2002, just one year after the attacks on 9/11. At the time of his arrest, the Canadian Government had supplied the U.S. with a list of persons with ties to al-Qaeda on which Mr. Arar's name appeared. Apparently
he had been a "person of interest"long before his arrest and deportation.
--But a U.S. source said the Canadian government "knows much more about
Arar than they are telling Canadians," saying the RCMP quietly asked the U.S. government to arrest Mr. Arar in New York City and deport
him.--
....to Syria, where Mr. Arar still holds citizenship.
"I'm agnostic on whether to be idealists or realists. What I'm not agnostic on is whether we should say one thing and do another."
"I wouldn't proclaim an idealistic policy while having a realist one."
So you have no political philosphy? Anything is acceptable as long as one does not "say one thing and do another"?
Say something of substance, actus, tell us what you would do. So far all you have done is try to point out inconsistencies in others. This has some value, but only goes so far.
'
Say something of substance, actus, tell us what you would do. So far all you have done is try to point out inconsistencies in others. This has some value, but only goes so far.'
Of substance? I think its more cost efficient for us to be withdrawing our resources and support from undemocratic regimes than for us to be expanding the use of resources in fighting against other undemocratic regimes.
As to whether this should be done based on realpolitic or wilsonian idealism, I don't know. Maybe if it was my job to figure this ouw I could give you more than just saying one thing and doing another.
' Whose spin? The Bush Administration's or the mainstream media? '
Well, Its the administration telling people in the media, which is repeating it: so both. This is in reference to the article in the Wash Post a few days ago that the speech signalled no policy shift.
Gelukkig een prima voortzetting van Wims werk web studio 4.0 crack armi calibro artisti concerto 1 maggio
Commenting by HaloScan
