Join 3,561 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


What George W.'s speech could have been
December 2, 2001 3:37 PM   Subscribe

What George W.'s speech could have been but wasn't - from adbusters.org
posted by stevengarrity (23 comments total)

 
That's terrific. Now they should rewrite the Gettysburg address and a host of other speeches to improve on them too. What, exactly, is the point of this? Any speech could be improved with the hindsight of history.

(Not that I'm comparing any of Bush's utterances to the Gettysburg Address, mind you.)
posted by yerfatma at 3:55 PM on December 2, 2001


Sorry, but no thank you
posted by Mack Twain at 4:00 PM on December 2, 2001


Sorry, but this is old hat.
posted by ed at 4:07 PM on December 2, 2001


Thanks, stevengarrity.

If that had been the speech we heard, 9/11 truly could have been a turning point in global cooperation and international peace-keeping efforts. Alas, to no surprise, another path was chosen, a decision which I still hope the world will recover from.
posted by mapalm at 4:38 PM on December 2, 2001


Any speech could be improved with the hindsight of history.

I think you've missed the point. adbusters wasn't trying to improve on his original speech, but rather to present choices the president could have made in the interest of humanity but didn't in the interest of reelection.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:46 PM on December 2, 2001


A U.N. force and international tribunal?

How much longer are we going to have to listen to this kind of bullshit? The U.N. is nice for feeding (some) people and as a way for nations to officially state their public positions to one another, but they are NOT some kind of ultra-national police or military force. In fact, their record at preventing or solving problems is abysmal. The only thing worse than a world without the U.N. is one where we look to the U.N. to solve large problems.

The U.N. has no authority. In fact, I recall that the U.N. is an appointed body, and most of the appointments were made by oppresive governments that are quite hostile to the very core ideals of democracy and republic. Consider that fact the next time you consider asking to U.N. to decide anything.

No, I'm not one of those "U.S.A. out of the U.N.!" types. It does have uses, some of them very good ones. But it should never be used as a government or military force until it is comprised of nations that actually follow the ideas of democracy and democratic representation instead of simply mouthing the ideas when convenient.
posted by hadashi at 4:58 PM on December 2, 2001


What, exactly, is the point of this?

The point is to express our displeasure of our leader. His lack of leadership, lack of inspiration and lack of sound decision making.
posted by fleener at 5:18 PM on December 2, 2001


If memory serves, Syria, clearly a terroirst supporting state on our list of terror states, now has a place on the revolving chair at the Security Council. and Israel is not allowed an opportunity to take a turn at this. And there are some 21 Arab/muslim states that are at best luke-warm on Bin Laden and they have lots of votes at UN.
The terror guys did not steer a plane into the UN building. They struck our building, killed many people, and have cells in many countries. The UN is to go into some 40 states to clear up the cells?
Just a stupid speech that does not confront the horror of the reality of the attack.
posted by Postroad at 5:34 PM on December 2, 2001


That wasn't Monday morning quarterbacking, now was it? Nope, George Bush sure as hell didn't do any of those things that Adbusters thinks he could have or should have done.

But, guess what? Al Gore wouldn't have said those things -- Ralph Nader more than likely, but not a mainstream pol like Al Gore. The fact of the matter is that the nation was not interested in temporizing about international cooperation and pathways to global peace. They had drawn our blood and their blood in return seemed the only sensible path to take.

BTW, the majority of the American people still agree with the path taken. That must rankle the hell out of the Ad Buster crowd.
posted by MAYORBOB at 5:36 PM on December 2, 2001


BTW, the majority of the American people still agree with the path taken.

it should also be noted that the majority of american people still like michael jackson, boy bands, and bad 80s cartoons.
posted by mcsweetie at 5:39 PM on December 2, 2001


What, exactly, is the point of this?

I posted the link to start discussion. I think there are a lot of people in the U.S. (I'm in Canada, btw) who wish that George's speech had've been more like this one.

Regardless of your opinion of the content of George's speech (the original, that is), though, you have to admit that it was incredibly skillfully written and very well delivered (especially for george, who tends to come across as a dolt on TV). I watched in awe of the team of speechwritters who must have laboured over every word. The presidential PR marchine, for better or for worse, was working at peak effectiveness that day.

BTW, the majority of the American people still agree with the path taken. That must rankle the hell out of the Ad Buster crowd.

Good point. You are right on here.
posted by stevengarrity at 5:39 PM on December 2, 2001


Chalk me up as a 'not thanks' too. God that rewrite was poor, and misinformed. The UN angle doesn't even begin to fly. It is not, never has been, and never will be, their remit to launch all out offensives.
posted by RobertLoch at 5:50 PM on December 2, 2001


BTW, the majority of the American people still agree with the path taken. That must rankle the hell out of the Ad Buster crowd.

