Real men don't whine.
Posted on 01/22/2005 5:31:27 AM PST by pickrell
In an article today, Peggy Noonan spoke of the distaste that President Bush caused her by his inauguration speech. I am more troubled by her article than all the rest of the expected tripe oozed by the mainstream media, combined.
I have always admired Ms. Noonan, and have regarded her articles as dessert after the relentless sour lunch of defeatism and distortion served up by our "mainstream" media. Surely it has occurred to her, even as it has occurred to us, that there is an inescapable reason why CNN viewership is down 50% from the last Inauguration, and MSNBC is down 68%- while Fox News has soared 30%.
Americans tolerate less each day the poisonous whining from the shadows about how doomed we are to failure. The slander heaped upon our Armed Forces, and their Commander in Chief, is now bearing bitter fruit for the appeasers, and the surest poll is that of the audience. That audience is voting with their TV remotes.
President Bush, the right man at the right time, has faced scorching criticism, in a time of war, for having the courage to defend the United States against enemies within and without. Never has it become more apparent that the past timid, politically-correct appeasement by the Left of evil itself, has reaped a bitter harvest for us today. By creating in the minds of our enemies in the 1990's the reassurance that all Americans are like Bill Clinton, the media helped insure the tragedy that is playing out today. Our enemies were starved of the knowledge that an aroused America wields a furious retribution. Many in our liberal media want to return to those former enlightened times. They want escape from any responsibity for their truth embargo. They have their knee pads out, and they are wistful.
Noonan has previously held a grip on upbeat and inspiring words, and as such had earned a lasting place in all Freepers' hearts. At a time such as this, when courage is precious, and the propaganda war waged by the Fifth Column among us is directly translateable to additional casualties among our Marines and comfort to our enemies, I naturally supposed that all who enjoy the freedom bought for us by the previous blood-sacrifices of so many veterans would re-inforce the committment to spread that same freedom universally.
I couldn't disagree with her more, in regards to her article.
She writes that a speech about the universal yearning of all men for freedom, and the policy of America to support such movements and institutions, is "..too-heavenish, God-drenched, and over-the-top...". The administration's stated goals of extending freedom, and correspondingly drying up the breeding grounds of terrorism, are not an inescapable necessity if we are to win this war against terrorism, but rather a symptom of "mission inebriation", in her diagnosis. Has she asked the Ukrainians how important world-wide support was to them in their battle against Soviet interference?
At a time when any mention of God, any public display of reverence, is immediately attacked by the media with a ferocity most reminiscent, ironically, of the Taliban- how odd it is that the President's four references to "God", and several exhortations to commit ourselves to extend the freedom we enjoy to others...would seem to be "relentless invocation"? Has the ACLU finally succeeded in it's unholy obsession to drive reverence utterly from the American consciousness?
Were this not documented in her own column, I would dismiss it as merely more of the usual Democratic troll disinformation.
I am stunned. Was Ronald Reagan "inebriated", when he, standing alone against the sophisticated wisdom of the beltway elite and the mainstream media, proclaimed that the former comfortable policy of containment was cowardly and evil? When Reagan showed the world that an honorable man will not trade the enslavement of hundreds of millions behind the iron curtain for "safety" at home- was he over-the-top? How, then, is it today that we, even with the benefit of hindsight of Reagan's inspired courage, should now falter and fail?
When Reagan braved the now-familiar torrent of abuse heaped upon him by the omniscient talking heads of the networks, and faced down in front of the world a system that had been allowed to exist unchallenged for decades because of the "realism" of our political science professors- was he reading Ms. Noonan's words, as we assumed? The courage and wisdom was unquestionably his, but every President relies upon wordsmiths to help shape his thoughts for occasions of State. We assumed it was Peggy crafting the phrase.
What happened, Ms. Noonan? What has changed since then?
When the President of the United States states that as a national policy, "...we don't accept the existence of permanent slavery, or that women welcome servitude...", how can this seem too un-nuanced to conservatives such as yourself? Is this a "quest for perfection", or a needed acknowledgement that since so much was sacrificed for us all in the past, that we now correspondingly owe that same devotion to duty to others. What goes around must come around, if we are to call ourselves honorable men.
I watched "nuance" from the most gutless, shameful creature that ever disgraced the White House for eight long years. I struggled to suppress vomiting when our former "commander-in-chief" weighed his personal political risks in responding to the murders of our sailors, soldiers, and embassy personnel, in a dozen flagrant acts of war against us... cynically sniffed at the insufficient political advantages that might accrue to him, and thus in numerous such instances in the 1990's, simply decided that nothing important had been lost, and that "nuance" would prevail.
