Conservative analysis of * inaugural speech

[paineinthearse]

Source: http://watchblog.com/republicans/

Conservative Dissent On Democratic Crusaderism
Chris Roach, a "paleoconservative" who is pro-Administration on Iraq and many other areas, gives an interesting genuinely conservative critique of the President's inaugural address. Those uncomfortable with the rhetoric of democratic crusaderism because of conservative fears of big government and humanitarian interventionism will find it compelling; those who support that tendency may find it thought-provoking, nonetheless.

more.......

Roach's article: http://www.affbrainwash.com/chrisroach/archives/017076.php

<snip>

As revealed in his trimuphalist inaugural address, Bush's view of the world is simple but coherent, but it promises unfortunately to deepen the rift with much of the world, create enemies where there might otherwise be friends, and cost the U.S. a great deal of lives and treasure with few positive outcomes.

<snip>

Bush is at once ignorant and arrogant. He's ignorant of the numerous failings of "democracy" as well as other attempts to reorganize societies according to some alien vision. And he's arrogant about the prospects of imposing liberal and democratic change on ancient societies that have no interest in U.S. "benevolence." In other words, he's ignorant of the strong and abiding force of nationalism and conservatism in much of the world. Such habits are healthy and abiding and real. He seems also to misunderstand these realities at home. He states, for example, "We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart."

more.......

[Demit]

1. "trimuphalist inaugural address"? hahahaha! (couldn't read any further.)

[moggie12]

5. Well, you should have -- this conservative makes a good case

And he makes it AGAINST Bush's jingoistic, crusader mentality. The more conservatives that stand up and say Bush is nuts, the better. In fact, it's probably the only way to stop Bush. The non-nut-wing of the Republican Part is in the best position to say. "Yo, this Emporer has no clothes!"

[robbedvoter]

2. Adding Peggy Nooner: Way too much God

Peggy Noonan: Speech had 'way too much God'
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=11...
Way Too Much God
Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."
It seemed a document produced by a White House on a mission.

[moggie12]

8. Wow, Peggy Noonan finally realizes Bush is a nut!

Thank you for posting that -- FINALLY, even the RW is realizing Bush is bananas. It's about damn time. Personally, I loved Bush's speech. It was everything I could have asked for: wildly impractical, completely over the top, so stupid that even the RW can't ignore how dangerously naive this guy is. As Noonan says, "this isn't heaven, it's earth". It great that she's pretty much coming right out and saying that Bush's mission to "end tyranny in the world" is crazy-talk.

[hang a left]

3. Very interesting read.

The author is afraid of where the US is heading as well.


"One may be wondering, why then did I vote for Bush? My most general answer is that one must choose between degrees, and I thought Bush's sins of overly ambitious actions were less harmful than Kerry's likely sins of inaction. The American people's good sense usually prevents the dumbest and least practical of wars, which limits the harm of a Bush presidency (or anyone else's). I think in the wake of 9/11 it was important to show that the U.S. was not pusillanimous or irresolute. Such a reputation was at least one factor in encouraging a terrorist attack in the first place. I do not think that this attack was a mere response to U.S. intervention, our "chickens coming home to roost." At the same time, I do not think we should forget that our actions do have consequences and that we can have more or less friction with the rest of the world, more or less at our choosing. In addition, I thought while Bush may be a liberal in some very important ways, there was nothing conservative about Kerry. These apologia aside, I remain deeply troubled about what's in store for the U.S. under Bush's second term. I remain similarly troubled that a very ideological and almost jingoistic concept of "freedom" is crowding out the more abiding conservative foreign policy realism and isolationism that held sway until recently."

[indie_voter]

4. Poor Author, I feel sooooo bad for him.

"I remain deeply troubled about what's in store for the U.S. under Bush's second term. I remain similarly troubled that a very ideological and almost jingoistic concept of "freedom" is crowding out the more abiding conservative foreign policy realism and isolationism that held sway until recently."

Geee. You think?

IDIOT!!! He votes for this man because he wasn't willing to give Kerry a chance. His philosophy boils down to "Devil you know vs the devil you don't"

IDIOT.

[katinmn]

6. are they now playing both sides of the fence?

The true Republicans are not happy with * either. Hmmm. Are the neocons and theocons realizing they are a minority?

[paineinthearse]

7. These are the conservatives, not the neocons

Tradtional conservatives & paleoconservatives dislike * almost as much as we do.