Bravo, President Bush!

September 20, 2001 6:44 PM

Bravo, President Bush! He hit the mark with this speech, correctly identifying the stakes, the principles, and the risks. More: he was passionate, feeling, and genuine. Did he win over any critics?
posted by davidmsc (197 comments total)

he's been getting better, hasn't he? A nice mix of feeling and tip toeing carefully on dangerous ground..
posted by Mossy at 6:49 PM on September 20, 2001

Credit where it's due. He did very well...
posted by Opus Dark at 6:50 PM on September 20, 2001

Good speech, but i still get the feeling that he takes a nap while the adults work on the problem.
posted by jbou at 6:51 PM on September 20, 2001

I concur. I think he handled himself as well as could be expected. Ditto on the "credit where it's due."
posted by donkeyschlong at 6:52 PM on September 20, 2001

No. I'm still scared to death, even more scared than I was before he spoke.

My husband was at work with the radio on in the other room. He pointed out how much Bush's rhetoric, if you're not looking at him, and especially in the tone of this speech, sounds very Reagan-esque. That doesn't make me feel comfortable. That tone doesn't convey passion. It hardly sounds genuine to me.

I'll be hiding under my bed for the next few years now if anyone wants me.
posted by likorish at 6:52 PM on September 20, 2001

Homeland Defense! Make sure you have your papers ready folks.
posted by @homer at 6:54 PM on September 20, 2001

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I was a fan of that speech.
posted by jragon at 6:55 PM on September 20, 2001

Well done — his speechwriters have outdone themselves. Put me in the "critics won over" column, for tonight anyhow.
posted by barkingmoose at 6:55 PM on September 20, 2001

I'm a critic...and he won me over.
My fav line went something to the effect, "terrorism will follow fascism, nazism, and totalitarianism into history's unmarked grave of discarded lies"
posted by vito90 at 6:55 PM on September 20, 2001

Terrific speech, much more confident than any other I've seen him give. The speechwriter did a great job of lining up the right points, and Bush did an excellent job delivering it -- with the minor exception of a couple moments when he looked all folksy and homespun. Even the fact that he looked on the verge of tears the whole time worked.

(Asides: Rumsfeld looks like a Dick Tracy character; Schumer claps funny; the seats in the balcony must be very narrow -- Giuliani and Pataki looked like they were sitting on each other's laps; Bush did a much better job than either Daschle or Lott did.)
posted by crabwalk at 6:56 PM on September 20, 2001

When he was talking about the mother who gave him her son's police badge... That definitely felt genuine.

He also made sure to stress that Arab/Muslim people are Americans and America's friends.

Both decent things to do.
posted by Stuart_R at 6:56 PM on September 20, 2001

Not a fan of Bush (in the old US), but I thought the speech correctly addressed the situation and some of the concerns I have had in the past few days.
posted by QrysDonnell at 6:56 PM on September 20, 2001

I made a point of not listening. I am tired of empty rhetoric. If called up (it won't happen in my case) I would want to know what countries the govt had in mind, what they planned and how long they were planning for.
The days of listening to a guy(s) who managed to avoid Viet Nam, with a VP who also managed, give us a chargewhy we or our children should go is, well, a bit behind me.
I want to see the Heads of intelligence all fired. There were at least a minium of threee separatw warning and all came at about the same time, or fairly close together. And nothing happened. Incredible.
I wish the pres well. I support our govt. And we did take a beating, for sure. I am also saddened by the self lacerating types who pound the drum about what a terrible country we are.
We have been shits from time to time. But we did win WWII and bropught democracy to any number of places that never had it.
posted by Postroad at 6:57 PM on September 20, 2001

He seemed a little too overjoyed by the applause for my taste. His eyes kept darting around admiring the level of support, in a "oh what a lucky man I am" sort of way.

And he is.

Gore must be re-gnashing his teeth. Perhaps the new beard is intended to hide the envy-ridden stumps.

But, be fair, Bush was way more patient and calm than we feared - he did approve the speechwriter's text, after all! - and his simplicity could well be a real asset.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:57 PM on September 20, 2001

I have been a Bush critic until that moment, where he stood on the rubble that was the WTC and spoke from the heart, to the rescuers. Tonight was truly an historic moment. Call Bush what you will, he is rising to the challenge.
posted by saturn5 at 6:59 PM on September 20, 2001

If u had to elect a president today would u vote for Dubya or Clinton or insert candidate here???????????????
posted by jbou at 6:59 PM on September 20, 2001

as a strong critic of president bush, i think it was a strong speech and a much needed one for the country. " We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail..." dubya became the President of the United States tonight.
posted by jonmarkle at 7:00 PM on September 20, 2001

I've learned over the past few months that (a) Bush is a horrible extemporaneous speaker, and (b) he's even worse and nonverbal cues. That said, this was a magnificent speech.

"We have no closer ally than Great Britain."
Take that, Canada!
posted by arco at 7:00 PM on September 20, 2001

Excellent speech and a great delivery. I thought he laid out his position well.
posted by bjgeiger at 7:00 PM on September 20, 2001

Vito90, I'm with you...that part really got to me. I've never been a Bush fan, but tonight he did it right.
posted by airgirl at 7:01 PM on September 20, 2001

Count me in the credit-where-due camp. Not offering panaceas, a good mix of directness and emotion. I liked it. Especially the bit about following the line of Nazism and totalitarianism to its end, in the unmarked grave of history.

jbou - the President can't work on the problem. There are too many problems, and they require too much obscure knowledge. No President can do this. All the President can do is manage the people who work on the problems for him, and communicate with the public and other leaders. It seems like he's doing a reasonably good job of this.
posted by jaek at 7:01 PM on September 20, 2001

"We have no closer ally than Great Britain." Way to reassert the ole "special relationship." TR would be proud.
posted by jonmarkle at 7:02 PM on September 20, 2001

Quite simply the best speech by any American president in my lifetime. I'm very impressed.
posted by wdeep at 7:04 PM on September 20, 2001

In a time of national emergency, the President can go up there and say "ABCDEFG!' and the nation would cheer.

That being said, he did a good job. I especially thought when he pulled out the badge of the NYPD officer and holding it in his hand was an excellent gesture, and it seemed, and I have every reason to expect it was, real.
posted by brucec at 7:04 PM on September 20, 2001

I would vote for guiliani.

this is the first speech of bush's I've seen since the election was decided, and I was underwhelmed, but I haven't his previous performance to compare him to.

does "homeland defense" sound like nazis to anyone else? or orwell? it just scares the stuff out of me, the name conjures up some terrible images to me.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:05 PM on September 20, 2001

Homeland Defense! Make sure you have your papers ready folks.

Yep. That sounds very Orwellian. Also, I noticed he talks a lot about freedom, yet he says nothing about preserving freedom when he says things like "we will give law enforcement the tools needed to fight terrorism". I'm afraid all of his talk about freedom is just bluster, when in fact we will be forced (not asked) to give up quite a bit of freedom & privacy in the name of fighting terrorism.

On the other hand, I'll echo what others have said and mention that I was happy to hear him talk about how Arabs/Muslims are not the enemy. I was also happy that he also didn't try to pretend that terrorists attack solely because they "hate freedom", as he has done before. He actually admitted that our support of Israel and Saudi Arabia are (part of) what motivates them.
posted by Potsy at 7:05 PM on September 20, 2001

jaek- Clinton knew what was going on everywhere and had solutions Bush is clueless but he hired Colin Powell and I am GRATEFUL for that.
posted by jbou at 7:05 PM on September 20, 2001

His eyes kept darting around admiring the level of support, in a "oh what a lucky man I am" sort of way.

I noticed that as well. Perhaps he finally feels like he has some legitimacy.

Competent speech, with a couple of spots that exceeded competence. Adequate delivery, but exceptional for Bush. All pretty much meaningless, though necessary. It's what comes next that will count.
posted by rushmc at 7:05 PM on September 20, 2001

does "homeland defense" sound like nazis to anyone else?

Only every time I hear it.
posted by rushmc at 7:06 PM on September 20, 2001

wdeep: how long exactly has your lifetime lasted up till now?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:07 PM on September 20, 2001

I've never supported Bush or the way he was elected, but that speech made me glad it was his team facing this crisis rather than Gore's. I thought the speech made critical points aside from the rallying calls that you knew were coming: the discussion of Islam, the respect for other countries' losses, the call for tolerance in the U.S. Suggestions of policy aside, it was also an extremely well-structured and well-written speech. The "unmarked grave" line in particular knocked me out of the park. (As a Canadian, I thought calling the UK your country's truest friend was a bit of a surprise kick in the pants, but we'll live.) A memorable night. But good lord, did you see that crowd? President, Congress, Cabinet, Supreme Court, Guiliani, Pataki. Can you imagine the security?
posted by Yogurt at 7:07 PM on September 20, 2001

He's never sounded better than he just did. I just hope he keeps it up.
posted by moses at 7:07 PM on September 20, 2001

This was the only speech by a President that had riveted me from start to finish. Most speeches have me dozing off after the first major point has been made.
posted by catatonic at 7:08 PM on September 20, 2001

jbou - like firing cruise missiles at Sudanse pharmaceutical factories? I dunno. Clinton never had to face any problem as severe as this.

Re: homeland defense. It's an unfortunate name. But assuming for a second that the cabinet position is needed (I'm unconvinced) what else are you going to call it? Civil Defense? Maybe...
posted by jaek at 7:09 PM on September 20, 2001

Is anyone thinking the ubiquitous use of "terrorism" sort of rendered it meaningless/ambiguous? In the speech, "terrorism " started to sound like this thing that we could go out and find and stop without hurting any nation of people or their government or their culture.
posted by katexmcfly at 7:10 PM on September 20, 2001

Bush really wasn't bad. In a way, there's something a bit more heroic about seeing an obviously ordinary man of average mien in this rather terrifying position. I can identify. I'd be a nervous fuckin wreck if I were in his position. Three hours of therapy a day.

Oh by the way -- unless I understand diplomatic rhetoric less well than I think I do, we did just declare war on the Taliban, didn't we?
posted by argybarg at 7:10 PM on September 20, 2001

rebecca:

The "Office of Homeland Defense" does indeed sound spooky. I'm not sure why we need it, and I can't quite fathom its positive PR value. Better, I suppose, than "Ministry of Information"?
posted by Opus Dark at 7:11 PM on September 20, 2001

In thirty minutes, the U.S. turned into Beirut. And Bush did a remarkable job hammering this home. He spoke in simple language to the American people, telling them exactly what they needed to hear and cutting straight to the chase, citing "evil" without concrete bases and yet without any flubs. In fact, this was probably the finest job I've seen him do since the third presidential debate, when he offered a compromise to Gore's stiff approach by taking himself to the town hall format as a layman. He hit all the points he needed to hit. But the speech was damned frightening in its implications.
posted by ed at 7:11 PM on September 20, 2001

Overlong, and rather mawkish at times, but he said what needed to be said amongst the flannel, and those fleeting Churchillisms are what'll be repeated on the news. (By comparison, FDR's speech to Congress in 1941 took about three minutes.)