Until, of course, he faced the "Adventure of the Second Stain", and suddenly found the courage to posture against the enemies of America... at least until his media apologists had done their act. In that shamefulness, he was hailed by the Leftist media as a "master politician". He'll go down in history with a legacy of being the only U.S. President to ever need to carry around a written certificate of masculinity, to try to "prove" that he is a man. In his actions, he served as the best advertisement that terrorists had in the nineties. They are now discovering that they were badly misinformed...
Don't tell me about nuance, Ms. Noonan. I had a belly full of it, from Billy boy.
You are sophisticated enough to know that any war consists both of the military component and the national will. Never before have we faced so much treachery and cowardice, within and without, and seldom before, have the stakes been so high.
It was easy in World War Two, to look to the United States for salvation. Hundreds of millions across the world knew that we, along with our steady Australian and British allies, were the only hope that they had. They could not afford the luxury of sneering at liberating others, since they knew that freedom for all was in the balance. Sadly now, those comfortable in Paris, and Berlin and even Washington, question the reasonableness of supporting the yearning of others for that same freedom. They dismiss as being distracting any public references to the divine favor of God.
The Europeans have become sophisticated and "continental", plotting that by confederating themselves into a European Union that they might soon transcend us. Their American sympathizers, leftovers from the Stalin apologists among us, share the opinion that American military might is a danger to the carefully crafted European duplicity which supported the Saddams of the Middle East against the hopeless victims of that region. The sympathizers are willing to purge themselves and the nation as well, of all traces of honor, religion, morality and decency, in exchange for the approval of the European aristocracy that they so crave. We called them Tories a few hundred years ago; I won't print what I call them now.
How oddly astonishing this is, coming from the nation apparently alone among the "Western world", in it's citizens' adherence to their faith. How typical of George Bush to point out how odd it is, after 40 years of the U.S. defense of it's freedoms, that we have achieved more than any nation on earth, and yet the conventional wisdom is to remain "nuanced" about world affairs.
I've always believed that I know you too well, through your previous written thoughts, to accept that you now find merit in timidity in the final phases of this cultural war that rages across the nation. You know as well as we, Peggy, that there is no escape- that these dangerous, historic and pivotal times are thrust upon us, like it or not. Do we banish God from our public speeches, and then hope to invoke his mercy privately? That is, for lack of a better phrase, over-the-top.
The very phrase "over-the-top", ironically referred originally to an act requiring supreme self-sacrifice and devotion to duty, in the trenches of World War One- to abandon the safe ground of the trench, and to "take it to the enemy". How terribly ironic that we should choose to use it to describe over-ambitious committment.
Can we watch our troops facing death daily overseas on behalf of our nation, and expect them to understand that we find committment to freedom, and acknowledgement that evil is real... to be a manifestation of "mission inebriation"?
Don't tell a Marine what is possible and what is not, from the safety of a Manhattan apartment. Don't provide the fodder that the Fifth Column in our press salivates over, to use as further attacks against our war effort, and thus against our troops. You know better.
Instead, stand back and watch that Marine accomplish what all "conventional wisdom" categorically states is impossible... and just pray for his continued strength and safety. In spite of his often profane banter, he is deeply conscious of the critical role that Divine faith, courage, and clarity of mission has in insuring that the next generation of blow-dried journalists will enjoy the freedom to smear him as a baby-killer.
He is carving out the world's freedom, right now, by his service. I don't have the talent to pay sufficient tribute to him... but I can tell you that no one, anywhere else in the world, is more relevent to the future, and few men have ever had the chance to impact the future of so many millions yet unborn, as our Armed Forces do now. They write their names large in tomorrow's hall of heroes.
The rest of the world will read about such courage in decades to come... if they have the courage to hold the ground that our Marines have captured and will be handing to them. Nothing will be guaranteed to them- and they can fall back to their knees if they so choose. If they do, certainly no disgrace will fall on our Marines who bought such a chance for them.
Sit back, Peggy, read John O'Neil's book, and marvel that such men are among us, and say aloud unashamedly, "Thank God".
For if setting ourselves this mission is too grandiose and "over-the-top", then we've learned nothing from Reagan.
I am not puzzled by Peggy's comments. I share her concerns. My concerns are NOT about the references to God in the speech. I don't think that is the basis of Noonan's concern either (but who can say what she is really thinking). My concern is that Bush's speech can be construed as committing the United States in general and our military in particular to establishing liberal democratic states around the world. This is Wilsonian not Reaganesque.
My own view is that the United States military should be used only for the defense of the nation. We should kill those who threaten us and leave everyone else essentially alone. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see all the nations of the world become liberal democratic states (in the good sense of those terms). This would no doubt make the world a more peaceful place. But I do not believe that this can be achieved with any reasonable amount of American resources or American blood. Commiting the United States to the goal of freeing the world is nothing more than Internationalism without the United Nations.
