Bush's inaugural speech

[zartan]

well, i've got to say, the first 10 minutes were amazing. very well done. skepticism aside - obviously a difficult task - i could not agree more with the foreign policy message and tone of that speech.

domestic policy, it gets into what he's really done and plans to do, which is a different story. but overall, wow...great speech.

[Bavarias_Finest]

I was impressed too, even as one of his lukeworm supporters, I am usually disappointed and embarassed by his mismanagerment and utter disgraceful use of the English language ..... but he may have decided as a New Year's Resolution to learn to speak more articulately and clearer, and it paid off so far in his first major speech in the 2nd term.

[NYGblue]

Essentially what he said is that his administration is going to keep doing the same thing, no changes to be expected. Didn't lay down any real vision or any real substantive ideas as to what we can expect except for most of the same. As I said in another thread I think it was one of the worst inauguration speeches I have heard. I have listened Kennedy's, LBJ's, both of Reagan's, both of Clinton's, and Bush I's, and Bush II's first inauguration speech. This one was the worst I have heard yet. 0 insightfulness, 0 substance... If I can sum up his speah in 7 words it would be... "freedom freedom freedom freedom nothing will change"

[Bavarias_Finest]

It is the year 2005, and there is still a lack of freedom in much of the world, that is the reality, the sad part of it all. Some of us are working and aspiring to have nice cars, nice homes, broadband internet, and good food, some people still simply do not have choices period in the world.

I amd glad and hope the president of the most powerful and resourceful nation, whoever he maybe, continues to echo the need for freedom throughout the world, because so many still live under tyranny and choiceless societies.

We need to spread freedom their is a great lack thereof globally

[Big McLargeHuge]

not a bad speech really, not the best, but far from the worst we have had in years. Bush did better then i thought he would for sure, so good one for him

[BizarroCub]

not a bad speech really, not the best, but far from the worst we have had in years. Bush did better then i thought he would for sure, so good one for him

Should the office of the President really be treated like the special olympics?

[Yakko Red]

Should the office of the President really be treated like the special olympics?

:haha:

[Pseudo Society]

Should the office of the President really be treated like the special olympics?

:haha:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BizarroCub again.

[nietzsche]

well, i've got to say, the first 10 minutes were amazing. very well done. skepticism aside - obviously a difficult task - i could not agree more with the foreign policy message and tone of that speech.

domestic policy, it gets into what he's really done and plans to do, which is a different story. but overall, wow...great speech.

Eric, in light of our recent discussion on the reason for Iraq, have you heard the response from analysts and media?:

"He is signaling basically victory or bust, I think -- no backing down," said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "For anyone looking for hints of scuttle, they'll look in vain."

Everyone is saying this exact thing. Look out world, here comes Bush! And you know why people are kinda freaked out by this? Because after the Iraq war we know he means it. But not only do we know it, al-Quaeda, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and every other state sponsor of terror knows it.

Like it or not (Grizz, i'm not making a value judgement, but an observation), the Iraq war was evidence that Bush does not just posit empty rhetoric like the American President's of the past. When he says it, he means it. Which, as i argued this week, was the larger point of the Iraq war.

With that in mind, read the following from Bush's speech:

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve and have found it firm.

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.

America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.

America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators. They are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some I know have questioned the global appeal of liberty, though this time in history -- four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen -- is an odd time for doubt.

Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals.

Eventually the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world. 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.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did, "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know to serve your people, you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies defeat.


It drips with warning. The fact that other nations are getting anxious and complaining about 'Cowboy Bush' only proves that they believe him when he says he will not accept tyrrany, oppression, etc. And it is exactly THAT psychology that will enable us to prevent future conflicts (see: Lybia), support democratic reformers (see: Ukraine), and take a position of strength (leverage) against existing despots and future threats (see: Iran).

[elad]

blah blah blah :bsflag:

[uberclkgtr]

Peggy Noonan's take on his speech. She was Reagan's speech writer.

...The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars.

A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.

No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy, which was the subject of the last third of the text. This may prove to have been a miscalculation.

It was a foreign-policy speech. To the extent our foreign policy is marked by a division that has been (crudely but serviceably) defined as a division between moralists and realists--the moralists taken with a romantic longing to carry democracy and justice to foreign fields, the realists motivated by what might be called cynicism and an acknowledgment of the limits of governmental power--President Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise. But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance.

