Full text of (President!) Bush's inaugural address

The White House, via grandforks.com ^ | 1/20/05 | A great American

[TexasCowboy]

Like you say, if this was to present a juxtaposition between the beliefs of Islam and freedom, it was a masterpiece.

Considering the fact, however, that GW has never chastised the American Muslims for their reluctance to condemn terrorist acts, I find it hard to elevate this to such loft heights.
It strikes me as more pandering to the "religion of peace".

[yooper]

"Are Gulf I, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo supposed to HAVE beEN "sabbaticals"??"

Absolutely. They are sabbaticals from the perspective that we didn't go into any of those places with proper training, proper tactics, sufficient equipment & technology, and above all, the will to kick the living shit out of our enemies until they said Uncle.

Gulf I was the best effort to achieve the above goals, and it still failed because we didn't have the stones to go into Iraq and grease Saddam. That was a mistake.

As to Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, those were on Clinton's watch. Every legitimate conservative on this forum knows what that means. The entire Clinton presidency was on a "Sabbatical". As in MIA, as in CYA, as in DOA for Gore.

[Jeff Head]

Apparently it's not in his nature to do so. But he has shown grit in doggedly pursuing the battle in Afghanistan and Iraq...in the backyard and center of the hive of the most radical...and that has not been lost in them, the Mullahs there.

And, he was just as dogged in his relection bid.

So, while there are quite a few issues where I strongly disagree with him on policy (CFR, AWB, southern border, Fallujah, etc), I can say that his phiolosophical speech seemed spot on. I believe, if he is to follow through on it and be true to it (and I believe in his second term he will be), we will see confrontation (economic, political, and/or military) with the likes of Iran, N. Korea, and most importantly, Red China, in addition to our continuingt efforts against radical Islam.

...and with the recent (and understandable) furor over the Chinese/Iraq infiltration of our southern border, perhaps will will see good progress there as well. We shall see.

Fregards.

[johnnycap]

Its hard to believe in the president and maintain intellectual honesty at the same time. I wanted to hide or turn down the volume on those jingoistic lyrics as well. I commend your intellectual honesty.

[TexasCowboy]

There are so many facets of George Bush's character I admire and honor.
He is a sincere man. If he says something, he believes it.
He sticks to his guns. He has never lacked the courage of his convictions.
He is honestly a good man, and a good Christian.

At the same time, there are a few of his characteristics and policies to which I am diametrically opposed and which puzzle me greatly.

[Gamecock]

Hmmmm.

[Defender2]

#187. It was Outstanding. If you can catch a replay on C-SPAN, it's definitely worth taping or DVDing if you like.

Best FReegards,

D2

:-)

[Lancelot Jones]

"Monumentally unremarkable speech..."

The world will long remember this good man and his vision, long after you have been forgotten.

Beauseant!

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

"Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another."

Before I blow a gasket, can anyone put a positive spin on this frightening sentence?

[Once-Ler]

Troll

[Willie Green]

As to Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, those were on Clinton's watch.

Actually, Papa Bush started Somalia as a humanitarian photo-op.
It was the strangest and most disgusting misuse of the military that I've ever seen....
Marines and special forces landing on the beaches with their night-vision gear being chased around and harassed by pre-positioned reporters with their microphones, video-cams and floodlights trying to get an interview. What a stinkin' farce.

Yep, that was Papa Bush.
It was broadcast live on TV.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Um yeah, it means President Bush isn't a cranky utopian theoretical Libertarian with a chip on his shoulder.

It is the same common sense behind the idea that you don't have the absolute right to build an anthrax factory or do-it-yourself nuclear bomb in your basement in the middle of a subdivison or city.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

You can do better.

That sentence has a deep meaning, and considering the wealth transfer and the globalism that has been America's agenda for 30 years, is a very dangerous line in this Inaugural.

All conservatives should have a big question mark next to that sentence and should demand an answer to what he is getting at.

[narses]

Go ahead, blow one.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Actually you are on to something. In reality that line is code language for his true intentions, which are to confiscate all guns, federal takeover of all private property, ceding sovereignty to the UN, adoption of socialism, and the banning of SUV's.

Thanks for smoking that out...

[GrannyAnnie]

I'm also looking for a transcript of the prayer, even did a google search...anyone have a link?
"No weapon formed against him (GWB) shall prosper." Amen Amen Amen!
It's a great day to be an American.

[Rightly Biased]

That my FRiend is the best post I have read so far on this thread We have to reach out in love to the Muslims or they will never change.

All that being said they are the "antichrist" in the since that they want all Christians wiped from the face of the earth.Our human response is to respond in same;(I have wanted to do the human response on too many occasions)I have to ask myself how would Christs' response be.

Thank you for a gentle reminder!

RB<><

[liveandletlive]

Since when did W become an interventionist liberal? Let's stop the nation building and focus on our own darn country.

[Yardstick]

His mentioning of that line is connected to his brief discussion of his ownership society, in which people choose their own path via ownership etc.

Here's the passage that bugged me:

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Here the President cites an expanded definition of liberty, one that would motivate the Social Security Act. (He also mentions the Homestead Act and the GI Bill, but these represent exceptional cases, applying to soldiers and settlers).

The problem is this: if the definition of liberty is broadened to the point where it would motivate the Social Security Act, then it's no longer consistent with our founding definition of liberty. Our Founders conceived of freedom in the negative sense -- ie that liberty exists when others are restrained from impeding your pursuit of your needs (or desires, or whatever you might put into the category of "happiness"). But this expanded definition crosses the line into a positive conception of freedom, so that others are compelled to meet your needs for you, thereby "freeing" you from having your needs unmet or having to meet your own needs (ie freedom from want).

This latter definition of freedom is the one socialists hold and it's a foundational concept in their thinking. If you alter this one strand of philosophical DNA by changing or "expanding" from the negative conception to the positive conception -- and if you're consistent with what follows from this change -- then you wind up with a government that's an entirely different beast than what you started with. You jump tracks from a liberal form of government (liberal in the classical sense) to one that's socialist.

Anyway, yes, it was just a line or two and was a footnote in the Bush's discussion of the path to ownership, but it still troubles me to see a president mention and agree with a premise that's fundamentally at odds with the true understanding of liberty.

As I said earlier, I'm hoping that the President's privatizing and ownership ideas can help start incrementing things in the direction of true liberty.

[America's Resolve]

Bump for later! Heard it. GREAT STUFF!