Christopher Hitchens' comments ("a good speech, and well delivered") on BBC Radio 5, were noteworthy: that shooting bin Laden would be like killing his grandmother -- his influence has metastasised, a triumph of globalisation fuelled by "funny money".
posted by holgate at 7:11 PM on September 20, 2001

Wow, this was quick.

I liked the speech a lot. And let's not kid ourselves — he didn't write it. So, still the poor clown, in way over his head, in my opinion.

But it did address many things that needed addressing. Respect for the Afghan people, condemn only the Taliban and the terrorists they harbor...the use of intelligence, covert force. Terrorists perverted the peaceful teaching of Islam, respect for the Islamic faith...

Some of the warnings made me nervous as well — lengthy campaign, ground troops.

This metaphor was actually the one I rolled my eyes at:

history's unmarked grave of discarded lies

GAG.

Anyhow, I'm with most of you. I think this one was well done — balanced, moving, carefully calculated to hit the right note. Clintonesque. I'm applauding
posted by mirla at 7:12 PM on September 20, 2001

jaek-Didn't say Clinton didn't make any mistakes but I trust no politician but Bill is smart George is not! I'll take smart over stupid any day. Another point for everyone Bush still will push his agenda pre tragedy and use what happened to get his way.
posted by jbou at 7:14 PM on September 20, 2001

Oh yeah, and two other little things I noticed: 1) Probably the first time a President has mentioned a WWW address during a speech in front of Congress. 2) He always stumbles and mispronounces words near the beginning of his speeches. This time, "resolution" became "resolition". He really needs a diction coach.
posted by Potsy at 7:14 PM on September 20, 2001

while I will admit he did present himself exactly as he should have, and it was a good, strong, and necessary speech. I must also admit one thing stuck in my mind ...

the department of homeland defense.

I hope and pray this means better security for our nuclear plants, our harbors, and our infrastructure. I fear it will mean ID cards, broad wiretap powers, and intelligence work within the United States. Some of the more reactionary bits mentioned by Sec. Ashcroft earlier this week and things like Sen. Feinstein's co-sponsored amendment to the appropriations bill further hone this fear. The lack of even the slightest mention of Gov. Ridge's new department in all of the network coverage I saw makes me fear that still further. This is a big deal.

I wish the President well. I wish our war effort well.

I wish the state of American civil liberties well, too. All three of them will need our support in the coming years.
posted by foist at 7:14 PM on September 20, 2001

I didn't like it when he winked to his wife... it seemed to say, "Look at me, can you believe it?!?" That seemed a little inappropriate. Otherwise, I give him two thumbs up, not only for a great speech, but for resisting the phrase, "Make no mistake..."
posted by spilon at 7:14 PM on September 20, 2001

I'm no Bush fan, but this was really the first time I've seem him speak where he actually looked like he was comprehending the words coming out of his mouth. Usually when a he sees a big word coming he does one of those big spelling bee pauses and then annunciates the word slowly as not to bungle it, but tonight he handled all sorts of big words.

I agree that the line about the Nazis, et. al and the policeman's badge were nice touches, but on the minus side, he still references faith in religion (as opposed to say humanity) for my taste, especially the closing line about G-d favoring good over evil
posted by alexg23 at 7:15 PM on September 20, 2001

I made a point of listening.. isn't NOT listening part of what brought on this tragedy in the first place? I heard the most memorable and reassuring speech ever...
posted by Kami at 7:16 PM on September 20, 2001

Actually, alexg23, can we call Bush on invoking Godwin's Law for that Nazi comment?
posted by holgate at 7:17 PM on September 20, 2001

Anyone know where I can find a stream of the speech? I found a transcription over here, but I'd like to see it, too.
posted by arielmeadow at 7:17 PM on September 20, 2001

"Another point for everyone Bush still will push his agenda pre tragedy and use what happened
to get his way."

jbou, I think that's something that all Democrats and people who oppose Bush's domestic actions are concerned about, but its just can't be considered at this point. You have to have some belief in voters, that they won't tolerate him moving a foriegn policy crisis into insistence on unrelated domestic policy items.
posted by brucec at 7:22 PM on September 20, 2001

Oh, this line deserves much praise:

Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives and hug your children.

More Clinton than Churchill, but exactly what needed to be said.
posted by holgate at 7:22 PM on September 20, 2001

that speech made me glad it was his team facing this crisis rather than Gore's

yogurt: I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but gore's reaction wouldn't be any different than bush's has been. not one bit. the team would be different (not that they can't call *anyone* in the US for their opinion when they need to) but the response would basically have been the same.

sabre-rattling for the last week yields to unpleasant facts about the people/history/terrain of afghanistan and the nature of terrorism itself, yields to "we have to do something!, yields to what we had set before us tonight.

I did notice that, while unwilling to pull bin Laden out of the picture, the bush administration is now pointing the finger at Al-Qaeda and suggesting his leadership of that group. this is smart, as it allows them to name someone else as the mastermind, should their facts or predilections point them in a different direction.

argybarg: unless I understand diplomatic rhetoric less well than I think I do, we did just declare war on the Taliban, didn't we?

no, we gave them a choice again, and very publicly: turn him over or else. we also put every other country in the world on notice as well.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:24 PM on September 20, 2001

but for resisting the phrase, "Make no mistake...

YES!
posted by rushmc at 7:24 PM on September 20, 2001

Good speech; God bless America.
posted by Oxydude at 7:24 PM on September 20, 2001

I thought it was pretty repetitive, and while there were a few good points (be nice to Muslims, we don't want to destroy Afghanistan), through the whole thing I still was just wishing for a smarter president. Because even though *every* president basically has advisors telling him what to do, at least with a smart president you can assume he understands what those powerful people are doing, and maybe he'll tell you if it's appropriate. I always get the feeling after hearing Bush speak that he doesn't get half of what people tell him.
posted by jenwells at 7:25 PM on September 20, 2001

You were impressed by his words? His answer to "Why do they hate us" was pretty much a simple "they hate our freedoms." Of course, I really wasn't expecting him to mention U.S. foreign policy as one of the reasons for the hate.

I can't find the text of it now, but he mentioned the "swift conclusion" to the Persian Gulf war. I think many would disagree with the success of the supposed conclusion.

And I'd still like to know what he considers to be terrorism. He did make at least one reference to "terrorists with a global reach" which I guess narrows it down somewhat. We're not gonna go after the IRA or KKK.
posted by gluechunk at 7:25 PM on September 20, 2001

"Homeland Defense" is a term that has been used within the Department of Defense for several years; initially it focused primarily (but not solely) on the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons being deployed within our borders; in light of recent events, however, the term has broadened to encompass...well, literally, homeland defense. To those who question the term, or feel that it is "Orwellian" in some way...can you think of a better term to sum up the challenge & the mission facing us? But, like jaek, I am not entirely sure that an entirely new cabinet-level position is needed. After all, isn't that what the Department of Defense is for?

potsy: we will be forced (not asked) to give up quite a bit of freedom... Please tell me exactly what freedoms you are referring to. I am genuinely at a loss to provide an example. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is additional time & inconvenience if/when I must travel by air, but that is hardly the loss of a freedom, in my estimation. Elaboration, please...?
posted by davidmsc at 7:26 PM on September 20, 2001

It's not "Homeland Defense." It's "Homeland Security." Is that less Nazi-like for you?
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:27 PM on September 20, 2001

Yogurt: "...glad it was his team facing this crisis rather than Gore's."

My thoughts, as well. I was not thrilled with the end result of the 'election,' but when I saw Gore sitting with everyone else at the National Cathedral, I couldn't help but feel somewhat relieved that Bush is at the helm.

Obviously, at 23, I've never experienced an event like what is anticipated to come in the following days/weeks. I have no ability to compare this situation with previous occurances. But I can tell you that since 9/11, I have never felt so many [positive] chills up my back in response to the words of an American president. I feel reassured and confident in the anticipation of success.
posted by Hankins at 7:27 PM on September 20, 2001

brucec-I see it happening already , cutting capital gains will not stimulate investment it will make it easier for the rich to ride stock waves without feeling the pinch of a tax. You see his agenda being pushed on Fox news and through the wall street journal and other conservative rags. The politicians can't stop being what they are no matter what is happening.
posted by jbou at 7:28 PM on September 20, 2001

But rebeccablood is right: "heimat" = "homeland".
Home is home; land is land and never the twain should meet.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:29 PM on September 20, 2001

Good to see Tony Blair, but with so much standing and clapping, he probably missed hitting the pub before last call.
posted by hellinskira at 7:30 PM on September 20, 2001

"In Afghanistan we see Al Qaeda's vision for the world....You can be jailed for owning a television."
It doesn't get any more un-American than that!
posted by fresh-n-minty at 7:30 PM on September 20, 2001

"homeland" sounds like a quaint British parliamentary term. CHILL OUT.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:30 PM on September 20, 2001

If you were looking for a "Date That Will Live In Infamy" kind of speech, this wasn't it. Speeches written for modern times will probably never be able to employ the rhetorical devices of the past with any effectiveness because we have deconstructed political language so thoroughly.

I thought Bush was alternatingly strong and weak. He just is not a good public speaker. This same speech out of the mouth of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton would have had 'em rallying in the streets. Bush did the best he was going to be able to do, which is to say mostly okay.

This speech certainly did not make me feel any better about what the U.S. government is about to try to do, did not give me any more confidence in Bush's leadership ability, but did convince me that there is a great deal of political will to do something, which has not been the case at other moments of crisis in recent history.

I am deeply disturbed by the very notion of an "Office of Homeland Security". It practically screams "Gestapo!" I hope it has less of a shelf-life than the "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives".
posted by briank at 7:33 PM on September 20, 2001

"homeland" sounds like a quaint British parliamentary term. CHILL OUT.

Not really: it makes me think of the bantustans.
posted by holgate at 7:33 PM on September 20, 2001

"In Afghanistan we see Al Qaeda's vision for the world....You can be jailed for owning a television."

It doesn't get any more un-American than that!