The administration's approach to history is at odds with what has been described by a communications adviser to the president as the "reality-based community." A dumb phrase, but not a dumb thought: He meant that the administration sees history as dynamic and changeable, not static and impervious to redirection or improvement. That is the Bush administration way, and it happens to be realistic: History is dynamic and changeable. On the other hand, some things are constant, such as human imperfection, injustice, misery and bad government.

This world is not heaven.

The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."

It seemed a document produced by a White House on a mission. The United States, the speech said, has put the world on notice: Good governments that are just to their people are our friends, and those that are not are, essentially, not. We know the way: democracy. The president told every nondemocratic government in the world to shape up. "Success in our relations [with other governments] will require the decent treatment of their own people."

The speech did not deal with specifics--9/11, terrorism, particular alliances, Iraq. It was, instead, assertively abstract.

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." "Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self government. . . . Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time." "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world."

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth...

[Liftedtrance]

freedom 27
liberty 15

[nietzsche]

Peggy Noonan's take on his speech. She was Reagan's speech writer.

argh. It's not just about religion. It's bigger than that. This is a eulogy for moral relitavism. This is Leo Strauss, philosophical grandfather of neo-conservative thought. I hate to see her diminish this moment by simply passing it off as "It was a God-drenched speech".

Yes, the religious disagree with moral relativists, but so do a lot of people....including those who are not as deeply religious as Bush. This is not just about Christian good and evil, it's just an assertion that concepts of good and evil do exist. Bush was cautious to include a pluralistic flavor in his remarks as to appeal to a broad coalition (including all religions) who believe in these sentiments.

[Big McLargeHuge]

It drips with warning. The fact that other nations are getting anxious and complaining about 'Cowboy Bush' only proves that they believe him when he says he will not accept tyrrany, oppression, etc. And it is exactly THAT psychology that will enable us to prevent future conflicts (see: Lybia), support democratic reformers (see: Ukraine), and take a position of strength (leverage) against existing despots and future threats (see: Iran).


very well put man, i think alot of countries with those nice little despots and dictators that Clinton fluffed are now shitting bricks realising they won't be getting thier way as much these days

[ramz]

argh. It's not just about religion. It's bigger than that. This is a eulogy for moral relitavism. This is Leo Strauss, philosophical grandfather of neo-conservative thought. I hate to see her diminish this moment by simply passing it off as "It was a God-drenched speech".

Yes, the religious disagree with moral relativists, but so do a lot of people....including those who are not as deeply religious as Bush. This is not just about Christian good and evil, it's just an assertion that concepts of good and evil do exist. Bush was cautious to include a pluralistic flavor in his remarks as to appeal to a broad coalition (including all religions) who believe in these sentiments.more than anything, I'd say it drips with western civilization ethos, that has existed, more or less unchanged in at least this regard for 3000+ years: there are rights and there are wrongs, moral or not, the decision between the two should not be difficult to make and should never be shirked by those in roles of responsibility. You don't have to believe in God, Jeebus, Allah, or Buddah to believe that.

[NYGblue]

more than anything, I'd say it drips with western civilization ethos, that has existed, more or less unchanged in at least this regard for 3000+ years: there are rights and there are wrongs, moral or not, the decision between the two should not be difficult to make and should never be shirked by those in roles of responsibility. You don't have to believe in God, Jeebus, Allah, or Buddah to believe that.

the problem with that is that right and wrong can and is extremely subjective.

[DeAtHmOnGeR bEaR]

the problem with that is that right and wrong can and is extremely subjective.
I think that pretty much sums how I feel on this subject.
On one hand, I'm glad that I'm part of a do-something country, where the last thing we'd do is stand idle...
On the other hand, I am VERY unsupportive of most of the actions we, as Americans, take.

On the topic of his speech - I will admit I was impressed. It seemed to have a little more substance to it than I was expecting, and Bush didn't mention "God" every other sentence.

[nietzsche]

the problem with that is that right and wrong can and is extremely subjective.

that's the relative theory that speech's such as Bush's hope to put to sleep. If everything is relative than you simply cannot say that slavery or tyrrany is "wrong" and therefore have no authority to act against it.

