A trip down Memory Lane: Freedom Agenda 2005

If Obama had given the following speech, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and the rest of the knee-jerk venom squad who are petulantly faulting the Obama Administration’s cautious response to the Egyptian revolution would have frothed at the presumption of such grandiose rhetoric.  I don’t recall, however, the right-wing media offering a word of dissent from this overheated Gersonian effusion when Bush delivered it at his 2005 inauguration.   Nor would the Obama attack dogs have offered a peep of protest had Bush, in navigating the moral and political complexity of the Cairo uprising, offered his support to the Egyptian protesters, which would be the least that Bush could do if he really meant these self-righteous pronouncements:

From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth.  . . . Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation . . . and the calling of our time.

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.

. . .

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.  . . .

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America’s belief in human dignity will guide our policies . . .

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. . . . History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.

Apparently, the Freedom Agenda had an expiration date: January 2009.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to A trip down Memory Lane: Freedom Agenda 2005

  1. mark levin says:

    Heather, you are quite ignorant about what you’ve posted. You are unaware of my views on the Bush democracy project, assuming I supported it (you can support the war in Iraq without supporting a doctrinal approach to it); you comment on my views without having read my national security position in my book; and if you had listened to my radio show the last few weeks you’d know that I have argued for prudence and caution, and my criticism of the administraiton has related to its inconsistent statements and vapidity. Get your facts straight. You’re making an ass of yourself.

  2. mark levin says:

    P.S.: Others should feel free to hear what I actually have to say by listening to my radio show, which is aired 5 days a week, or read what I wrote in Liberty and Tyranny, or go to my website – marklevinshow.com

    You don’t need Heather’s emotional outburst as a filter.

  3. Stephen says:

    “…who are petulantly faulting the Obama Administration’s cautious response to the Egyptian revolution…”

    How does one determine the difference between cautious and bumbling? When Biden (who, I am told, was selected as V.P. for his foreign policy experience) says Mubarak is not a dictator, and the Muslim Brotherhood is described as a secular organization, it sounds like bumbling to me.

    I’m just hoping they get lucky on this problem.

    Minor point:
    “Nor would the Obama attack dogs…”

    I think you have this metaphor backwards.

  4. Heather Mac Donald says:

    Dear Mr. Levin:

    I am grateful that you took the time to post your comments on his site. I certainly do listen to your show, and I recommend that others do as well. It has been a privilege to have been one of your guests.

    Your commentary regarding the Egyptian uprising, however, seemed to arise out of a predetermined agenda to ridicule Obama, no matter what his position. That determination ultimately required faulting Obama for backing the protesters, even though doing so was fully consistent with George W. Bush’s support for democracy crusaders the world over. The Freedom Agenda does not contain an exception for cases where the Muslim Brotherhood is present. Perhaps you criticized the Freedom Agenda and Bush’s Second Inaugural at the time; if so, I apologize for missing your commentary.

    To be sure, the Obama administration’s position was anything but clear and consistent. I don’t find such hesitation surprising, given the rapidly changing events on the ground and the painful choice forced on the American government between our oft-expressed commitment to the spread of freedom and our desire for a stable Middle Eastern Arab ally. I am by no means confident that a Republican president would have handled the Egyptian crisis with any less tentativeness—or that his final position would have been any different than Obama’s.

    The Republican elected leadership, to its credit, has supported Obama’s efforts to chart a reasonable course through this moral and political morass and has not sought to score political points off of the administration’s obvious (and unavoidable) diplomatic struggles.

    But I know that you have only the best interests of the country at heart.

    Thank you again for your input. Heather

  5. DavidS64 says:

    Heather correctly points out, in her response to Mark Levin’s comment, that “The Republican elected leadership, to its credit, has supported Obama’s efforts.”

    This is certainly true. Unfortunately, there is a sort of schizophrenia that exists on the right, where elected Republicans say one thing, while the “entertainment-oriented” Republicans (by which I mean Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, Coulter, Malkin, Breitbart, etc., etc.) say something else.

    I believe this schizophrenia is entirely intentional. The Obama-haters just want to disapprove of what he does. Whatever he does. No details required. It’s the same crowd that supported everything that “W” did, once again, no details required.

    That is how we are left with the curious situation in which those people who defended (for example) the PATRIOT act, and insisted that the loss of freedoms suffered under that act was worth the increase in security, are now the VERY SAME HYPOCRITES who insist that Obama is “taking our freedom away”, despite the fact that they are unable to point to a single “freedom” that they have lost!

  6. Martin Morgan says:

    “You’re making an ass of yourself.”

    I’ll defer to your expertise.

  7. Jerry says:

    “I am grateful that you took the time to post your comments on his site. I certainly do listen to your show, and I recommend that others do as well.
    It has been a privilege to have been one of your guests.”

    One question to Heather Mac Donald. How an you stand
    to be among these creatures?

    Your overall point is well taken. The automatic rejection of
    everything Obama, however, is to be expected. To do otherwise
    is to risk flying in the face of everything that is RNC/ FNC.

    I hear a lot of talk about the treatment Bush received at the
    hands of democrats. What would the republican response be
    if Obama lost the 08 popular vote and was installed by virtue
    of a Supreme Court decision? What would be the reaction of
    those in the south to such an event?

    The right wing reality distortion field is indeed something to behold.

    I guess I’m a cautious admirer of Jim Manzi who took Levin
    to the cleaners. I hope there are more like him whose
    mortgage do not depend on what Levin thinks of them.

Comments are closed.