[Niks]

"She disagrees with the President and here is the interesting point. Some people have no capacity for self governance and must be led by authoritarian means or tyrants."

Yes. And the problem with that theory is that it wasn't the Iranians or North Korean citizens who drove those planes into our buildings. It was Saudi citizens, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc. Citizens of our "allies" and "friends". Keeping the lid on these people has only made them worse. Isn't that the real problem?

[Miss Marple]

Yes, exactly. And President Bush is going with his speech has served notoice to those "allies" that their tyranny was the cause of the frustration that ended up hurting us, and that we want them mooving towards more reprsentative governments.

Well, I now see that Peggy didn't have a bad day. Her comments in this article show me that she simply fails to grasp why this speech was important. She has been hanging out with the "sophisticates" for too long.

[iopscusa]

I think Peggy is saying what many are feeling, we are tired. It is a difficult time, this is an underestimated and complex war of survival. I don't think she has gone over to the dark side but rather she writes from her heart and IMO, truthfully. That said, there certainly is a difference of opinion as to what we needed to hear. I think, this inaugural speech was right and it's effects are positive for the efforts both domestically and world wide, especially if the State of the Union builds on this with a true game plan for both domestic and international policies. There is a lot to do in the USA to move this country in the right direction, and 2nd term Presidents do tend to drop domestic issues as they become lame-ducks and try to build their legacy internationally. I hope Peggy will continue her writing and spend a bit of time outside of NYC & DC. This may cheer her up and help her perspective.

[maica]

Some people have no capacity for self governance and must be led by authoritarian means or tyrants."

%%%%%

Isn't this the argument used in the South until the 1950s, about the need for 'paternalism' aka first class and second class citizens.

Or even the argument used before the Civil War "They are better off on the plantation."

Or the argument used by today's "liberals" - "certain groups of people have to have special help because they cannot achieve success without our help."