Think of it in terms of being antithetical to human nature and a stable society. There must be things that are "good and bad" (in concert with, or antithetical to human nature) for humans in order to achive these goals by means that do not violate human nature.

[NYGblue]

that's the relative theory that speech's such as Bush's hope to put to sleep. If everything is relative than you simply cannot say that slavery or tyrrany is "wrong" and therefore have no authority to act against it.

Think of it in terms of being antithetical to human nature and a stable society. There must be things that are "good and bad" (in concert with, or antithetical to human nature) for humans in order to achive these goals by means that do not violate human nature.

Except that often Mr. Bush's idea of right and wrong don't coincide with my own therefore negating what he is saying. He believes a course of action is right whereas I believe its wrong. These things ARE relative there is no getting away from it. Some people would argue slavery or tyranny is right, however they also arent in the majority here which is what it gets down to. Right and wrong is subjective, however as a society we then deem right from wrong. This whole idea gets thrown into such a philosophical twist that it frankly hurts my head and just makes me want to go listen to some good beats and forget politics. :residentbrit:

[BizarroCub]

Right and Wrong only exist if there is a consensus. In America it was "right" to own slaves at one point. When the consensus changed it became "wrong". In America it was "right" to kill Indians en masse, when the consensus changed it became "wrong".

Right and Wrong only exist to the point that people are willing to argree to it and even then that agreement isn't something written in stone.

We as Americans think Slavery is wrong now, but our predecessors didn't. Were they wrong? Thorough hindsight yes they were, but did they think so or did society think so? Nope.

That's what it means that morals are subjective.

Just as the same people who think killing a cluster of cells is wrong, they'd have no problems executing someone.

[ramz]

the problem with that is that right and wrong can and is extremely subjective.yes and no... wrongs and rights are generally widely understood and agreed upon; it's how to deal with the wrongs that generally divides the populace. All the more reason why we are lucky enough in our nation to decide who gets the final word on the handling, where others aren't so fortunate. Partisan causticity aside, I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time disagreeing with the fundamentals of this argument... The fact that the administration chooses to take some action to right wrongs that it sees is encouraging in its resolve--and, to the point, indicative of what western civilation has expected of its leaders for some 3000 years. Whether or not it's execution is encouraging is entirely a different thing, based upon your opinions on the correct remediation strategies, as mentioned, and in many cases, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with what is likely to be your disdain...

[BizarroCub]

All I could think reading that Jason was:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Edit: Though I am hard pressed to list some of their intentions as "good." Though I guess I could see how it could be seen that way.

[NYGblue]

yes and no... wrongs and rights are generally widely understood and agreed upon; it's how to deal with the wrongs that generally divides the populace. All the more reason why we are lucky enough in our nation to decide who gets the final word on the handling, where others aren't so fortunate. Partisan causticity aside, I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time disagreeing with the fundamentals of this argument... The fact that the administration chooses to take some action to right wrongs that it sees is encouraging in its resolve--and, to the point, indicative of what western civilation has expected of its leaders for some 3000 years. Whether or not it's execution is encouraging is entirely a different thing, based upon your opinions on the correct remediation strategies, as mentioned, and in many cases, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with what is likely to be your disdain...

the bolded says it all for this post... props! :onethumb:

[Chicago]

I'm sorry it is FUCKING DISGRACEFUL that this man can sit up on his podium and spout off about freedom even as the truth about the election that hoisted his sorry redneck ass into the office are being uncovered. Fuck Bush, Fuck his speech, and Fuck phony facades of freedom!

[Bavarias_Finest]

Should the office of the President really be treated like the special olympics?

whats wrong with the kids in the wheelchairs ?

They have rights just like you and I

[Bavarias_Finest]

I'm sorry it is FUCKING DISGRACEFUL that this man can sit up on his podium and spout off about freedom even as the truth about the election that hoisted his sorry redneck ass into the office are being uncovered. Fuck Bush, Fuck his speech, and Fuck phony facades of freedom!

fuc*, fuc*, fuc*, fuc*, fuc* .... my ears hurt ...

you can convey a valid and emotional argument without sounding like an ass

[Bavarias_Finest]

Right and Wrong only exist if there is a consensus. In America it was "right" to own slaves at one point. When the consensus changed it became "wrong". In America it was "right" to kill Indians en masse, when the consensus changed it became "wrong".

