Over-the-top

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.

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.

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.

Here is what she COULD have used:

mission euphoria
mission preoccupation
mission obsession
mission delusion
mission fantasy

I wrote those without a Thesaurus, and I am not a professional writer.

Sorry, I think she used it deliberately and as a subtle stab. If I were writing a column, I would re-read it and realize that word shouldn't be used. (It's awkward, anyway."Euphoria" is more what she was talking about, is a more common useage in the context, and works better both in usage and sound.)

She does not get a pass from me on this. I also don't understand why her editor allowed it to pass...unless she really doesn't have an editor.

"..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..."

Trek, I don't want to extend this past what you have time for, but I would ask your thoughts on this...
It is seldom that those who indicate that they want freedom, have any need of outside help to obtain that freedom. For us to interfere in such cases, as you indicate, would be counterproductive and innately wrong. But we need also to perhaps realize, that in countries where tyrants rule, the only pictures usually allowed to be broadcast are those of supporters pumping up and down their rifles, in the tired, trite, approved method of CNN broadcasts. The ones under the boot have no say. I don't argue in any case that the US military intervene in affairs unconnected to our war on terror. But the military was not, I believe, what the President was referring to. The option of withholding trade, and, much more importantly I think, of simply using the power of the press is unreservedly ours as a sovereign country. It is the one weapon that we have consistently used against ourselves and that needs to be seized from the dark side. If we have to sit through endless denunciations in the French and German press of our "perfidy", why would we not exercise our power to condemn publically those countries which rape their own citizenry? What I've heard from the Iranian resistance, and from the Ukrainians, during their trial of fire, was..."-we don't need military help- we need your support in the world-wide press..." If we can untwist the tendrils of the Left from around our media, we can stop the propaganda of the Left, and begin to finally show the truth to the world. This perhaps is a call to all Americans to demand from the press that they halt the truth embargo.

I have no problem with wishing that the anti-american left wing press were not the anti-american left wing press. What a gift to the world it would be if the American press were not seditious. But we live in a nation where the government does not control the press. I doubt you wish to change this and neither do I.

The legacy press is the legacy press. They will praise thugs like Castro and Chavez and ignore any thug that Bush confronts (e.g. Saddam). But I don't think this really speaks to my point. The problem I am concerned about is the possibility that Bush himself is out not just to protect the nation but to save the world. If this is true (and I agree with the previous poster that it is premature to conclude this) then I am very worried about our future.

The American people rallied behind Bush post 9/11 because they perceived him to be out to kill those who are out to kill us. The American people will support vigorously almost any policy that furthers this goal. The American people will also punish anyone perceived to be opposed to this goal (witness the thrashing the Dims took in 2002 and 2004). But most Americans are ambivalent at best to a quest to democratize the world.

Most Americans believe rightly that America cannot solve the world's problems. Our help is often not even welcomed by those who, in our view, need it most. Given this reality most Americans are content to let the peoples of the world deal with their own problems as long as they don't threaten us in any material way. The American people will support helping those who ask us for help if the price is not too high. But the citizens of our nation are not likely to rally behind a quixotic quest to rebuild the world in our image. In this regard, the attitude of the media, legacy or otherwise, is not relevant.

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.