Call me a paleocon, or a nationalist, or a nativist, but my primary concern is for America and its citizens and not the poor and oppressed elsewhere. This is what troubles me about Bush's speech. In the aftermath of 9/11 the focus was protecting the nation by making war on those who publicly and privately have vowed to kill us. The focus now has shifted to improving the world. Bush tried to connect the two in his speech. But I am not convinced. This is the focus of my concern. And I believe it underscore's Noonan's misgivings as well.
Publicity stunt.
Real men don't whine.
I agree. The jury is still out. But keep a sharp eye. Bringing freedom and democracy to all the nations of the world is not the same as killing our enemies.
They have their knee pads out, and they are wistful.
Kneepads. Another allegory for the Clinton legacy.
Also, a great reminder of exactly the extent to which the Clinton administration impacted this nation for the bad.
As to Peg, agreed, a puzzling position indeed.
In answer to the question for many; often enough to be politically expedient, yet not often enough to indicate a true belief and much less so any expectation of action rooted in such belief.
If you think that the Left needs to rely on conservative critics to come up with outrageous critiques of Bush, then your mind has been messed with.
What I like is that Republicans can express themselves honestly, and do so, regardless of whether it is the "proper" thing to do or not. You won't find that on the other side.
IF we lose a city at all, Boston isn't a bad choice.
It's called "belt-way-itis".......Peggy seems to have lost touch with the real America.
I certainly do not think that the left has to rely on conservative critics of the President. However, they relish the opportunity to do so if for no other reason than to show a division within our ranks. Free expression is appropriate when warranted. I don't think that PN thought seriously enough about the consequences of her column before she filed it with her editor.
"What happened, Ms. Noonan? What has changed since then?"
I read the address and her essay. I must admit she surprised me. The only things I can think of is (A) her son is around 16 years old and could sign up shortly without her input and/or (B) she is a light shade of green-I hope that isn't the reason.
She has my compassion with A but B??????
A valid question. I wish that Peggy had instead visited that question you pose, rather than what she did. All conservatives must carefully weigh our methods. I appreciate your well-argued position, but I can't help but feel that we are now entering an age where we can no longer allow to flourish those rogue states which think to train and arm terrorists against us, and then stand back and deny any involvement. We must be careful and calibrated in what actions we take, as you point out, but we no longer can afford to allow Cambodian-style safe havens. IF...that policy, as I suspect you fear, morphs into a general push to interfere with the sovereign right of other nations, then I will be one of the first to enlist under your banner. Until then, unless I read it wrong, we still are following the only course that may yet avert planetary religious warfare.
Her use of the words "mission inebriation" was not an accident. I found it offensive, given that the President has had to put up with all sorts of insults from the left on his past, and hints that he still is a drinker. It is inexcusable that she used this term. I am sure there are many other terms that would work as well, and I am also sure she has a Roget's Thesaurus.
It is also pretty hard for me to forgive such a mean-spirited piece written on Inauguration Day. I am more than willing to read a column discussing whether or not the President's goals are doable, and whether this will require military action more than we might want to do. But this isn't what she did; instead, she dismissed it as being a search for utopia and unrealistic, and also threw in the criticism about using God too much.
It is a shallow, mean-spirited criticism more worthy of the leftist columnists. It will take me a long time to think well of her again.
I agree. The two-faced Democrats think the existence of divergent opinions in their own ranks shows they have a "Big Tent, " but that divergent opinions among Republicans show the GOP is weak.
Yep.
They don't seem to realize the truth, that "actions speak louder than words." [By their fruits you shall know them].
I was not impressed with George W. until I saw the way he handled Gore's "menacing" approach during the debate.
I realized then that GW was smart enough and grounded enough to be non-resistant when it is best to be non-resistant.
GW is not the warmonger that Leftist neo-progs want to paint him as.
He choses his fights.
I could not agree with this more. States that threaten us should be taken down by any appropriate means. Knocking off Saddam qualified. So would knocking off the pot bellied pig in Pyongyang and maybe even the Khomeiniacs. But I think it important to be clear to the American people and to the world what we are doing.
If we are engaged in a process of destroying those who threaten us, say so. Bush has muddied his message with all the talk of spreading freedom and democracy in places that do not clearly indicate that they want it.
All in all, PN's critique seems picayune and petty in comparison to the grand and bold themes that our President sought to outline for our nation and the world. Rather than detracting from our President's stature, PH diminished her own.
Out here in Jesus Land, we tell our kids that if you don't have something nice to say about someone, it's better not to say anything at all. These words are especially true for a person whose words are scarefully examined like Noonan's. Noonan let it rip in yesterday's without considering the consequences. Now she will have to pay the consequences for writing them.
That may be true. Her timing is certainly "pissing in the inaugural punch bowl." She could have waited a week or two. I hear you.
See my post #59. I agree with most of what you said. I didn't take the "inebriation" as anything related to W's past. And still don't. I think she was saying that he and his admin are inebriated with their point of view -- I totally disagree with her comments, but I don't find them an attack on his past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.