Right and Wrong only exist to the point that people are willing to argree to it and even then that agreement isn't something written in stone.

We as Americans think Slavery is wrong now, but our predecessors didn't. Were they wrong? Thorough hindsight yes they were, but did they think so or did society think so? Nope.

That's what it means that morals are subjective.

Just as the same people who think killing a cluster of cells is wrong, they'd have no problems executing someone.

Very true, but for one point ....

you cannot say that everyone who is against abortion, supports the death penalty .....

[Bavarias_Finest]

Here is what all the press had to say about the speech :

Editorials And Op-Eds:

The Wall Street Journal: “Not Since JFK In 1960 Has An American President Provided Such An Ambitious And Unabashed Case For The Promotion Of Liberty At Home And Abroad.” (Editorial, “Liberty Bell Ringer,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/21/05)

David Broder, The Washington Post: Called The Speech, “Brief But Eloquent…” (David S. Broder, Op-Ed, “Big Goals, Unshakable Faith,” The Washington Post, 1/21/05)

Broder: “[O]ne Essential Truth We Have Learned About Bush: His Faith That The Quest For Freedom Is A Universal Truth, Rooted In Human Nature And Intended By God.” (David S. Broder, Op-Ed, “Big Goals, Unshakable Faith,” The Washington Post, 1/21/05)
William Safire, The New York Times: “I Rate It Among The Top 5 Of The 20 Second-Inaugurals In Our History. Lincoln's Profound Sermon ‘With Malice Toward None’ Is Incomparable, But Bush's Second Was Better Than Jefferson's Mean-Spirited Pouting At ‘The Artillery Of The Press.’” (William Safire, Op-Ed, “Bush's ‘Freedom Speech,’” The New York Times, 1/21/05)

USA Today: “When George W. Bush Was Inaugurated For The First Time Four Years Ago, He Devoted Only Seven Sentences To Foreign Policy. Thursday, A More Seasoned And Confident Bush Delivered A Stirring Inaugural Call To The Longstanding American Ideal Of Spreading Freedom And Democracy Around The Globe.” (Editorial, “Bush Shares A Stirring Vision. Now, How To Apply It?” USA Today, 1/21/05)

Los Angeles Times: “His Second Inaugural Address Was That Of A Large Man Indeed, Eloquently Weaving The Big Themes Of His Presidency And His Life Into A Coherent Philosophy And A Bold Vision Of How He Wants This Country To Spend The Next Four Years.” (Editorial, “No Country Left Behind,” Los Angeles Times, 1/21/05)

New York Post: “President Bush Stood Tall Before America And The World Yesterday And Marked The Beginning Of His Second Term With An Affirmation Of Liberty That Will Resonate For Years To Come.” (Editorial, “Bush's 2nd Inaugural,” New York Post, 1/21/05)

John Harris, The Washington Post: “[T]he 21-Minute Address He Delivered At The Capitol Yesterday Was Startling In Its Reach.” (John F. Harris, Op-Ed, “An Ambitious President Advances His Idealism,” The Washington Post, 1/21/05)

Harris: “His Pledges To Promote Liberty And Aid The Oppressed, Along With Predictions Of The United States Leading The World To The Ultimate Triumph Of Democracy Over Tyranny In Every Land, Were Issued With Some Of The Most Expansive And Lyrical Language Bush Has Summoned.” (John F. Harris, Op-Ed, “An Ambitious President Advances His Idealism,” The Washington Post, 1/21/05)

Dallas Morning News: “The President, Exuding Both Gravity And Confidence, Was Indisputably Presidential. His Speech Embodied Everything That Makes Him The Leader He Is: Unembarrassed Religious Faith, Moral Certitude, Persistence, Determination And Self-Assuredness.” (Editorial, “Values-Laden Vision: Bush Shines As He Delivers Second-Term Ideals,” The Dallas Morning News, 1/21/05)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “President George W. Bush Delivered An Eloquent, Idealistic Second Inaugural On Thursday That Was An Ode To America’s Special Role In Promoting Freedom Around The World.” (Editorial, “Bush’s Second Inaugural: Ode To Freedom,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/21/05)

