The Commentator

Issue date: 2/15/05 Section: Editorials/Op-Ed

Related Articles:

In his January 21 column, just days before he would retire from his Op-Ed post at The New York Times, William Safire left readers with a precious insight into the high-stakes world of Michael Gerson, President Bush's chief speechwriter. Safire, himself a former speechwriter for President Richard M. Nixon, related that after the first cabinet meeting following his re-election, Mr. Bush told Gerson that he wanted his second Inaugural Address to be "the freedom speech." Gerson set to the task, but before he could complete it, he suffered a heart attack. As he recovered, the President called to check up on his trusted aide: "I'm not calling to see if the inaugural speech is OK," Bush said, according to Safire. "I'm calling to see if the guy writing the inaugural speech is OK."

Well, faulty ticker and all, Gerson certainly wrote "the freedom speech" the President requested of him. So much that pundits spent a fair amount of time in the wake of the Inauguration counting the president's repeated use of the words "freedom," "free," and "liberty." By Safire's count, the three words were used a total of 49 times.

Having watched the second Inaugural Address in person, I too was mindful, or better put became mindful, of what seemed like an endless parade of adjectives for the notion that all peoples of the world have the inherent right to "self-govern," as the President put it. Leaving no doubt about what self-governance meant, the President declared, "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Not that critics or even supporters understood immediately what that translated into in practice, but like his "Evil of Axis" speech, observers got the impression that this speech's ramifications could be far-reaching.

Yet far-reaching language only goes so far. As Safire would undoubtedly point out to his pseudo-linguist following, there is a world of difference between being "far-reaching" and its more distant, detailed cousin, "forthcoming." Precisely because his presidency has been marked by questioning the veracity of his administration's assertions about the war on terror and the case for war in Iraq, we have the right to expect more from Mr. Bush when he tells us to expect an ambitious foreign policy for the next four years.

After the speech, as my father and I walked among the throngs of supporters and protestors in congested Washington D.C., we wondered aloud as to whether statements like the following were even meant to be taken literally: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world," Bush proclaimed. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Continued...

Page 1 of 3 next >

Article Tools