Real men don't whine.
Posted on 01/22/2005 5:31:27 AM PST by pickrell
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.