The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer: “In A Scant 21 Minutes, Bush Delivered What May Have Been The Speech Of His Presidency, A Thematic Symphony Keyed To The Unalienable Rights Of People - The Same Truths This Nation’s Founders Held To Be Self-Evident.” (Editorial, “Bush’s Call To Freedom,” The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 1/21/05)

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural Address, Given In A Time Of War And Doubt, Was An Inspiring Call For Selflessness And Sacrifice. It Was A Call For Americans To Advance The Cause Of Freedom From Tyranny Worldwide.” (Editorial, “A New Bush Doctrine?” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/21/05)

Pundits:

NBC’s Tim Russert: “Well-Crafted, Well-Delivered. The Themes Of Freedom And Liberty … I Thought The Call To National Service Will Resonate With All Americans – Democrats, Republicans, Independents.” (NBC’s, “Special Coverage Of The 55th Inaugural,” 1/20/05)

CBS News’ Bob Schieffer Said Speech Was “Eloquent And The Rhetoric Lofty.” (CBS’ “Evening News With Dan Rather,” 1/20/05)

ABC News’ George Will: “It’s Not Just The Survival Of Liberty He’s About. He Is About The Expansion Of Liberty Into Every Nook And Crevasse Of The Planet.” (ABC’s “Inaugural Coverage,” 1/20/05)

Howard Fineman, Newsweek: Called The Address “Powerful. I Think It Is The Biggest Statement Of American Purpose In The World Of Any President I Can Think Of. It Is Woodrow Wilson On Steroids. It’s Big.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/20/05)

Dick Morris, Former Aide To President Clinton: “Was The Greatest [Inaugural Address] … Since John F. Kennedy’s And One Of The Five Or Sixth Greatest Of All Time. It Was Beautiful, It Was Poetic. … And It Articulated A Bold New Doctrine For American Policy. It Was A Very Substantive Speech.” (Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” 1/20/05)

[BizarroCub]

However, polls taken after last week's inauguration speech, which was themed almost entirely on pledges to fight tyranny across the world, revealed a deep scepticism among many Americans as to whether he could match his idealistic words with realistic actions.

A Gallup poll taken after the inaugural festivities showed that 60 per cent of Americans believed their country could not achieve Bush's stated goal of ending tyranny around the world: only 35 per cent believed the task was achievable.

The poll also showed that many of the deep partisan divides remain in place after one of the bitterest election fights in American history. Despite Bush's pledges last week on uniting America, only 8 per cent of Democrats believed he would do so. By contrast, 73 per cent of Republicans thought Bush could unite a divided country.

There was some good news for Bush in the poll, which showed that the speech had been generally well received across the political spectrum. More than 62 per cent of all Americans rated his speech excellent or good, regardless of their political persuasion while only 11 per cent saw it as poor or terrible.

Just cause people thought it sounded good, doesn't mean they buy it.

[Bavarias_Finest]

There was some good news for Bush in the poll, which showed that the speech had been generally well received across the political spectrum. More than 62 per cent of all Americans rated his speech excellent or good, regardless of their political persuasion while only 11 per cent saw it as poor or terrible.

BizzarroCub ... I know and you know that your not a stupid guy, your very indepth with the world around you as much as we disagree .... and in regards to that you must understand that politics is about playing on the whims and prospects of what people want... do you honestly think it would be smart of any politician especially the president to get up there and say the world is a mess, the U.S. is a mess, everything is a mess, we most likely will not achieve anything and it will be a miserable four years .... thats irrational and illogical for any politician, especially in an Inaugural Ceremony format and setting ...

its about hope, and good prospectives, for politicians ... highlighting the negative simply does not help in the thick of it ... plus we all like to hear the positives not the negatives ... simply by the looks of it with more than 62% of people receiving the speech positively he did say the right things in the right context ... he played the role of politician, flawlessly, and that is what he is ....

[Agent Sunshine]

For all of Bush's big talk, I don't think he and this country have anywhere near the capacity to enact the types of changes he's talking about.

As for the moral relativism argument, where do you draw the line? Is drug use absolutely wrong? If freedom is man's primary, undying need, how on earth is the government justified in locking people up for behavior that at most adversely affects themselves? Just one example where the argument against moral relativism and the state of this country are at odds. I can give many more examples if you like, or you can come up with your own.

You may not need to be a Christian to be a moral absolutist, but you must have the same failure in your way of thinking as those Christians who are moral absolutists.