Count me in with that majority, and I'm glad to know that I've got a part in rankling the hell out of the Ad Busters crowd. Next time I'm feeling down, I'll just think about that and smile :)
posted by tomorama at 6:20 PM on December 2, 2001


In other news, America dropped its trousers and issued a call to all nations to "smack the hell out of our emasculated fannies, cause we been real bad".
posted by owillis at 6:27 PM on December 2, 2001


My god, it's like a late-nite call to Sports Radio!
posted by jaysoucy at 6:28 PM on December 2, 2001


A US force and military tribunal?

How much longer are we going to have to listen to this kind of bullshit? The US is nice for feeding (some) people and as a way for the power elite to state its public opposition to the world, but it is NOT some kind of ultra-national police or military force. In fact, their record at preventing or solving problems is abysmal. The only thing worse than a world without the US is one where we look to the US to solve large problems.

The US has no authority. In fact, I recall that the US is one nation in nearly 200, and most of the administrations were run as interventionist military states that are quite hostile to the very core ideals of democracy and republic. Consider that fact the next time you consider asking the US to decide anything.

No, I'm not one of those "Take down the US!" types. It does have uses, some of them very good ones. But it should never be used as a military force until it is run by people that actually follow the ideas of democracy and democratic representation instead of simply mouthing the ideas when convenient.
posted by raaka at 7:02 PM on December 2, 2001


p.s. Both the orginal and my parody are flawed.
posted by raaka at 7:04 PM on December 2, 2001


> p.s. Both the orginal and my parody are flawed.

Very good, though. It does point out a number of the problems that U.S. administrations have had, including the large problem of our support for non-democratic governments when it is convenient for us. Guilty as charged.

You will note that it does not in any way refute my condemnation of the U.N.
posted by hadashi at 7:38 PM on December 2, 2001


Every multinational peacekeeping effort has failed, for the most part. It's us or it's no one. I'm happy with the way things are going, although I do wish they'd stop overusing our air superiority.
posted by SpecialK at 10:25 PM on December 2, 2001


I don’t want my last post on the site to be completely negative. hadashi, I think the crux of your argument is that UN reps are appointed and that there is no enforcement mechanism. Both are true. Since UN proclamations are almost exclusively directed at government action, governments would prefer there not be an enforcement mechanism. None of them want to be shackled by international opinion, regardless of the opinion's merit.

Compare the UN with trade organizations. All reps are appointed (some countries easily describable as "oppressive" and "hostile"), but the enforcement mechanisms in the latter are binding. It's worth assuming, then, that those most affected by international trade arrangements (huge businesses) want to be rewarded after rulings come down. In effect, someone will pay. (As it turns out, one group that can be forced to pick up the tab is taxpayers.)

p.s. The adbuster's speech is okay, except for the hawks/doves stuff. You don't want to be decisive when you try to bring people together. (The same goes for Bush's "you're with us or against us" nonsense.)
posted by raaka at 3:19 AM on December 3, 2001


Ironically, that probably would have been close to the speech Gore would have made. Which is why Bush just barely won over Gore nationwide - and why in states like Texas he won by a landslide. Shrub has the stomach for the death penalty. Gore does not.

However, what this speech asks for has already been going on. Diplomacy out the ass. We have turned the other cheek repeatedly. Terrorists do not understand the language of peace. They are like spoiled bratty children having a temper tantrum in a supermarket because they don't get their way. These bastards are grammar school bullies. Pure and simple. Waving the flag of diplomacy has cost enough lives in the past decade. Never again.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:59 PM on December 3, 2001


I think what annoys me the most about adbusters is that they bitch and moan about everything that's wrong with this world, but they barely make a half-assed attempt to actually come up with a suitable alternative. It's as if they're some kind of subversive propaganda campaign designed to subtly undermine American society. Make us realize our decadence and impurity from a sarcastic, humorous standpoint. I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam himself funds the damn thing.

As if decadence and impurity were bad things. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 6:09 PM on December 3, 2001


Ironically, that probably would have been close to the speech Gore would have made. Which is why Bush just barely won over Gore nationwide - and why in states like Texas he won by a landslide. Shrub has the stomach for the death penalty. Gore does not.

Neither Al Gore, Bill Clinton or any president with an ounce of sanity or pride would have given such a putrid speech. A good portion of us Democrats are not total wimps capitulating to the whims of the guilt-ridden left.

Nationwide (popular vote), Gore beat Bush. Bush "won" the electoral college.

Gore supports the death penalty.
posted by owillis at 6:45 PM on December 3, 2001


« Older Your Brain on God....  |  John C. Lilly's intellectual p... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments