16 Comments

1. David Thomson:

ìIf Israel does not carry out military operations during this period, Hamas will consider an open-ended cease-fire, the official said.î

I feel very uncomfortable with the use of the word military in this context. To me, it implies that Israel’s enemies are mere soldiers as defined by the Geneva Conventions. This democratic country does not carry out per se ìmilitary operations.î It carries out antiterrorist operations. The Israelis should not even consider ceasing to chase down these scum bags.

The terrorists are similar to rabid dogs. Never again will they be able to live the ordinary life focussing on paying off the mortgage and driving the kids to school. Only death and destruction satisfies their existential cravings. They must be either killed or jail. There is no other viable option.

Jan 23, 2005 - 6:36 am 2. Charlie (Colorado):

I’m really increasingly coming to believe the notion we’ve been talking about that the reorientation of the dialectic is so strong that the notion of who is and isn’t in GWB’s “party” isn’t a matter of who is or isn’t a self-identified Republican.

Catholic Conservatives like Buckley and Noonan have more in common with Pat Buchanan than with GWB’s vision of a world without tyranny. I can’t help but wonder, having been educated in a tradition that so emphasizes the authority of the Bishop of Rome and their own bishop, if the radical elimination of the hierarch that Bush’s speech implies isn’t profoundly — albeit unconsciously — uncomfortable.

Jonah Goldberg’s says that Buckley’s statement about ’standing athwart History yelling “Stop!”‘ had to do specifically with the notion that history was inevitably leading to Communism. But it’s real hard for me to look at Buchanan, or at Noonan’s sudden discomfort with the “utopian” vision of ending tyranny, without thinking that whatever Buckley may have meant then, the biggest impulse behind all of the complaints is distaste, distrust, and outright fear of change.

Jan 23, 2005 - 7:54 am 3. Jamie Irons:

Charlie

I suspect what you write is very close to the essence of the matter. While I think Peggy Noonan is a fine writer (in her way) and quite a decent person, I do think she is conservative in the sense of “profoundly averse to change.” Little kids, and very old people, are often conservative in this (restrictive) sense.

David

The terrorists are similar to rabid dogs.

Exactly. They are in no sense “military.”

Roger

You wrote:

It doesn’t have to do with all that wild “freedom talk,” does it, by some President…

I think history will show (he says pompously) that this speech — and the change in policy it both marks and heralds — had a profound effect on the Middle East, by moving the Europeans and the UN, among others, off the schneid.

Jamie Irons

Jan 23, 2005 - 8:24 am 4. Rick Ballard:

OTOH, Noonan and WFB are accomplished wordsmiths and may actually simply be talking about the lack of logic, coherence and clarity that manifests itself throughout the speech. It’s a kludge – it could have been written by a development team at Microsoft.

For those who don’t see it that way – copy the speech into a word processing program and move paragraphs around or delete them – randomly select sentences (or paragraphs) and try to determine whether they express a complete thought or a portion thereof. As far as I am concerned Noonan and WFB are being kind. It has nothing whatsoever to do with their vision of hierarchy and everything to do with the muddiness found throughout the speech.

The inclusion of the Koran as a font for the ideal of human freedom is particularly ridiculous. I understand the PC vision that demanded its “inclusion” but the Koran has nothing whatsoever to say about human freedom and liberty.

The underlying concept of universal freedom is a marvelous ideal but this speech does very little to advance it.

Jan 23, 2005 - 8:49 am 5. Charlie (Colorado):

Jamie: Little kids, and very old people, are often conservative in this (restrictive) sense.

Not to mention cats.

But seriously, this conflict between the “conservatives” and the people who think like GWB isn’t new; one can easily imagine Barry Goldwater making a speech like GWB’s inaugural. (And when was the last time you heard Buchanan say anything about freedom that didn’t have to do with how little brown people aren’t ready for it?)

Jan 23, 2005 - 8:54 am 6. Ric Locke:

Why now? Why are even the Euros suddenly pressuring the Palestinians to lean on their terror factions?

Heh. I think we may be looking at an example of the utility of the “cowboy” meme.

The Euros and others are saying to themseleves, “$DEITY! The SOB is going to be around for another four years. We’d better encourage some folks to get off the dime before Bush starts going postal on us.”

Which will serve the purpose quite well, thank you. I’ve seen it attributed to Reagan: there’s not much limit on what you can accomplish when you don’t insist on getting credit for it. Or, from another standpoint: When the Superior Man has done his work, the people say, We did it all ourselves.

Regards,

Ric Locke

Jan 23, 2005 - 9:22 am 7. Old Dad:

While I think the supposed splits between the “neos,” the “paleos,” the “theos,” and the “Bushies” is interesting in an academic sort of way, I don’t see much real political impact.

Sure WFB and Peggy Noonan, among others, have some gripes about W’s speech. Perhaps it was too radical for their conservative sensibilities. Perhaps it didn’t meet their rhetorical standards. Fine. But the political bottom line is that most Americans got the message, and today, despite a media onslaught of negativity, most Americans support the President.

W is a wily politician, but he’s also a gambler. He’ll take political risks, gambling that at the end of the day he can keep his base solid. So far that’s been the case as evidenced by the largest popular vote tally in history.

That’s why the mullahs need to be worried. It’s not 1968. Uncle Walter is an irrelevant old fart. Today, W has the political muscle to put American might behind his vision. I wouldn’t call his hand unless I had a flush. The mullahs don’t.

Jan 23, 2005 - 9:28 am 8. Terrye:

Rick:

I disagree. I think the speech is better when read than listened to and mybe the inclusion of a verse from the Koran was not just about PC but about the premise that all peoples desire to be free.

I liked the speech myself and I think maybe the folks who found it muddled or whatever are the ones with the problem. After all maybe it is their perception and not mine that is at fault. I know Mort Kondracke said he thought it was one of the best he had heard.

I think it was a good speech and I also think it is sad that people who belong to Lincoln’s party find the concept of ending tyranny to be “confused”.

The State of the Union speech is coming maybe in that speech Noonan and Buckley will get the laundry list they desire.

Jan 23, 2005 - 9:38 am 9. richard mcenroe:

The best thing about the speech…

Rick ó We have two possible assumptions. Either Islam is capable of existing or learning to exist as part of a civilized, modern world, or it isn’t and must be exterminated. Which do we act on?

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:05 am 10. Rick Ballard:

Terrye,

There was no verse from the Koran. Just as there is no rejection of the concept of universal liberty/freedom by WFB, Noonan or me. Their argument (and mine) is that the speech is a poor articulation of the principles underlying the ideals. They do a much better job of separating the speech from the man delivering it than has anyone here in the mixture of ad hominem and mind reading that undergirds the comments to this point.

Richard,

One hopes for the best while preparing for the worst. Act on the presumption of the ability to learn but don’t bet the farm on it.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:17 am 11. Terrye:

Rick:

Well whatever… I read the speech and I liked it and if their is no reference to the Koran why bitch about it?

Like I said, these things are individual and we either respond or don’t.

I liked it and we are still talking about it. That is more than can be said for most of these speeches days after the fact.

Jan 23, 2005 - 10:59 am 12. mudmarine:

Richard

That is a great photo. Almost got me to feel some empathy for the man.

Your question is making my head hurt, nothing like summing things up on occasion. Rick’s answer “hope for the best, prepare for the worst” is the most practical. But…

When the US moved to initiate some form of democracy in Germany and Japan we were at least dealing (for the most part) with a literate populace, at a minimum the ability to read and write in a common language. This obviously had a great deal to do with “their ability to learn” as Rick states above. I think the challenge we face is in great measure finding a way to communicate with the vast majority of islamic believers (at least in the madrasas of the ME) who can neither read nor write, and if they are able to read the only ‘literature’ they have been exposed to is the koran. I suppose in some way this is similar to the situation in Europe before Gutenberg, all common knowledge was ‘oral’, with the result that the church pretty much had a lock on who knew what and how much. I’m getting way above ‘my’ writing ability here, so let me sum up. If we can’t communicate, we can’t change. Then….

Jan 23, 2005 - 11:17 am 13. Terrye:

the words of the Koran. That was the phrase the president used. It was not a verse, just an reference.

I have seen no less than a dozen people make an issue of Bush using this phrase.

I know that a lot of folks are deeply mistrustful of Islam, but as long as men like Allawi risk their lives for a new future for their country I don’t feel comfortable condemning a whole religion.

Jan 23, 2005 - 11:23 am 14. rgvdh:

The death of Arafat is also important. None of his replacements will ever have his mystique or his undeserved aura of legitimacy. This frees many people (liberals, European elites, etc.) to treat the PA and its leaders as they deserve, without ever having to suffer the political and social discomfort that rejecting Arafat would have entailed.

You can say “Well maybe Abbas isn’t really a man of peace.” *without* implicitly calling the Nobel committee a bunch of dupes.

Jan 23, 2005 - 4:26 pm 15. Mike_Nargizian:

No mystery here. The Europeans realize he ain’t shutting down Hamas or anyone else, the EU may even still send aid to Hamas, (have they declared them a terrorist organization yet even) the EUnicks just know that until at least the animals stop shooting rockets that they have no shot to sharpen their fangs to slice up the Israelis…

Jan 23, 2005 - 7:21 pm 16. augolden:

The Palestinian power brokers, the elite, had enough of a difficult time agreeing on whether Arafat was dead or alive.

Do you think it is possible to get a straight answer on a cease fire from the Palestinians factions in power? Truth and hard facts don’t come easy to the Palestinians.

Jan 23, 2005 - 8:18 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: