I have to admit that- for some time- I have been jealous of the fact that JF Kennedy owns what is perhaps the most meaningful sentence/sentiment in an inauguration speech (naturally, the "ask not"- followed by the "this that and the other thing" remarks). Each time a Republican President is sworn, I hope that he will give America a "phrase to live by" that rises to that level.
While I agree that someone created a fine speech, I believe my search/wait will have to continue. However, I look forward to listening to the audio of the speech, because there are some really promising tidbits in this speech...
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.
Anyway, while no one will accuse W of being "a great communicator," I credit him with at least one of the qualities crucial to communication- that being, you (or at least I) sense that he truly believes what he says, and says what he believes.
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
Nah - I'd say he truly believes what he truly believes.Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
What he says is ordinarily unintelligible.
The important question is "What does Dick Cheney truly believe?", which is what will in large part determine what happens over the next four years.
However, we can agree that someone wrote a fine speech. I didn't hear W deliver it, but it reads really well.
Or more precisely he believes what he's told to believe. I saw the movie "Manchurian Candidate" the other day. Might be worth a look if you haven't viewed it recently.Originally Posted by shanbaum
Robert
Last edited by Robert Martellaro; 01-21-2005 at 10:43 AM. Reason: Trying to type BC (before coffee).
I watched the inauguration proceedings on CSPAN last evening... As usual, while W got through the speech- it did read better than it was delivered. Of course, considering there were bursts of protest during the speech (and it looked uncomfortably cold)...
Anyway, I listened to the speech and thought of how I might have written something different... I would have LOVED to see the President say something to the effect of:
...if there is anything to be gained from the tragic events of our times, it must be this- America cannot rely on the crucible of tragedy to refine our brotherhood, America cannot rely on the mechanism of conflict for the construction of prosperity. The events of our present should inform us that the only reliable fount of success is cooperation in the absence of threat.
Anyway, noting the way we came together after 9/11 is well and good- I just wish we could take something lasting away from that event and realize the importance of working together towards a common goal...
As for "believing what he is told to believe..." You can agree or disagree with his administration, but if this President has anything going for him (in my humble and oft erroneous opinion) it is this- he knows what he believes and is sincere in trying to accomplish the same. In other words, he stubbornly holds to his guns because he believes he is ultimately right- and that rightness is ultimately unchanging. There are good and bad consequences from this kind of paradigm, but...
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
A lot of the news analysis concentrated on the idea that Bush feels/said the US is on a mission to bring democracy to the rest of the world. I didn't get that, well maybe a little, but think this is being overblown. Daily Show had a tally of how many times Bush said "freedom" and "liberty". You'll be happy to know freedom beat the stuffing out of liberty, 28 to 17.
Having read and listened to the speech, if I had to pick one theme I would have said- "protecting freedom at home by extending freedom abroad." That seems to sum it up.
BTW, the minister (from Houston) at the who gave the benediction was awesome! Now THAT's a prayer! I'd like a link to the text of that prayer if anyone has it...
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
This is scarey concidering that Shanebaum and I are on opposite sides of this fence. And I must confess that I have only heard exerpts of this speach.
However, It seems that Bush wishes to serve notice on all dictatorships, non-democratic and other forms of government in the world that do not conform to his ideal. This means that every dictator, king, and any other form of non-democratic society could concider this an act of war or at least opposition.
Now this means that many of them might have been happy if left alone and now feel that they must join opposition to the U.S. The question is are we prepared to take on the rest of the world, including those that were happy to leave us alone?
Some parts of the world might be doing just fine with whatever form of government they have and thier populations may be happy with the status quo.
The ramifcations of this speech could be quite costly and we since WWII seem to have become a nation of wimps and whiners, how we gonna take on the world with a populus like this?
Chip
That may well be what he wishes; but his words from yesterday conveyed something different:Originally Posted by chip anderson
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities.
There's nothing in that little excerpt with which I would disagree. You?
Hours before the swearing in yesterday, VP Cheney identified Iran as the next country to be dealt with, looking for UN sanctions at the very least. Given the administrations low regard for the UN and its policy on sanctions, how long will they wait to invade and help Iran become democratic?
I agree with your statement Judy. I think we should just wager on the month that Cheney will determine is the right time and Bushie acts. Bush's and Daddy Bush's good old boys club knew well in advance the situation in this region. Too many dollars tied to this area of their own. They harped on WMD's and could not see the forest through the trees. Bada, Bing, Bada Boom! There were no WMD and UN reports of this dated back many years.
I believe strongly that we are now responsible for helping to create more terrorists by the actions of the USA in Iraq. Further more I believe we should not impose our democratic Christian values on countries that do not embrace the same concepts.
My suggestion at present is to dump Rumsfeld, do not place Rice as Secretary of State and let these old geezers who are living in the past return to active duty and see how they fare with the resources available.
Except those freedoms don't include the freedom for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the freedom to marry someone of the same gender, and the freedom to have morals and values that deviate from the Judeo-Christian model.Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
...Just ask me...
What he says is what his constituency wants to hear, and somehow understands, apparantly. And that scares me.Originally Posted by shanbaum
...Just ask me...
I would like to have heard:Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
"we live in a climate of opposition: left and right, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative. I will govern in the center. This will not please many Americans, but there is give and take in all aspects of life, and compromise is part of a unified, cohesive society."
Or something like that.
...Just ask me...
I agree, Chip - let a sleeping dog lie. And we all know that W is not going to mess with some of the worst offenders: Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, China. There'll be some excuse to differentiate them from Iraq.Originally Posted by chip anderson
...Just ask me...
Well this is what happens when you take your cues from God, a notorious prankster!!;)
chm: Who's advise do you follow? Michael Moore?
chip, whose god do you advise to follow?Originally Posted by chip anderson
The God of Abraham!
And which version of the “God of Abraham” would you advise others follow?Originally Posted by chip anderson
He only had One and he was creator of the universe.
Allah? El? Elohim? Jehovah? Kurios?Originally Posted by chip anderson
As revealed to? Abraham? Christ? Moses? Mohammed?
Think, Moses,Abraham, and Christ have the same God. Don't think Allah is god.
…according to you and 3 billion other “true believers” who can’t remotely agree upon what He actually advises.Originally Posted by chip anderson
I know Chip started it, but could we take the religion discussion to it's own thread? It was kind of nice reading the different perspectives of GW's speech. Just a thought....
Last edited by ksquared; 01-28-2005 at 12:03 AM. Reason: spelling error
Debt Crisis 2011: All the ostensible nobility in the world notwithstanding, we have run out of other people's money to spend.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks