Weak stomachs and weak minds will be the downfall of our country

Reviewing the various reviews of the President's inaugural address one would think that Pat Robertson and Joseph Stalin's love child had been sworn in. Some of the whining is coming from surprising places too.

Conservative former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan's WSJ editorial, titled "Way too much God", proclaimed that the President had basically lost his grip with reality. She feels that proclaiming our freedom is dependent on removing tyranny from the world is a utopian concept only to be found in heaven. "The world is not heaven" she proclaims.

I like Peggy Noonan. She's always impressed me with her level headed, even handed, and classy approach. Her reaction surpised the hell out of me.

I thought Pat Buchanan was going to blow a gasket on MSNBC last night too. Unfortunately, the Scarborough transcript isn't available online yet. From what I recall amongst the traditional yelling on the show, Buchanan basically called the 9/11 attack our fault, thereby absolving the Islamic murders of any guilt. And oh yeh, the same program pronounced that the President is the head of the neo-con movement whereby all freedoms are granted by the government. All of this derived from a short speech of course. And the cherry on top was that fountain of wisdom, Janeane Garofalo (what a piece of work).

Before judging the President's speech so harshly, it would serve us well to review some past inaugural addresses and do some comparisons.

Firstly, Bush's speech yesterday mentioned God 3 times. So did Kennedy's 1961 address. As did Johnson's 1965 address. Nixon had the nerve to mention God 6 times in 1969 and 4 times in 1973. Carter, supposedly the most pious of past presidents, mentioned God only once but he did quote the Bible (Micah 6:8). In 1981 Reagan mentioned God 5 times, and in 1985 a whopping 8 times. George HW Bush; 3 times, but included a prayer. Clinton in 1993; twice. In 1997 twice. George W Bush in 2001 3 and this week; 3 times.

So what about the notion that we/he put the world on notice? Well, we did have a bit of a problem on 9/11/2001 with threats of additional attacks. But how does the President's address yesterday compare to prior addresses in terms of addressing tyranny throughout the world?

In 1997, President Clinton only mentioned the fight against terror once:

"We will stand mighty for peace and freedom, and maintain a strong defense against terror and destruction. Our children will sleep free from the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Ports and airports, farms and factories will thrive with trade and innovation and ideas. And the world’s greatest democracy will lead a whole world of democracies."

An interesting comment in retrospect. A half dozen terrorist attacks happened on Clintons watch. And after emense pressure from the US and Saudi Arabia, when the Sudanese expelled Usama Bin Laden, we refused to bring him to justice. The administration sat by while dozens of UN resolutions admonished the Saddam Hussein for not complying to his surrender agreement, and yet ineffectively lobbed bombs on Iraq because of it in 1998.

President Clinton's 1993 address was even softer around the edges:

"

While America rebuilds at home, we will not shrink from the challenges, nor fail to seize the opportunities, of this new world. Together with our friends and allies, we will work to shape change, lest it engulf us.	34
When our vital interests are challenged, or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act—with peaceful diplomacy when ever possible, with force when necessary. The brave Americans serving our nation today in the Persian Gulf, in Somalia, and wherever else they stand are testament to our resolve.	35
But our greatest strength is the power of our ideas, which are still new in many lands. Across the world, we see them embraced—and we rejoice. Our hopes, our hearts, our hands, are with those on every continent who are building democracy and freedom. Their cause is America's cause."

George HW Bush said this;

"We know what works: Freedom works. We know what's right: Freedom is right. We know how to secure a more just and prosperous life for man on Earth: through free markets, free speech, free elections, and the exercise of free will unhampered by the state."

"We will stay strong to protect the peace. The "offered hand" is a reluctant fist; but once made, strong, and can be used with great effect."

And, oh my God! Reagan asked for Peace on Earth! Unfortunately, his administration's focus was so squarely on defeating Communism that it ignorantly fostered the growth of Islamic fundamentalism as the real force we're reckoning with today.

"Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth."

"There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it."

"

We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress.	35
America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally.	36
And it is the world's only hope, to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Every blow we inflict against poverty will be a blow against its dark allies of oppression and war. Every victory for human freedom will be a victory for world peace."

Sound familiar?

He said similar things in 1981;

"

To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.	26
As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it—now or ever.	27
Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength"

Carter's 1977 address. Now this was a utopian vision. One which would probably resonate well with the Democratic Party voters today.

"

Our Nation can be strong abroad only if it is strong at home. And we know that the best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation.	15
To be true to ourselves, we must be true to others. We will not behave in foreign places so as to violate our rules and standards here at home, for we know that the trust which our Nation earns is essential to our strength."

We saw how well this ideal worked. The Iranian revolution , 52 American hostages and subsequent rise of a the current radical, suppressive Islamic regiem. Let us not forget that under the Carter administration, Russia invaded Afganistan, and the US began funding the training of Islamic fundamentalists.

"We do not seek to intimidate, but it is clear that a world which others can dominate with impunity would be inhospitable to decency and a threat to the well-being of all people."

It's the same message over and over.

Nixon said in 1973:

"

Unless we in America work to preserve the peace, there will be no peace.	8
Unless we in America work to preserve freedom, there will be no freedom."

Keep in mind that Nixon was trying to get us out of the debacle in Viet Nam. His foreign policy message had to be one of "live and let live", so it was. But his feelings are undeniable.

" Let us be proud that in each of the four wars in which we have been engaged in this century, including the one we are now bringing to an end, we have fought not for our selfish advantage, but to help others resist aggression."

So, lastly John F Kennedy pronounced in 1961, after WWII, Korea and a growing problem in Southeast Asia:

" Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

" To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

"To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house."

(He failed miserably)

" We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed."

The same message again and again. For America to be safe; for American to be secure freedom must spread throughout the world. This message, sometimes weak, other times not, has been consistent.

Perhaps what has the critics worried is that we have an administration that actually believes in these concepts enough to do something about them.

Kennedy pledged support to keep the western hemisphere free from Communism yet botched his chance to defeat it and let it become a clear and present threat! Not only that, he half-heartedly supported the efforts to fight back Communism in Viet Nam. This half assed effort directly lead to over 10 years of futility and more than 50 thousand dead Americans.

Reagan's vision of freedom, but more importantly, actions to preserve and promote freedom defeated the greatest threat to our peace in the 20th century.

Carter, George HW Bush, and Clinton talked the talk, but did little when the opportunity was the greatest to avoid today's threat.

The President's vision is right. Free and prosperous people will have a stake in peace; a desire for life.

Kennedy's proclamation that we'd pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe to ensure the survival and success of liberty was the same damn message! The difference today, is that perhaps we have an administration that means what it says. Let's hope, for our future's sake, that it does.

All this said, I'm afraid that the fundamental conflict is a religious one. Fundamentalist Islam hates Jews and Christianity. The killing has been going on for hundreds of years (not yet thousands, but close) for one reason or another. I don't know that democracies alone will yield the results we require, but it's more of a step forward than doing nothing. We've witnessed what the "do nothing" policies yield. And while I haven't yet subscribed to the Ann Coulter, kill-their-leaders-and-convert-them-to-Christianity philosophy yet, the leaders of the Islamic world must accept the responsibility to stomp out the violence being committed in their religion's name. This absolutely will not happen when violent, radical Muslims are tyranically ruling vast hoards of Muslim people. People need to have the freedom to choose peace and work for prosperity. If they choose violence, they should do it at their own peril.