What a stupid effing Inaugural speech. Just read it at NYT.

[MikeG]

So we're going to "bring freedom" to rest of the world.

How? At the point of a gun?

Why don't we start here and release all the Muslims being held without charges?

Grrr.

[roguevalley]

1. yeah, at gun point and from what I hear a lot of the guns will be held

by women now. not enough boys in the forces, see.

[SpiralHawk]

2. But on the bright side of things...

The world will be perfect after our Freedom Crusade leads to destruction of Evil Doers on the Plains at Miggido. So that will be totally kool. Only True Believers of the True Way will survive.

So whatever you do, be sure you believe the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Official Truth.

To wit: Our battle-hardened troops and corporo-industrial death machines will bring peace and freedom to The Whole Freaking Planet, or we will all die in the attempt.

Furthermore, choco-rations may well be increased 2 mg. per citizen-unit for every quarter year.

We have cause to rejoice.

[Warpy]

3. yeah, he declared war on the rest of the world.

and even the usually tame right wing pundits noticed it. It's the first time I've ever agreed with Peggy Noonan on anything. Her column today is well worth the read at http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006184

I'm afraid this belligerent little banty rooster is going to have to be corralled by his own party and/or the military. I just hope they have the will to do it.

[stanwyck]

4. But

those with simple minds lap up this stuff. No specifics. Nothing about how you achieve "freedom to the rest of the world." (carpet bombing?) It's just nationalistic rhetoric to appeal to the emotions. And the sheep love it. Nothing about how many troops are required (we're already over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan). Nothing about the cost. (we're at a record deficit). Nothing about our economy. Our healthcare. Not even a mention of the social security dilemma. Just windy mindspeak repeating liberty and freedom over and over. A few swastikas and the picture would be complete.

[agarrett1]

5. That's a bit too harsh

An inaugural address is not a State of the Union. It's not the place for listing specific programs, or getting into the nitty-gritty. It is, instead, a place for setting out a vision, or a statement of principles.

And the ones President Bush set out were good ones - that we'll support freedom, oppose tyranny. That our values and our interests coincide on the export of democracy and liberty. These were good, stirring words (delivered a bit too flatly, but that doesn't come across in the written version.)

I truly hope this speech is being translated into other languages, especially Farsi and Chinese. The words alone can bring hope to people who can use it. That was gift especially possessed by President Kennedy and President Reagan. President Bush is not in their league as far as speaking - but his speech writers are certainly as good.

Now, for those who disagree (which is probably the rest of the board ;-) I will confess that the devil is in the details. How he goes about implementing these policies - or if they were merely meaningless words - will make all the difference.

But the speech itself, allowing for the use of rhetoric, was excellent.

Drew Garrett

[Lisa]

7. I wonder if all the repetition was for us, or for GWB?

There's "on message", and then there's "somebody get a thesaurus for the West Wing". "Freedom" and "liberty" both showed up a lot -- surely they could have come up some more creative expressions?

I agree that GWB can deliver a speech if he practices -- though it's sometimes as if he's a guy delivering a pizza somebody else made, and isn't too sure of the contents. The flatness that you noted was pretty evident this time. (He has read out other speeches in the past where he seemed to be a bit more enthusiastic -- perhaps he overrehearsed?) There were reports a while back about how Karen Hughes would pencil out the phrases Michael Gerson had written, and replace them with much plainer talk -- and it can be kind of funny when one of his speeches seesaws back and forth between styles like that.

If he did more of his own writing, it might get around some of these problems. Don't know if that will happen, though.

[sweetheart]

9. Bollocks, what a load

The speach and its speaker abuse language terribly. Freedom to be in
prisoned without due process or the rule of law is no "freedom".

"Freedom" as in bush speak is freedom to be mass murdered by carpet
bombing, to be "free" to be plunged in to poverty by busheconomics...
and a whole plethora of other "freedoms" to reverse language in to
the ultimate perversion of freedom.

The speech was crap. The speaker was crap, and all the athletes
stood when hitler heralded the white athletes at the 1936 olympics.

Freedom my ass. Bush will mass murder several hundred thousand in
the next 4 years if we're lucky and several million if we're not.
I'm sure they're looking forward to their freedom.

Certainly a sucker for rhetoric is born every minute... and hopefully
not tooo many on DU.

:-) Fuckit... it must be freedom! All those skulls look happy!

[stanwyck]

11. History doesn't backup

your belief that inauguration speeches are merely visionary. Read past speeches. Specific plans are mentioned. Domestic issues are discussed. You're parroting talk-radios defense of Bush's speech. Did you not have questions during the speech? We're going to end tyranny? How? By Bush resigning? How many innocent Iraqis have died during our shock and awe? How many Iraqis will die from the uranium left by our carpet bombing? What about Saudi Arabia? Israel? Will Israel stop putting Palestinians in camps...making them wear arm bands and stop at check points? Will Saudi Arabian women be allowed to drive? To vote? What use is the rhetoric if it is meaningless? This is not patriotism. This is nationalism. There is no substance.
But, hey, you're doing a fine job of repeating hate-radio spin for a pie-in-the-sky speech.

[peacetalksforall]

6. As if we had authentic democracy to export.

I have no qualms about saying that we are the most hypocritical nation in the world. To think that we can export democracy when we lose more of it every day.

All honorable tenets that I beieved in...separations of church and state, innocent until proven guilty, right to vote, right to citizen representation, right to a jury, right to privacy - we are one sorry mess of a so-called democracy.

The world knows it. A certain per cent of our citizens are responsbile fot the theft, erosion, pretensionhave, and disappearance. Few in our country will acknowledge it.

[The Doctor.]

8. "The UNTAMED fire of freedom..."

That part scared me.

[greyXstar]

10. Just that part??

[knight_of_the_star]

12. A party that shouts and shoots for freedom

Doesn't seem to have much respect for it.