Amen, fresh-n-minty! I laughed at that one too.
posted by arielmeadow at 7:33 PM on September 20, 2001

It's not "Homeland Defense." It's "Homeland Security." Is that less Nazi-like for you?

No, in fact it is even worse.
posted by briank at 7:36 PM on September 20, 2001

Please tell me exactly what freedoms you are referring to. I am genuinely at a loss to provide an example. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is additional time & inconvenience if/when I must travel by air, but that is hardly the loss of a freedom, in my estimation. Elaboration, please...?

Davidmsc, I know you've been around here in the last week, so I assume that you're just needling on a point, but if you are truly curious, much has already been written in these two threads. Those and about a hundred others recently...
posted by fooljay at 7:36 PM on September 20, 2001

In other news, MetaTalk is being re-named MetaFilter Security.
posted by gluechunk at 7:38 PM on September 20, 2001

Brace yourselves for Holy Motherland coming next.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:38 PM on September 20, 2001

Homeland Defense does sound spooky and completely unnecessary. There's already a little something called the National Security Council... you can read all about it here.
posted by Chairman_MaoXian at 7:41 PM on September 20, 2001

Whoa...lighten up, fooljay. It was an honest question; haven't read any specific threads or reports re: loss of freedoms. Will check the threads you referenced.
posted by davidmsc at 7:41 PM on September 20, 2001

"Office of Homeland Security" Hmm. Maybe a lightning rod to collect and explain away complaints about the host of intrusions Mr. Ashcroft seems so eager to inflict? That way, "real" government officials won't have to keep wiping distracting accusations off of their lapels...
posted by Opus Dark at 7:43 PM on September 20, 2001

davidmsc, I wasn't being "heavy". Only informative... :-)
posted by fooljay at 7:44 PM on September 20, 2001

Brace yourselves for Holy Motherland coming next.

Next to Dollywood, right?

It's HOMELAND SECURITY, people. Not Homeland Defense.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:44 PM on September 20, 2001

Mo:

Your html roar looks disturbingly like a 40s propaganda sign. Should I salute or something?
posted by Opus Dark at 7:47 PM on September 20, 2001

In an effort to avoid further clutter on the front page, here's a story about the speech at the Flyers-Rangers game.
posted by Mrmuhnrmuh at 7:51 PM on September 20, 2001

Hokay, fooljay. :-) right back at ya. Peace.

Read the two threads you referenced, and while I understand a bit more, I remain unconvinced that Americans will "lose" any of their freedoms...but perhaps I'm too gullible for my own good.
posted by davidmsc at 7:52 PM on September 20, 2001

Hokay, fooljay. :-) right back at ya. Peace.

Read the two threads you referenced, and while I understand a bit more, I remain unconvinced that Americans will "lose" any of their freedoms...but perhaps I'm too gullible for my own good.
posted by davidmsc at 7:52 PM on September 20, 2001

:::sings::: Bless my homeland for-ev-er! ("Edelweiss")
posted by rushmc at 7:52 PM on September 20, 2001

I might name it: Home Security or Home Defense, which *does* sound quaint and British to my ear. in any case, I think the current name is unfortunate.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:54 PM on September 20, 2001

Gluechunk, I'm sorry, the article you link to on Foreign Policy reads more like an opinion piece than serious news. Going on about Israeli's occupying this, Israeli's occupying that, killing this, killing that--do they do that stuff? Sure.

But where are the all of the quotes from the speeches from leaders of the Arab world grandstanding with statements about the final destruction of Israel, and all of the terrorist attacks that kill innocent Israeli's day in and day out.

Is this the current Arab's fault the Middle East is like it is? No. Is it the current Israeli's? No. Is it ours? Most definately not.

This started back long before most all of us were born, and now we're there trying to help _both_ sides. The terrorists simply believe if we got our noses out of their business, Israel would crumble under their assault. I'm sorry, but 1967 anyone? If we allowed the Six Days War to happen because we armed the Israelis, we did it because Nasser was busy preaching to the world of the hell fire that would engulf Tel Aviv as soon as he got a chance.

We do our best to hold Israel back as well--our policy in the middle east is designed to protect _everyone_. If the leaders of countries like Afghanistan, Syria, Lenanon and the like could only come to terms with that fact.

We have repeatedly sued for peace in the region, to no avail. The extremist terrorist groups generally do not want peace with Israel, they want absolute destruction of Israel, and that is something we will not support. I'm sorry, but there has to be a fair and equitable solution to all of this, and the "destruction of Israel" is neither.
posted by Swifty at 7:54 PM on September 20, 2001

I listened to the speech on the radio because I'm at work and as far as the speech goes, it was a good piece of work by someone.

Listening to a speech is very different than watching it.

It hit most of the points it I expected it to hit but this will not be remembered as a classic or anything like that.

Bush, though, can't even scare his own kids and he sounds silly when he hands out threats.He's about as convincing as Robert Downey Jr.

Bush is greedy often when he speaks.

When he makes a good point, he then proceeds to overshadow it by trying to get fancy, and he doesn't have the depth for that.

I support the mission (for now), but they're crazy if they think Americans are going to wait for "years" for satisfaction on this matter.

We "won't see" what's going on often?Now how long do you think that is going to last?Heck, the media alone won't let that go for long, let alone the taxpayers.

He is incredibly vague when talking about what the objective is here.

Eliminate terrorism entirely? Worldwide or where?Shit, do you people really believe that it can be eliminated worldwide?C'mon...

He has most people's support for now, but that's not going to last for very long, especially if the body bags start coming back in droves.

They expect us to fund an largely undescribed, unknown war against somebody, somewhere for "years", shit...uh uh..AND we're going to have to "give up...freedoms".

If we do something, it had better be front row center where everyone can see that we're actually accomplishing something worthwhile.

Spare us the "national security" argument.Many of us don't trust Bush on most things and he'll have to go all out to keep support together for this endeavor.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 7:55 PM on September 20, 2001

Hokay, fooljay. :-)right back at ya. Peace.

Read the two threads you referenced, and while I understand a bit more, I remain unconvinced that Americans will "lose" any of their freedoms...but perhaps I'm too gullible for my own good.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:56 PM on September 20, 2001

davidmsc:

The freedom he talked about refers to freedom for the Muslims in America, specially the Asian looking. My friend was called back from his seat for further security checkup and questioning by the FBI ppl at Atlanta airport just 2 days ago. Currently there are 125 people detained by INS. Not all of them will be without proper papers and surely, not one of them will be non "asian looking". I have to drive to another town. I will drive 10 miles/hr less than the limit. Because I dont want a stupid cop stopping me for speeding and then arresting me because I look Asian. Some cops stopped the cleric in our mosque because he looked like Osama Bin Laden. How stupid can that cop be ? paranoid u think ?
posted by adnanbwp at 7:57 PM on September 20, 2001

Clinton knew what was going on everywhere.

Wow. Was he omnipresent?

And let's not kid ourselves — he didn't write it.

And if clinton, gore, or john doe were president they wouldn't have written it either. Speech writers are a way of life. Kind of a mute point.

As for the speech itself, the fact that so many non-bush supporters have praised the speech shows it's, at the very least, his best speech.

It's also good to remember that no matter how good a speech he gave, some people would never give it a chance and would always be 'underwhelmed'. (just as some people refused to give clinton credit for anything). Take away the fringe, look to the middle, and the truth usually appears.
posted by justgary at 7:59 PM on September 20, 2001

justgary: I am not fringe, I'm about as mainstream as they come, except for my politics (which are moderate left--which *is* mainstream on the west coast) and my hair.

I was just not that impressed with him or with his words, that's all.

no need to discount those who disagree with you.
posted by rebeccablood at 8:01 PM on September 20, 2001

As soon as the speech was over, I was online and researching the process of becoming a conscientious objector or not registering for the draft at all. This will become an immeditate concern when I turn 18 in several months.
I hope whatever happens is over by then, but the main possiblity for _that_ occurring is a bit too horrible to contemplate.

As for dubya - he's gotten better on his delivery, especially with the one liners. But he's still not as good as clinton was.
posted by Ravagin at 8:03 PM on September 20, 2001

"...he does one of those big spelling bee pauses and then annunciates the word slowly as not to bungle it, but tonight he handled all sorts of big words. "

Me, I still find it amazing that when someone says something like this about the president of the most powerful nation on earth, as they justifiably should, no-one finds anything to argue with, or even blinks. It's just accepted.

Reminds me of the proud mom of an elementary school student, cooing over him after his/her first part in a school play.

Funny old world.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:03 PM on September 20, 2001

Davidmsc, I'm worried about freedom to exist and go about my life without being monitored and questioned every step of the way. I forsee national ID cards tied to biometric data such as DNA and fingerprints. I also forsee face-recognition cameras on every street corner, wiretaps on every phone, and government agencies reading every bit of data I send over the internet. In short, the government will start to keep a complete record of everything I do or say, which opens the door to all sorts of abuses. Starting with the government selling the data to private corporations for use in whatever discriminatory practices they wish to engage in.

I also forsee serious erosion of first and fourth amendment rights. Merely talking about mathematical encryption will likely land you in jail soon. The anti-flag burning amendment will probably sail through now. The police will likely gain power to hold people sans-arrest for a longer period of time than before, and will end up gettintg a near-blank check on search warrants in cases of "suspected terrorism", which they will no doubt abuse heavily. Street protests will be a thing of the past, as police can simply paint protestors with the "suspected terrorism" brush and have them summarily jailed just for trying to exercise their right to peacefully assemble.

I don't trust law enforcement in the US. As I've said before, I fear they are going to use 9/11 as an opening for a huge power grab, and our freedom will suffer as result.
posted by Potsy at 8:05 PM on September 20, 2001

Clinton knew what was going on everywhere.

Wow. Was he omnipresent?

Only if he kept up the pace on the cheeseburgers. Omniscient perhaps... ;-)
posted by fooljay at 8:06 PM on September 20, 2001

Ravagin: I know you said you are researching, but I just wanted to mention in case you don't find it. that regardless of any status you wish to claim in the event you are drafted--you are still compelled to register. When and if you are drafted, you may present evidence of your Conscientious Objector status to the draft board. It's a really big deal if they institute the draft and you have missed your registration deadline though.

Pacifist or not, I highly recommend everyone who missed (or who is about to become 18) registration to do so--regardless of their feelings on the upcoming conflict. Not wanting to fight a war you don't believe in is one thing--automatically becoming a felon because of it is just not worth it to me.
posted by Swifty at 8:08 PM on September 20, 2001

>"We have no closer ally than Great Britain."
>Take that, Canada!

