What Is Bush Saying? (Speech confused even William F. Buckley Jr.)

National Review Online (may require subscription) ^ | January 21, 2005 | William F. Buckley Jr.

[Eva]

Speaking of Chavez, I think that someone needs to look into a situation similar to the oil for food program in Venezuela. After listening to Lincoln Chaffee press Condelezza Rice on playing nice with Chavez, I am convinced that the Senatorial delegation that visited Venezuela have been offered something in return for their lobbying efforts.

[atlaw]

Do not underestimate U.S. power.

To do what? Come on, lets get past the chest-thumping rhetoric, and hear what the "make-the-world-safe-for-democracy" folks really have in mind.

[Stingray51]

Okay. Never mind the tyrannies in spotty little states in Africa. Those cases are so hard as to make very bad law. A foreign policy that insists on the hygiene of the Central African Republic may be asking too much.

But what about China? Is it U.S. policy to importune Chinese dissidents “to start on this journey of progress and justice”? How will we manifest our readiness to “walk at [their] side”?

China, so massive, is maybe too massive a challenge for our liberationist policy, even as the Central African Republic is too exiguous. Then what about Saudi Arabia? Here is a country embedded in oppression. Does President Bush really intend to make a point of this? Where? At the U.N.? At the Organization of African Unity? Will we refuse to buy Saudi oil?

These paragraphs, not the goofy grammar lesson, are the important part of Buckley's article. That is, the President is promising something that we have absolutely no intention of taking concrete, consistent action to implement. My own reaction is that the speech was wildly inconsistent with Pres. Bush's statement in interviews last week that he will not increase the size of the Army.

[af_vet_1981]

Mr. Bush said that “whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny.” You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny. He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.” What does that mean? His most solemn duty as President, he said, was to protect America from “emerging threats.” Did he mean, guard against emerging threats? He told the world that “there can be no human rights without human liberty.” But that isn’t true. The acknowledgment of human rights leads to the realization of human liberty. “The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them.” What is a “habit of control”?

Dr. Mr. Buckley,

I assumed you were more intelligent than most of us but since you are having trouble with this let me help you answer your questions.
1. You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny. Thanks Bill, millions of oppressed people simmering in resentment can sleep better tonight because of you ...
2. He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.” What does that mean? President Bush actually believes all men are created in the image of G-d (yes, men in that context means any human being).
3. His most solemn duty as President, he said, was to protect America from “emerging threats.” Did he mean, guard against emerging threats? He means protect and defend America in the face of emerging threats with an emphasis on preemptive prevention. He told the world that “there can be no human rights without human liberty.” But that isn’t true. The acknowledgment of human rights leads to the realization of human liberty. Okay Bill, you must be right. Another human can have the right to own you and your posterity as slaves in perpetuity and no, you won't have any liberty.
4. “The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them.” What is a “habit of control”? I think your writings, Mr. Buckley, qualify as a "habit of control."

[gov_bean_ counter]

Good for Pub. I deal with PEs daily. I find them as a group to be very narrow thinkers, barely capable of understanding how their piece of the engineering puzzle fits into larger systems.

His opinions, however on point, should not be given any additional weight because he is an "Engineer".

[bowzer313]

"No one has explained to me exactly how terrorism can't happen in a country that is a democracy."

Good question! I can only say that Bush already indicated that there is no way to eliminate terrorist acts completely, and was vilified for doing so. I think his idea is that democratic societies minimize the number of terrorists while rogue states multiply them. The OKC bombing was an aberration, but jihadis have been killing Americans for forty years. Its not likely that France would attack the US, even with their obvious disdain for America, but its highly likely that North Korea might with its seething hatred of the US. In the end, all we can do is play the percentages and hope for the best.

[rwa265]

One too I think you'll agree with - There is too much criticism of President Bush.

[RobFromGa]

I thought the Speech was great, and I was freezing on the Mall listening to it.

I just finished Natan Sharansky's A Case For Democracy on the plane to DC and this speech was directly influenced by that book, IMHO. I highly recommend that book to one and all.

Sharansky was a Soviet refusenik who spent years in Soviet prisons for his unwillingness to shut up. He was encouraged by words he heard from Reagan while imprisoned.

Obviously, one of the target audiences for this speech was the dissidents being held prisoner in countries where tyranny rules (Sharansky calls them "fear societies"). Bush is telling them that we know they are there and we are on their side.

He is also telling the dictators that we are no longer planning to coddle them in the interests of maintaining stability, because you cannot have peace with dictators in the long run. They require external enemies to blame their failures on.

This is a speech like the "evil empire" speech that one day we will look back on (25-50 years?) and say that this was a turning point in the world's march to democracy. That is, if we really mean it.

I wonder what Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are thinking right now? We have been fairly clear re: Iran and Syria and North Korea, but the Pakis and Saudis have been largely given a free pass.

[CyberCowboy777]

I take issue not on substance, but with structure.

I get what he was saying, but I was not impressed with how it was said.

They took a simple and easy to communicate concept and pushed it into a trying so hard to be Shakespearian dud.

[riri]

Excellent choice and my reply to you was going to be--wht choice do we have? We can't divide the party. We can't let these lunatics back in power.

[Publius6961]

So you're brilliant and we're mindless.

How's that? I claimed to be brilliant? or are you making that claim for yourself?

I don't understand your over-reaction. Were you among the mob yesterday?

[Pylot]

Bill Buckley is a nationalist.

He is also gifted in the use of language, even if you do have to consult three to four references to determine the meaning of the words he uses.

That he expressed dissatisfaction over GW's use of language is a way for him to express resentment over GW's brand of conservative thought.

[Mister Baredog]

Mindless adulation for one of my favorite presidents seems to be a mindless requirement of the very young and the very rigid, here at FR.

Mindless adulation??????

IMHO the world is full of critics, that's way too easy. I had a great day yesterday.

If an inaugural speech is not to be oriented towards our loftiest goals then what's the point?

Lincoln's second inaugural speech was heavily criticized at the time he gave it too. I wasn't in on yesterday's critiques but you're certainly entitled to you own opinion, that's what FRee Republic is all about right?

[Hi Heels]

"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." Mark Twain

[Publius6961]

I know where I stand, and thankfully we now know where Noonan and Buckley stand.

Damned traitors!
I say shoot 'em!

[js1138]

I understand the dangers of war and can even understand opposition, but it is absolutely essential for the world to move towards constitutional, secular democracy.

It's just amazing to hear liberals oppose efforts to bring democracy to the world.

[Brian Mosely]

Diplomat: His Holiness is likely to find your statement...ambiguous.

Cerebus: Tell his Holiness that the Prime Minister finds ambiguity to be the very cornerstone of a successful foreign policy.

Cerebus the Aardvark: High Society

[kesg]

Buckley must really be getting senile. President Bush's speech was crystal clear: It's open season on the bad guys, and we're going to roll them back like no one's business.

This is exactly what I got out of it as well. Frankly, I am surprised that conservatives like William F. Buckley and even Peggy Noonan (for crying out loud) are having trouble with this part of the speech. Someone needs to send them a memo to the effect that the world changed after 9/11 -- which is exactly what President Bush said yesterday with a crystal clarity and persuasiveness that most of us understand perfectly. It will no longer do to be the turkey who wrongly assumes that he is safe because we are still several months away from Thanksgiving and nothing bad has yet happened to him.

[lugsoul]

Wow. I guess that old phrase, "the world's policeman" - as in "we can't be the world's policeman" - is now, um, what would be the word? Quaint?