Would that be geographically or emotionally? To find out just what (some) Americans know about Canada...look here...
posted by scotty at 8:10 PM on September 20, 2001

Okay, Potsy, I'll bite:

That's silly. What actually might happen is bad enough without getting overwrought.
posted by argybarg at 8:14 PM on September 20, 2001

I must say, I watched most of this one too. It seems that he is getting better at reading the prompters (those two plastic things flanking the podium that look like shields). His "non-cuecard" talk outside of the Pentagon last week was almost unwatchable. He never seemed to speak more than five syllables before pausing and saying "umm", almost as as though he was waiting for his next line. Maybe I've seen Wag The Dog too many times. I felt at any second he was going place his hand upon his ear while straining to hear his next line a little better. I mean, lets face it, here was the leader of the free world, the person the nation (and the world) is waiting to hear from, and he came off as wooden and not confident. At any rate, he will get better at these things, and tonight was a great example.

Two other points:

Was it just me, or did Senator Hillary look fairly, er, pissed off, whenever the camera caught her reactions?

Has anyone heard Bush use the word "strategy" recently? One would think that's a word that would be used frequently at times like this.
posted by sharksandwich at 8:14 PM on September 20, 2001

Hey folks, guess what...You (or someone, anyway) elected (appointed?) a group of opportunistic warmongers, and you just got your opportunistic war. I just hope ya'll weren't too attached to those pesky civil liberties.

"Bush said countries around the world would have to chose, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.""

Remember, folks. Dissent will not be tolerated.

At least they'll be spared the trouble of creating a Tass-style "Propaganda Agency", since CNN/Time-Warner seems to have volunteered for that job.
posted by Optamystic at 8:15 PM on September 20, 2001

Stavros, I have to agree with the "proud mom of an elementary school student" comment. I was just thrilled he got through it. But it was a well written speech, and made me feel better. Given how I've been feeling lately, I'll take it and thank him for making it through. I thought he did a good job of it, and the words were sorely needed. Just my two cents... Sure he threw down the gauntlet to some and it's scary...everything's scary these days. But it was a good speech.
posted by airgirl at 8:16 PM on September 20, 2001

Kind of a mute point.

That goes without saying.
posted by rodii at 8:23 PM on September 20, 2001

Dont' make me say it... MOOT point...sorry.
posted by airgirl at 8:24 PM on September 20, 2001

I liked his speech alot, and I was prepared not to, though. He said all the right things.

Actions speak far lounder, however.
posted by chaz at 8:25 PM on September 20, 2001

argybarg: "bite"?

And yes, it sounds silly -- until it happens. I'm sure "no knock" warrants sounded silly until they became commonplace.
posted by Potsy at 8:28 PM on September 20, 2001

I read the transcript, so I can't really comment on his delivery, but I thought overall it was a good speech. I'm terrified of what he's going to do--I think a war like this will end up being neither just nor effective, and I fear what may happen to our civil liberties at home--but I already could have assumed that he was going to be doing something like this. Keeping that in mind, he said exactly what needed to be said. He was very clear on who our enemies are (bin Laden, the Taliban) and who they are not (Islam, the people of Afghanistan, immigrants), and he made it clear that he understands, and that the American people should understand, that this war will not be easy or quick.
posted by moss at 8:30 PM on September 20, 2001

First prexy speech I've bothered to listen to all the way through. Not bad.
sharksandwich: Yeah, I'd like to have been able to lip-read what Hillary said--I think it was after he came out strong against the Taliban.
posted by phartizan at 8:34 PM on September 20, 2001

Prediction: In 25 years, the "Dept. of Homeland Security" will be the largest dept. of the executive branch.
posted by jamsterdam at 8:35 PM on September 20, 2001

does "homeland defense" sound like nazis to anyone else?

Sounds like Israel.
posted by jusx at 8:46 PM on September 20, 2001

"annunciates the word"

Tsk, tsk.
posted by EngineBeak at 8:46 PM on September 20, 2001

Better than I expected. I did find myself silently urging "please don't trip on your words, please don't trip on your words". His pronunciation of "terror" grated on me after a while, but that's a minor quibble. I think the repeated standing ovations seemed a bit over the top, but given the real intended audience for tonight's message, the visual impact of unanimous support made quite an impression.

Did anyone else notice Hillary's body language? She obviously seemed underwhelmed and desiring to be anywhere else at that moment. Bad, bad impression, IMHO.

A good speech, with a 8.5/10 for delivery, an 8.5 for composure (it seemed like he was constantly on the verge of breaking out into a full-tilt grin), 9/10 for speechwriting, 10/10 for enunciating the differences between Islam and extremism, 9/10 for total impact.

I didn't vote for him, and I've given him a lot of shit - and I still would like an explanation for the $43,000,000 Bush gave to the Taliban in May - but I have to say the speech left me with a sense of confidence. Even in the face of "eliminating terrorism".

Now if someone can just convince Bush to end the "War on Plants".
posted by tpoh.org at 8:47 PM on September 20, 2001

I don't get why everyone is cowering at the 'Homeland Security' thing.

USA = land = where we live (home).

Home-land. Homeland.

Would it have sounded better coming from Gore's mouth?
posted by chroma at 8:48 PM on September 20, 2001

I'm sorry, but I thought the speech was lame. I think it would have gone over equally well if a Disneyland audioanimatron had delivered it.
I admit it, I'm nostalgic for Bill Clinton. Lots of people hate him, and I have my differences with his policies, but he could inspire and electrify.
posted by Rebis at 8:53 PM on September 20, 2001

Americans will "lose" any of their freedoms...but perhaps I'm too gullible for my own good.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:56 PM PST on September 20

Americans will "lose" any of their freedoms...but perhaps I'm too gullible for my own good.
posted by davidmsc at 7:52 PM PST on September 20

davidmsc == MiguelCardoso?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:53 PM on September 20, 2001

Shrub gave the best speech of his (short) career. While I would no doubt prefer to see BillC or (Pres) Gorebot2001 up there, Bush has done a pretty good job with this crisis. I don't understand those of you who keep saying we're "rushing to judgement" though (sounds like the Taleban). Over 6,000 people are dead and we haven't fired a shot yet. Not one.

Homeland Security sounded a bit chilling to me as well, but truth be told - I would prefer the feds running a coordinated home defense effort as opposed to the idiot state governments. It remains to be seen how much power this cabinet position has.
posted by owillis at 8:58 PM on September 20, 2001

no need to discount those who disagree with you.

I wasn't referring to you in particular rebecca, I just used your choice of words.

As for fringe, I meant politics only, and I wasn't discounting any views. In fact, I agree with many of your points (on your site) I just think the answer to this whole mess is a mixture of the left and right, which puts you back in the middle.

I hate the idea of war, yet I think anyone who thinks this can be solved without violence (ie. bomb them with butter) is naive about the situation.

On the other hand, not looking at non-military aspects of the situation would also be a mistake imho.

Being in the middle doesn't make you wishywashy, it just opens your eyes to all possible choices, which hopefully leads you in the right direction.
posted by justgary at 8:58 PM on September 20, 2001

i am a critic and i thought it was a great speech. especially because he didn't use the term "evil-doers".
posted by jfirman at 8:59 PM on September 20, 2001

Bush will be a 2-term prez
posted by BlitzK at 9:07 PM on September 20, 2001

No convert here - Bush is still the little boy trying to play with the grown ups. So he can (barely) deliver a well-written speech? Big deal.

A question, though - do Bush supporters really believe that he is the one sitting in on policy meetings, pouring over intelligence reports, consulting with advisors, grappling with the big issues, and making the ultimate decisions? Do you honestly think that he is anything other than a front-man? Just curious.
posted by mapalm at 9:10 PM on September 20, 2001

here's the thing - the man may trip on words from time to time. the man may seem folksy and not terribly bright from time to time. the man may not deliver a rousing speech.

but - the man is the president of the united states.

anyone who would be the president at a time like this is under a tremendous amount of pressure, and i would like to see any of his detractors give a speech if they were in his position.

my guess is they would fail miserably.
posted by bwg at 9:17 PM on September 20, 2001

Has anyone heard Bush use the word "strategy" recently? One would think that's a word that would be used frequently at times like this.

I don't think he can pronounce it correctly.

And maybe they should come up with a synonym for "terror." Did anyone else think he was using the Latin for earth ("terra")?
posted by mapalm at 9:20 PM on September 20, 2001

I just watched Dubya's address on the Real feed on the NYT site. Even though it was undoubtedly a well written and well delivered speech, there was something very spooky about watching all these blurry, indistinguishable white faces clap their hands raw when Dubya "condemns the Taliban regime" and calls the terrorists "traitors to their own state".
posted by aeiou at 9:23 PM on September 20, 2001

anyone who would be the president at a time like this is under a tremendous amount of pressure, and i would like to see any of his detractors give a speech if they were in his position.

I am fairly confident any number of people on MeFi alone could give better speeches....And being under "tremendous pressure" does not release anyone from critical scrutiny.

Which brings me to Daschle and Lott's follow-up to Bush's speech: the most striking line was when Lott put into words what every pol (except Barbara Lee in CA) has been saying: "There is no opposition in America." Perhaps those folks on the Hill should spend a few moments on MeFi.
posted by mapalm at 9:24 PM on September 20, 2001

I support the mission (for now), but they're crazy if they think Americans are going to wait for "years" for satisfaction on this matter.

Then don't support it NOW. Don't wait. You said he wasn't very specific, but one thing he has indicated is this will take years to finish (if there is a finish). There's no reason to support it 'for now'. You should already be against it.

i would like to see any of his detractors give a speech if they were in his position.

Excellent point.

do Bush supporters really believe that he is the one sitting in on policy meetings, pouring over intelligence reports, consulting with advisors, grappling with the big issues, and making the ultimate decisions? Do you honestly think that he is anything other than a front-man? Just curious.

What's your proof that he doesn't? What would it take to change your opinion? I agree, a speech only proves so much. But if after 4 years if he's made great strides in this 'war', and the economy bounces back, would you change your opinion? Just curious.
posted by justgary at 9:26 PM on September 20, 2001

I guess it was a good speech. All the correct sound bites for the media.

My non-trusting nature has set of the alarms in my head. Homeland Defense does sound like "Your papers please."

I guess I have seen "Wag the Dog" too much as well, but, I couldn't help thinking that: the timing of this awful event couldn't have happened at a better time for Bush. Don't get me wrong. I don't really think that it was some conspiracy but Bush needed legitimacy and the economy was headed south and the congress was at each others throats all the time. Now he's(Bush) our guy! The tanking economy is the terrorists fault! And the congress is singing
"We are Family"

Not really trying to stir the pot. Just noticed some interesting coincidences.

I'm behind the Pres. for now and will take a wait and see attitude.
posted by bas67 at 9:27 PM on September 20, 2001

What's your proof that he doesn't? What would it take to change your opinion? I agree, a speech only proves so much. But if after 4 years if he's made great strides in this 'war', and the economy bounces back, would you change your opinion? Just curious.

No proof, just a sense that he does not have the mental capacity. Seems quite obvious to me, though I speak only for myself.
posted by mapalm at 9:30 PM on September 20, 2001

Hey, aaron, why resort to deprecation? I'm trying hard here to be level-headed. If you can't engage in a dialogue, then please don't bother responding. Thanks.
posted by mapalm at 9:31 PM on September 20, 2001

serious news coverage, say a TIME or Newsweek or New York Times

You may want to broaden your sources, aaron.

Ah, hell, what's the use...onto the next thread.
posted by mapalm at 9:34 PM on September 20, 2001

Mapalm, I'm not intentionally writing to try to piss you off, it's just that your posts are starting to go off the scale. If you want to criticize Bush, fine. But geez, can't it be something beyond the continuous insinuations that "This guy is too stupid to be anything but an automaton controlled by a backroom conspiracy" and "His speech patterns prove he's a moron"?
posted by aaron at 9:35 PM on September 20, 2001

I'm not intentionally writing to try to piss you off

I get the impression that you are. Best if we move on...Agreed?
posted by mapalm at 9:37 PM on September 20, 2001

Amazing. Bush just told you that he was handing the keys to the country over to the military-industrial complex, and the majority of you are cheering his "performance". We have an Oil Man and a Military/Oil man in the most powerful two spots in this country. And all of this "Unity" and "Rally Behind Our Flag" talk is govspeak for "shut up and do what we tell you."

I understand that emotions run high at a time like this, but listen to yourselves. And this is a largely "Left-leaning" community? Stop and think. Who benefits from a drawn-out war with no clearly defined goals? The people who make weapons, that's who. The massive, multinational aerospace, chemical, and "defense" companies that Cheney has spent his entire career serving. And those weapons cannot function without oil. And I think we all know where The Prez got his dough.


Oh, by the way, guess who gets screwed in that same scenario? Poor folks. Not a group that these guys have ever worried much about, if you remember the Gulf War. Poor kids dying, prices of necessities rising, all in the name of "bringing justice to the monsters that did this."

How's that Kool-Aid taste?

BTW: Eisenhower predicted this FORTY years ago. Beats that bullshit Nostrdamus spam all to hell.
posted by Optamystic at 9:40 PM on September 20, 2001

Thanks, Optamystic...I increasingly fall into the trap of deconstructing his damn speech, of all things, distracted from the true message, the sub-text, which you nailed.
posted by mapalm at 9:44 PM on September 20, 2001

"I am fairly confident any number of people on MeFi alone could give better speeches..."

that's a pretty arrogant thing to say.

And being under "tremendous pressure" does not release anyone from critical scrutiny.

i never said it did. but regardless of who is in the white house as president, the fact remains the pressure is there. it's real, and it's taxing to the system. every single president i've seen during my lifetime has left office looking a great deal older than they should look.

it's easy to sit back and pontificate about the president's mistakes, but let's face it - you would make them too were you in his shoes. bet on it.
posted by bwg at 9:47 PM on September 20, 2001

it's easy to sit back and pontificate about the president's mistakes, but let's face it - you would make them too were you in his shoes. bet on it.

Your point? That I should cut him some slack? Not a chance in hell.
posted by mapalm at 9:49 PM on September 20, 2001

The speech was well-written AND well-delivered, I have to admit, but I feel all the speechifying in the world isn't going to ease my worried mind about our future.

Isn't anyone but me a bit disturbed (no, let me rephrase: petrified) about the content of the speech, the as-yet undefined "war on terrorism?" I think that we all agree about the heinous nature of the crime, and the fact that we all would like to see justice meted out, but what exactly does "war on terrorism" mean?

We hear from the media that this new war will be protracted and difficult, but as of yet, we don't know where it will be fought, how it will be fought, what rights we retain and which we lose, or which countries will be included (or excluded). When we're done in Afghanistan, are we going to go to Chechnya to fight a battle on behalf of the Russians? How about Ireland, with our pal Blair?

Obviously, we won't engage in those countries--we will only engage in military actions in places where there are Middle Eastern/Islamic/Asian terrorists. I suspect this much: hypocrisy will still hold a significant place in our foreign policy after all is said and done.
posted by readymade at 9:50 PM on September 20, 2001

posted by el-cameljockey the hutt at 5:01 PM AST on September 20
posted by am-haveen hajama pyjamas at 5:13 PM AST on September 20

Uncalled for, Turtletail. Borderline racist remarks. (Let me be very clear here: I am calling these remarks borderline racist - not you, as I do not know you.)
posted by mapalm at 9:57 PM on September 20, 2001

There have been a lot of new words and phrases entering into mainstream vocabularies recently. Homeland security, material witness warrant (still haven't heard a media legal expert define that one correctly), Infinite Justice, jihad, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Carnivore.

I hope that as we grow more acquainted with these and other words that will spring forth, that we don't forget some of the words that have sustained us as a nation for 225 years. I know that some of them will take a beating, such as civil liberties, privacy, the right to assemble, the right to travel freely.

We need to be vigilant in defense of our country, in defense of our families and friends, and in defense of those who are in far away lands on our behalf. We must also remain vigilant against turning into a nation has stripped from it those rights and freedoms that we value most.

I think that Bush's words tonight addressed a lot of concerns that people may have had. But, as they couldn't help but doing, they raised a lot of new concerns in many's minds. Remember, government, at times may lead, but we are the ones who choose to follow. Just as we are learning a new set of words, let's keep some of those other phrases that we value so much in our hearts, and in our voices.
posted by bragadocchio at 10:05 PM on September 20, 2001

Uncalled for, Turtletail. Borderline racist remarks.

second.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:07 PM on September 20, 2001

Bush will be a 2-term prez

That's what people were saying about George Sr. during Desert Storm.
posted by omen68x at 10:16 PM on September 20, 2001

The concept of (and term) "Homeland Security" doesn't seem to have just come off the top of Bush's head yesterday. Run a Google search. See also HR 1158 and HR 1292, both of which are six months old.

And weren't These two guys some prescient mofos?
posted by aaron at 10:16 PM on September 20, 2001

I watched the President deliever some very big and expensive promises, make some over the top remedies, issue some big challenges to the current generations, and go as far as you can diplomatically to draw a line in the sand and challenge soverign territories. Sure he is not the greatest guy to ever be called POTUS, but I'm glad no robotic Gore, or a President Nader or even Perot would be handeling this attack. Even Clinton trying to give a speech about these events would be strange simply because his believability at the end of his presidency just wasn't there. Yes, most people are sick of the coverage "Attack on America" or "The New War" and aren't really impacted directly, but be thankful no missles were launched or more cities impacted, because I would hate to fathom any President using the full assortment of weapons that we have amassed.
posted by brent at 10:26 PM on September 20, 2001

Wow. I'm surprised at all the praise.

The speech was solid, if unspectacular -- it covered all its bases admirably. But W. was completely forgettable as a speaker. It almost seemed to me like he was smirking, I couldn't read the expression on his face at all. And he has no command of oration, alas. Take, for instance, the opening: "In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people." This is an excellent line, it speaks to how admirably we as a people have responded, come together with an awesome display of courage and not hatred. Bush delivered it as if he were telling a children's story.

There was a chance here for something momentous, for words we could all live by for years to come. Instead, we got "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". Wow. What a stunner.

Plus, what was with all the passive voice? "Great harm has been done to us"?!? Another one for the ages.

Bush has been terrific, this past week, when speaking directly and spontaneously. He has been genuine when using his own words, and moving. But his prepared speeches have just done passing-grade jobs, touching the necessary points and little more.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:34 PM on September 20, 2001

The concept of (and term) "Homeland Security" doesn't seem to have just come off the top of Bush's head yesterday.

You are absolutely correct. But.... it's a term that will be heard at breakfast tables, and water coolers, and bus stops, and in schools, and many other places tomorrow.

The Rand article looks interesting. Saved the link for later reading. Though I'd have to say with that group, I'd be surprised if someone there hadn't written something on this subject. The university library near me has aisles full of reports by Rand on subjects ranging from landscape architecture to post-modern icons to optimizing use of time spent in a motor pool on a military base.
posted by bragadocchio at 10:35 PM on September 20, 2001

Uncalled for, Turtletail. Borderline racist remarks.


Troll. Toad the fukr.
posted by norm at 10:38 PM on September 20, 2001

I have to say I was a little moved, especially at the police officer's badge. Bravo to his speech writers. My only complaint, as some others has stated, was his enunciation of "terror." Ugh.
posted by whatevrnvrmind at 10:52 PM on September 20, 2001

The suspicion that the Bush league will try to screw America by smuggling in a sub-agenda cloaked by what will inevitably be a narrowing mandate is probably overwrought. I think (I hope?) that every action and decision will be mercilessly scrutinized, and I think that, from here on in, such scrutiny will grow in direct ratio to our fading memories, our impending major recession, and the number of war-casualty mothers cajoled into on-camera emotional breakdowns by increasingly "skilled" reporter/therapists.


The idea that he now "has it made" is very premature. A few mistakes, a few snafus, and suddenly he is facing an embarrassed, laid-off, surveillance-tattooed mob of jumpy ex-consumers suffering superpower withdrawal and an empty lock-box. It may well not be beer and skittles, and the smallest suspicion that our drinks were drugged to fatten the cats will send Dubya and his entire party into his newly commissioned dungeon of discarded lies.

IOW, nobody's that stupid, are they?
posted by Opus Dark at 10:53 PM on September 20, 2001

The expressions on Mr. Bush's face tonight seemed, to me at least, to be holding back so many emotions, just under the surface. Tonight wasn't the time to shed a tear or to feel your pain. But when he pulled out the policeman's badge, he did seem to be pretty emotional. All in all the best speech from him yet.

It does appear to me, that he is definately growing with the challenges. He is rising to the occasion.
posted by jbelshaw at 10:58 PM on September 20, 2001

The European term of art for this sort of thing back during World War II was Home Guard -- generally a reserve force of draft rejects and retirees with somewhat rusty Enfields and an alert system. Many European countries have too much coast to consider any border defense seamless, so they operated more as canary-in-the-mine sacrifices in the case of invasion. That, clearly, isn't anywhere near adequate for the kind of security against terrorism being sought here, and as they've already warned, there should be no expectation that they will prevent all future attacks.

Homeland Security is therefore an entirely different animal in many ways. Although there are going to be obvious technological tools brought to bear (planes on strip alert, anti-air defenses over at least Washington, deadbolts on cockpits, etc.) there may well be issues that will come to a head, for example a revival of FBI COINTELPRO domestic spying. I would hope that if they get a mole into, say, a cell of Palestinian-American peace activists, they'll shrug it off and go home, but we don't have a terrific record here -- and some would say that the peace activists themselves are vulnerable as cover and unwitting accessories to terrorists modestly skilled, as these 9-11 guys were, at going to ground.

The speech itself was more than adequate, which is -- alas -- high praise for Bush. It's definitely one of the best he's ever given, and there was feeling behind his words, and his writers are definitely learning how to use his own rhythms and grammar. Nothing eloquent for the ages, necessarily, but then that's not what we generally see in speeches at the time. (Famously, Abe's Gettysburg Address took second chair to a drafty two-hour effort by Edward Everett, until sometime after the event.)

There was something quite interesting about this speech, a word which went unspoken. Clearly, at many times, Bush was referring not to "terrorism" in general, which frequently isn't directed at Americans, but a particular brand of terrorism practiced by Islamic fundamentalists which has come to be known as Islamism, and is considered (as many of you have already learned) a grave threat to moderate and secular Muslim-heavy states.

I'll say that I find "cameljockey" to be significantly less racist than, say, "raghead". I think a point was being made about us, rather.

aaron: Wouldn't you agree that the military-industrial complex being 40% smaller than it was a decade ago (which isn't an accurate figure by any means, and notably chooses a moment of massive build-up, way to Darrell Huff us) indicates a pretty darn good reason why they'd want the keys to the piggy bank?

Nevertheless, it's pointless to be arguing over whether the military should be getting this assignment: Bush, Gore, or Ralph Nader, the American people would want them to have it. 5000 people died drinking their morning coffee, for God's sake.
posted by dhartung at 10:59 PM on September 20, 2001

I can think of one possibly good reason for a "Dept. of Homeland Security" which hasn't been mentioned yet. Right now, the CIA is forbidden from conducting operations on US soil and the NSA is forbidden from listening in on US citizens. The FBI can handle internal matters pretty well, but doesn't has only moderate capability for overseas operations, and none at all for covert ops. Fighting terrorism effectively requires both domestic and foreign operations; some common command structure is practically required. I still wouldn't call it "Homeland Defense", but whatever.

Secondly: as a moderate Bush supporter and a moderate Clinton detractor, I always thought that those complaining about Clinton-haters were just being whiny. Now I see what they meant. His eyes kept darting around admiring the level of support, in a "oh what a lucky man I am" sort of way. And I'm sure that had this not been the case, we'd have heard when everyone was clapping, he was just staring off into space like a drugged chimp.

Finally: Bush is not as smart as Gore. No question about that. But Bush is a man aware of his own intellectual limitations. Gore, while intelligent, is not nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is. That is a recipie for trouble.
posted by jaek at 11:05 PM on September 20, 2001

The US military is 40% smaller now than it was in 1991, and Boeing just laid off 30,000 people.

Which is exactly why this couldn't have come at a better time for these guys. During the campaign, Bush pledged to increase military spending. You can't do that unless there is an adversary. If there were no Osama, Cheney's Trusty Posse would have had to create one. See Hussein, Saddam

Osama is a monster, no doubt about it. But compare the loss of life on the eleventh with the loss of Iraqi life during the Gulf War:

Iraq: Original figures listed 100,000 Iraqi military dead, but more recent estimates place Iraqi dead at 20,000 military and 2,300 civilian.


United States: 148 killed in action, 458 wounded. Also, 121 Americans died through non-combat incidents.

The disparity is mindboggling. Keep in mind that Saddam was originally Our Boy, armed to the teeth with stuff that WE gave him, to use against Iran, a nation that received the honor of being appointed the latest in a long line of "Threats to Democracy", once the Russkies started to look a little shaky in the "Godless Enemy" department.

Oh, and the weapons he had that we didn't provide? Most of those came from the aforementioned "Godless Enemy", purchased with a check from Benevolent Uncle Sam.

The people in power at the moment have repeatedly disregarded human life in order to make a profit, or to make themselves look grandiose. They almost got what they wanted in 1991, but Saddam turned out to be a bigger Gomer than we thought. His military (a bunch of underfed conscripts with no real trainig) didn't even use most of the weapons that we gave him, (probably because it's hard to aim when you're busy shitting bricks) and a Democratic Congress would not have allowed Daddy Bush keep writing checks for an enemy that was obviously already vanquished. So they went back to the drawing board, and returned ten years later, wiser and better prepared.

See, now, there's no visible enemy at all. There's just this one Osama guy who has a whole bunch of money, and a whole bunch of "mindless cowards", who just can't wait to get their Evil A-rab Paws on those 70 virgins. We have already been told that we'll probably never get our hands on this guy. He's Ninja Super Terrorist and the Bogeyman rolled into one.

So now we get to pump a shitload of Defense contracts into the flagging aerospace and oil industries. And no one is going to be called on it anytime soon. Because our Fearless Leader has already told us that this will be a protracted war, fought in the name of "Justice".

Action movie analogies have already been made, but think about this: The only context in which the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are made absolutely clear is at the movies. Real life tends to get a bit messier. We have been commanded to rally around a tragedy that could have served as the opening for Die Hard 4; A brutal, picturesque, unspeakably tragic symbol, suitable for framing. This image will be run ad nauseum anytime anyone decides to commit political suicide having the unmitigated gall to question the motives of the Bush/Cheney crew, who have very vocally appointed themselves defenders of Truth, Justice, and The American Way.

Cue up the Lee Greenwood song. I'll be over here shitting some bricks of my own.

So it goes...
posted by Optamystic at 11:06 PM on September 20, 2001

Isn't anyone but me a bit disturbed (no, let me rephrase: petrified) about the content of the speech, the as-yet undefined "war on terrorism?

You ought to be petrified: this is serious stuff. I'm honestly shocked that the level of discourse in this thread is so low. "Bush is still a weenie!" "Is not!" "Is too! He can't even read big words!" "Can too!" "Can not!"

Ummmmm, folks? We just had the Commander In Chief of the Most Powerful Nation in the World draw a big, stinking line in the sand. He declared war (more or less) on the Taliban. He told our troops to "be ready." Can you stop worrying about the delivery and focus on the content?

The speech had me glued. This is big stuff. This is a gazillion times more historical than anything Clinton did his eight years (and, based on how hard Bush has worked this hard, I'll bet he'd rather skip this one, too. No more month-long vacations for him). While there wasn't a calendar of events (Tuesday we'll bomb asldkfja, and Wednesday we'll send in ground troops!), there was direction.

It seems clear to me that Bush (NOT his cabinet, advisors, or daddy) is taking the bull by the horns, so to speak. He's trying to solve the *whole* problem. We, as a country, have spent decades dealing with only the immediate issues. This time, we'll get something accomplished. Eliminated. Over and done.

Bush isn't just the president of the USA, he's my president, dammit.
posted by terceiro at 11:07 PM on September 20, 2001

jaek: Finally: Bush is not as smart as Gore. No question about that. But Bush is a man aware of his own intellectual limitations. Gore, while intelligent, is not nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is. That is a recipie for trouble.


Amen and amen.
posted by terceiro at 11:10 PM on September 20, 2001

I just don't want to get drafted.
posted by panopticon at 11:15 PM on September 20, 2001

I don't think anyone feels very smart in a situation like this one. at least not when they're making the decisions.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:16 PM on September 20, 2001

Oh, and they even had the balls to name it "Infinite Justice". This monstrosity will go on forever. It must, by definition. Do you know of anyone crazy enough to run for office on an "Anti-Justice" platform?

They settled on that catchy name for a simple reason. Just in case someone manages to actually point out, ten years down the line, that we've spent X Billion dollars, and lost X thousand lives (I can only hope the figures will be that low. Hey, they don't call my Optamystic for nothing). President Cheney will then point out that we the American People knew what they were getting into.

This from the people who brought you the "War on Drugs".
posted by Optamystic at 11:17 PM on September 20, 2001

Do you believe Southerners are inherently stupider than "normal people"?

To most (non-Southern) people, yes, Southern US dialects do sound somewhat backward. Most Americans also think any British English accent, even that of a Cockney cab driver, is educated and sophisticated, and that French sounds romantic, that German sounds harsh, that Spanish sounds fast (it's not, really), and that Japanese sounds vaguely silly.

Go figure. It's definitely part of Bush's public perception problem, although I'm sure he does quite well among Southerners.
posted by kindall at 11:22 PM on September 20, 2001

It's the "Office of Homestyle Defense--With Gravy." May the fingerlickin biometric eyes of Texas be upon you.
posted by jamsterdam at 11:27 PM on September 20, 2001

This from the people who brought you the "War on Drugs".

There are a few rather large differences between a "War on Drugs" and a "War on Terrorism".

One: Millions of Americans like to smoke pot. They are willing to pay a whole shitload of money to do so. Hell, I bet that the amount of money California spends on weed in a week is more than Osama bin Laden inherited from his rich father. Millions of Americans do not wish to engage in terrorism. While quite a few foreigners would like to, the number who actually care enough to do so is quite low. Thus, a "War on Drugs" is a war against a large and well-funded segment of the American population, while a "War on Terrorism" is a war against a small and ill-funded number of foreigners.

Two: One can legitimately argue that smoking pot is a victimless crime. One cannot argue the same about crashing planes into the World Trade Center. Responses that are utterly unjustified for one are completely justified for the other.
posted by jaek at 11:35 PM on September 20, 2001

Ravagin and panopticon: check this out for more info on how people are chosen for the draft. So far, though, it seems unlikely to start.
posted by brism at 11:36 PM on September 20, 2001

Optamystic: there are 6,000+ people dead. Military-industrial complex or not, shouldn't the bastards be impaled on large pointy things? I know you want peace, and I do too - but isn't there a point when you realize the opposition will continue to kill innocent people no matter what peaceful platitudes you send their way? Not that they're deserving of that.

I understand the problem in handing BushCo a blank check for war, but I think you'll notice as allegedly "bloodthirsty" Americans are - the polls have said we want to be sure who did this, not hurt innocents, and bring justice to the perpetrators. Those numbers are high enough to encompass almost the entire conservatives - liberal spectrum.

Because of these assholes we now live in America where our hearts pound collectively when a plane passes by. People are afraid to congregate in any group activity. That is most definitely not the country my family came to for the purpose of making a better life for my generation. Besides the lives of 6,000+ people, they've taken that from all 280million of us.

They've given ignorant, racist pricks an excuse to assault law abiding people who just happen to not look like them.

Isn't that excuse enough to blow them to hell, and help bring about peace to the people under their rule?

America is a powerful country and for too long has been half-assed about doing the right thing. Isn't the time to do that - now?
posted by owillis at 11:44 PM on September 20, 2001

"Isn't that excuse enough to blow them to hell, and help bring about peace to the people under their rule?"

Those "People" (who, exactly, are "the people"?) do not want US intervention. They may not want the Taliban, they may not want the terrorist camps sitting in their backyard, but they don't want a bunch of American troops, warplanes, missiles, etc. bombing the bejeezus out of them either. They probably would have appreciated some foreign aid after the Soviets pulled out to repair some of the damage that they suffered after fighting our war for them. They might like some food, clean water, schools and a hospital or two, which I guess they might get when our troops arrive and set up MASH units to take care of our soldiers.
posted by readymade at 12:03 AM on September 21, 2001

"The people" are all the people living under idiot dictators and fanatics we propped up. We should should start the ball rolling with food, water, health care and the start towards democracy for these people because of our past actions. I will be very upset if we do not do these things, after we deal with the current terrorists. Showing "the people" the virtues of democracy (or at the least, peaceful dictatorships, monarchies) is the best way to prevent future Osamas.
posted by owillis at 12:25 AM on September 21, 2001

Just an unrelated question -- anyone else notice the Nietzsche reference: "...our will to power..."

It concerned me.
posted by j.edwards at 12:52 AM on September 21, 2001

Yes, congratulations to his scriptwriters (Bush sure as hell can't speak any sense without them) and to the very well-trained audience (Ovation! Applause! Ovation! Applause!)
posted by skylar at 2:07 AM on September 21, 2001

owillis, you're assuming that we have the means to round up and impale the bastards. We don't. This is not a war against specific individuals. This war is our collective gut reation to the attack that we all witnessed. An attack which killed the direct perpetrators along with their victims. We have no idea who was responsible beyond the nineteen hijackers. We have a whole bunch of speculation about this Osama guy, but at this point, we don't KNOW a damn thing about his guilt or lack therof.


It's been one week. Am I suddenly supposed to believe that our "Intelligence" community picked Sept. 12 to pull their heads out of their asses and start paying attention to their job descriptions? An "Intelligence" community that was caught utterly unprepared for this disaster, despite the many billions of dollars we throw at them annually to spend as they see fit? Oh, and it's "Black Budget" money, so they don't even have to tell anyone where it goes.

Okay, so now we're asked to believe this tragically inept bunch of Cold War relic Beauracrats and Cowboys have the right guy. They're absolutely, postitively, sure of that fact, despite his denials. This guy has never been shy about taking credit for his handiwork before. Now, in what was supposed to be his moment of glory, he decides to get modest on us?

Keep in mind this guy has already been declared Evil Incarnate as justification for our last bombing run in that neighborhood. So, we've got a few years worth of pre-chewed, oversimplified, "Great Satan" style, soundbites collecting dust in the Propoganda Locker. If he wasn't guilty before, he sure as hell is now. I'm not saying that he didn't do it. I'm saying that for all we know at this point, my Grandma did it. Ridiculous, you say? Well, she is always bitching about high taxes. (Soon to be known as "Railing against the Price of freedom". Or if that doesn't work, there's always the old "giving aid and comfort to the enemy")

So, to recap, this week we've identified and tried Osama. He was then given a fair trial, where he was found guilty by an impartial jury of his (presumably Islamic Fundamentalist Billionaire)peers. Boy, was it tough rounding up twelve of those guys. And after we finished with that, Our Heroic President (he's still just the president, right? You guys didn't coronate him while I was typing this, did you? Good. Just checking.) Fearless Leader still had time to round up a rock solid, right-as-rain, "God's-on-our-side" type coalition, just like the one daddy used to have.

You see where I'm going with this. Are you familiar with that symbol all the K-Marts are sold out of? That flag stands for a hell of a lot more than the perceived ability to right all wrongs through military force. One of the things it stands for is that a person has a right to a fair trial, no matter how much of a monster we believe him to be. (For more information on why this principle is VERY, VERY important, do a google search on the word "Nuremburg". Ok, I'll save you some time. It's important because that's what separates us from those who do these deplorable things. We do not assasinate political undesireables. We do not marginalize dissident voices...oh...I just caught the late news update. Please disregard previous five sentences. Ahem...where were we? Oh yeah, Flag stuff. Here's another thing I foolishly thought it represented...(Brace yourself. I'm about to sound like one of them longhaired peace freaks. You ready? Okay, here goes:)

I believed that a nation such as this one, a nation in a position so powerful as to have the ability to set in motion a series of events which could conceivably destroy the entirety of civilization, I believed that great nation would ponder such a course of action for longer than one lousy week.
posted by Optamystic at 2:27 AM on September 21, 2001

Maybe I'm naive, but I thought we were practicing "homeland defense" the whole time...
posted by ph00dz at 2:49 AM on September 21, 2001

Besides, owillis, as much as the Holy Trinity of Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings recite US press release stating with absolute certainty that Osama is the root of all evil, he's not. He's a very, very bad guy in a world with no shortage of very, very, bad guys.

"6,000 Dead" will, no doubt, be bandied about in the coming months and years. That'll be our rallying cry. We must anihillate the evil men who were responsible for the ATTACK ON AMERICA caused the deaths of those 6,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE. That number will likely be used to justify the removal of a great many liberties that we now enjoy. That number may also be used to silence critics who beg for sanity and reflection as the death toll climbs.

Now let's suppose the Muslim countries that currently have a beef with us were to try to come up with an identical battle cry. Something to rally the troops around. A number to represent the every single Arabic person who THEY BELIEVE to have died unjustly as a result of U.S. policies and warfare, in the Middle East and elsewhere.

What do you think that number might be? I haven't the slightest idea, but I'm guessing it would be much, much, higher than 6,000.
posted by Optamystic at 4:27 AM on September 21, 2001

After scouring this entire thread, I still do not believe that Americans are going to lose any civil liberties as a result of 9/11. I reiterate my claim that there will be inconveniences, and yes, there is a difference. Bush & Co. are not evil...they are not ignorant...and they will not sacrifice the principles that created America. First, because they don't want to. Duh. Second, because we won't let them, even if they were to try (which they won't). I'll still be making my annual donation to the ACLU, but not because of events of the last week, or unfounded fears that a new threat to our liberties has emerged from our own government. If you think I am wrong, then I will be the first to donate to your legal defense fund when you are hauled into court by the Homeland Defense forces for not letting them quarter soldiers in your home. And for anyone who misses my point: my money is safe. I won't have to donate to a legal defense fund because that scenario won't happen.

And to those who maintain that the battle our nation is about to embark on is nothing more than a ploy to pump up defense spending and line the pockets of military contractors, indiscriminately slaughter every Islamic or Arab person on earth, and finish off Saddam once & for all, while simultaneously depriving millions of Americans of their civil liberties, allowing the feds to read every single piece of e-mail, and prevent students from organizing marches at Harvard to protest low-wage conditions for janitorial staff: grow up.

Can you please explain YOUR plan to prevent the Sears Tower from being destroyed by a hijacked airliner? Your plan to prevent biological agents being dispersed at the Super Bowl? Your plan to prevent an 18-wheeler loaded with anthrax from careening into the White House? Your plan to stop the Hoover Dam from being dynamited?
posted by davidmsc at 5:03 AM on September 21, 2001

Your plan to prevent biological agents being dispersed at the Super Bowl? Your plan to prevent an 18-wheeler loaded with anthrax from careening into the White House?

Does anyone have a plan for that? I don't think US troops in Afghanistan are going to make any of these scenarios less likely (or less improbable).
posted by talos at 5:21 AM on September 21, 2001

FROM A BRITISH PERSPECTIVE:
The best bit: saying thanks to Tony (obviously). We have just stuck our head over the parapet, and statistically speaking I'm probably as likely now as the average MeFi worthy to get it in the neck. So thanks for noticing. (Mind you, with an invite like "those who aren't for us are against us", it can't have been a tough decision.)

The most choking bit: "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism". Dizzyingly recursive principle from a nation that has funded and refused to extradite the folks who did this about a hundred miles from where I write. Unavoidable, of course, and to be put behind us - thank God there is none of the sense of opportunism that haunts your new-found relationship with Pakistan. But it still leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. And I still haven't figured out whether the world coalition is foregathered (with all the attendant domestic risks to member nations) with the sole aim of combating America's domestic risks.

Most worrying omission: One of Tony's policies had the annoyingly catchy appellation "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Much as he makes my skin crawl, he adopted this binary weapon approach because he recognises the futility of addressing only one side of the problem. Mr Bush's speech was littered with evidence of a complete lack of appreciation of this point (e.g. they don't just hate our freedom, they hate us starving 1.5 million Iraqi civilians to death. But I won't go there. It was a rally cry, after all.)

Most chilling bit: misreading "live your lives and hug you children" as "give your lives and your children". We have no Vietnam in our recent memory (Falklands wasn't big enough), and have this idea that there are many, many of you still living who remember losing children, husbands and fathers in warfare.

On the whole: I don't carry Bush baggage (no room after carrying all the Blair baggage). OK job. I'm still shoulder to shoulder with you.
posted by RichLyon at 6:58 AM on September 21, 2001

Anyone notice Scalia nodding off?
posted by espada at 7:04 AM on September 21, 2001

j.edwards: Bush was *condemning* the 'will to power'. I guess if you're listening for fascism, that's what you'll hear.
RichLyon: How many times does it have to be said on this site that Saddam is the one starving out his own population, not the US? If we gave him more money, he'd buy more weapons with it.
posted by darukaru at 7:14 AM on September 21, 2001

Would it have sounded better coming from Gore's mouth?

No, in fact it would have been even scarier.
posted by briank at 7:27 AM on September 21, 2001

Yogurt: "...glad it was his team facing this crisis rather than Gore's."

We wouldn't be in this mess if Gore (or more certainly Clinton) had been at the helm.
posted by baudboy at 7:43 AM on September 21, 2001

darukaru:
Answer (1) I guess as many times as it takes for those dimwits at the United Nations to get it through their thick skulls.
Answer (2) Don't tell me! I'm not the one terrorising your country.
Answer (3) I said understand the cause, not agree with it.
posted by RichLyon at 7:44 AM on September 21, 2001

All I want to know is...


Who is this 'Tara' chick and why are we declaring war on her?
posted by Dirjy at 8:04 AM on September 21, 2001

We wouldn't be in this mess if Gore (or more certainly Clinton) had been at the helm.

Please enlighten me on your reasoning.
posted by justgary at 9:29 AM on September 21, 2001

aaron: Yes, and I hope I don't need to specially point out how all those beliefs and stereotypes are rather racist, or at least some sort of ist.

I agree. Furthermore, it is clear that many of you have never been to Texas or spent any time around people from Texas. Connecting a Texas drawl with a level of intelligence is just as offensive and incorrect as conneting the latter with the color of someone's skin.

Seriously think about it. Not everyone in this country talks like you. (Note: I'm from the south and lived in Austin for 5 years...)

Optamystic: It's been one week. Am I suddenly supposed to believe that our "Intelligence" community picked Sept. 12 to pull their heads out of their asses and start paying attention to their job descriptions?

The difference between Sept 10 and Sept 12 is a world community behind us. I'd say that Pakistani and Saudi intelligence is worth a hell of a lot considering that they probably know exactly where is is and where Al Qaida operates.

Optamystic: Now, in what was supposed to be his moment of glory, he decides to get modest on us?

If you were in the world crosshairs with a resolve mounting like never before, you would be "modest" too...

baudboy: We wouldn't be in this mess if Gore (or more certainly Clinton) had been at the helm.

Care to explain how BatGore would have prevented mayhem in Gotham?
posted by fooljay at 9:35 AM on September 21, 2001

Typos typos typos. My apologies...
posted by fooljay at 9:36 AM on September 21, 2001

Ok, now I'm really scared...

Let's see, Bush and his handlers (read Dick Cheney, Don Runsfeld, and, of course, Daddy himself) have:

1) declared war on the Taliban (and presumably others including Iraq, Somolia, Syria, Iran).

2) told us the war would last a long, long time.

3) informed us that much of it's actions will be secret and we will never know of them even when they are successful.

4) created a Gestapo-like organization (Homeland Security) which has NSA level authority. FWIW - I predict the Anti-Globalization movement will be targeted first and within a year (or sooner) Indymedia.org will cease to exist.

This is the wet dream of the old, New World Order, guard. A reconsolidation of Cold Warriors, a brand new long term war, fat defense contracts, a triumph of old money over Clinton era new money. And empire baby - Empire.
posted by gregkise at 9:41 AM on September 21, 2001

Let's see, Bush and his handlers (read Dick Cheney, Don Runsfeld, and, of course, Daddy himself) have:

gregkise, I know that you're probably just venting, but really, does one have to read further than your second sentance to see your bias? If you're just venting, then you've done a fabulous job. If you're trying to convince someone, then you may want to try to be a bit more objective.
posted by fooljay at 9:56 AM on September 21, 2001

So Fooljay, you really believe that GW is in charge of the white house? Even without articles like this from the BBC, it is pretty clear that other people have considerably more power than GW. Hell, the man can barely speak on his own. In the midst of the tragedy he required a perfectly scripted speech.

My sense is that far from being the person in charge of the White House, George W. Bush is simply the kings son. He was installed with the help of his fathers campaigners. He was aided by his father's other son in Florida. Immediately after his installation he appointed his fathers advisors.

Almost all the people close to GW are his father's closest advisors and friends. Now you tell me...to whom do these people owe their true loyalties? GW or George senior? If push comes to shove are they going to listen to George senior of George's kid.

Also keep in mind that these are the very same people who have repeatedly trampled the constitution - from October Surprise, to Iran/Contra (to the questionable way GW won the presidency) the Bush's and their cronies have been at the epicenter of illegal and unconstitutional activities. And now they have layed out a sweeping covert war strategy and created a mechanism for actions against U.S. citizens.

BTW - Did you like the way GW was kept from DC for the first 12 hours after the crisis. How about when Cheney pulled an AL Haig by informing the press that he was in charge of the white house. And why was GW not in DC? Oh yeah, because the terrorists had targeted Air Force One. Apparently they were going to fly around until they found Air Force One and then, what, ram into it? It certainly wasn't because he was intentionally diverted from DC by his handlers. Was it?

So I stand on what I said... Other people are running this white house and frankly I don't trust them.
posted by gregkise at 10:43 AM on September 21, 2001

baudboy: We wouldn't be in this mess if Gore (or more certainly Clinton) had been at the helm.

we are in this mess as a direct result of clinton, bush I, etc administration policies.

what changes with presidents parties? domestic policies, a little. almost nothing changes with our international policies. under clinton we continued to bomb iraq on a weekly basis, for example.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:46 AM on September 21, 2001

davidmsc. I hear you. I've been asking the same thing a few times (with more and more capital letters). With the exception of fooljay, there is studious silence. So much so that I propose:

The Lyon Conjecture:
"As a MeFi discussion grows longer, the probability of a claim being made of an impending erosion of freedom approaches one. The Uncertainty Codicil states that the Lyon Conjecture cannot be used to prove that there are no potential erosions to civil liberty. It may only be used to hypothesise the absence of evidence that there are."
posted by RichLyon at 11:00 AM on September 21, 2001

So Fooljay, you really believe that GW is in charge of the white house?

It depends on what you mean. I believe that his job description puts the responsibility directly on his shoulders, so if any decision is to be made, he must be the man to make the call because it's his ass on the line if he's wrong. That said, I'm sure that he, like every other president in the last 50-100 years is relying heavily on input from his advisors and cabinet. I would not be surprised if Bush is leaning more heavily on those folks than previous Presidents not because he's dumb (no basis in fact) but because he has a highly seasoned group of advisors and this situation requires more careful consideration than any another president has faced.

Do I believe that he makes the final call? Yes.
Do I believe that he makes it by himself? Hell no.
Do I thin that's the way it is supposed to work? Hell yes.

Hell, the man can barely speak on his own.

Read...

George W. Bush is simply the kings son. He was installed with the help of his fathers campaigners. He was aided by his father's other son in Florida. Immediately after his installation he appointed his fathers advisors.

It's a real shame that you can't see past the rhetoric. Regardless of how he got there (and I do not agree with you, btw) he is there now and is doing the job as admirably in my opinion as any other modern president could. Perhaps moreso because of those around him. Still the outcome of many things remains to be seen.

Almost all the people close to GW are his father's closest advisors and friends. Now you tell me...to whom do these people owe their true loyalties? GW or George senior? If push comes to shove are they going to listen to George senior of George's kid.

Assuming for a second that Jr disagrees with Sr, you can bet your ass that anyone who did not follow Jr's orders would be quickly thrown out on his ass. It's a shame that you give absolutely zero credit to the man.

Also keep in mind that these are the very same people who have repeatedly trampled the constitution - from October Surprise, to Iran/Contra (to the questionable way GW won the presidency) the Bush's and their cronies have been at the epicenter of illegal and unconstitutional activities.

You make them sound like they are the Mafia or the Borg. Please. They are not midless droids. Each has his or her own opinions. In fact, there have been reports of serious disagreement within the senior staff. Furthermore, please show me proof that any of these people were involved in any wrongdoing. I'll even consider lame evidence... Give me a link. Put down your "evildoer" paintbrush and describe it for me, even...

And now they have layed out a sweeping covert war strategy and created a mechanism for actions against U.S. citizens.

Again, I'm probably the most vehement civil libertarian on Metafilter, and even I am skeptical about your factual presentation of this fait accompli.

BTW - Did you like the way GW was kept from DC for the first 12 hours after the crisis.

Are you such a skeptic that you don't give any credence to the statements made by just about everyone involved that it was done to preserve the safety of the President? Let's see, if I were the secret service/President/cabinet, would I choose to:

1) Go back to the White House when hundreds more planes were in the air and there is a credible suspicion that the White House may be a target.

2) Stay in Air Force One until the immediate crisis is over and coordinate things from my fortress in the sky complete with fully-operational command center

Hmmmm.... Let's not forget that putting the President on Air Force One if he is in the slightest danger and keeping him in the sky, escorted by F-16s has been the standard procedure for a long time. (Think Nukes)

How about when Cheney pulled an AL Haig by informing the press that he was in charge of the white house.

Link please. I want to see this exact quote...

And why was GW not in DC? Oh yeah, because the terrorists had targeted Air Force One. Apparently they were going to fly around until they found Air Force One and then, what, ram into it? It certainly wasn't because he was intentionally diverted from DC by his handlers. Was it?

That would be the Secret Service's job (I know, because I have a friend who is in the Secret Service, currently on Presidential detail). After the Kennedy assassination, this is SOP... See March 30, 1981.... When the President's life is on the line, he is not in charge of his own location until the danger is averted. Did you read Cheney's account of how he was escorted (feet whisked literally above the ground) by the Secret Service? Does that make him chicken in your book as well?

As far as the threat to AF1, I read it more to mean upon landing in Washington, it was defenseless...
posted by fooljay at 11:14 AM on September 21, 2001

Errr, Greg, did you even read beyond the headline of the article you linked to?? It doesn't agree with you and only strengthens my argument...

By the way, I would be remiss if I didn't link to this... :-)
posted by fooljay at 11:19 AM on September 21, 2001

As I said before,

It's also good to remember that no matter how good a speech he gave, some people would never give it a chance
posted by justgary at 11:31 AM on September 21, 2001

You're right. Why do I fight these battles? Oh yeah... I'm an idiot... :)
posted by fooljay at 12:04 PM on September 21, 2001

aaron: Yeah, the US military is tiny these days.

davidmsc: "Grow up"? How about "wake up"? Half the things I listed in my post are already being discussed in the US Congress. Maybe you didn't notice? And what exactly do you think motivates military and law enforcement types ... altruism? Face it: they are self-interested. Of course they are going to try to gain more money and power. They always have.
posted by Potsy at 1:20 PM on September 21, 2001

You're right. Why do I fight these battles? Oh yeah... I'm an idiot.

No, you just have way more patience than I do.

=)
posted by justgary at 1:27 PM on September 21, 2001

"We have no closer ally than Great Britain."
Take that, Canada! - posted by arco

I don't know if you are joking or not, but either way that's a pretty thoughtless thing to say. This isn't about who gets to be Uncle Sam's best friend, this is about many nations banding together to make a strong unified front in order to defend the democratic, free world.

Bush's failure to acknowledge Canada's help in this matter was also pretty thoughtless and undiplomatic. Canada put everything aside last Tuesday and came to America's aide...accepting all diverted foreign flights (many Canadians even opened their homes to Americans whose flights were diverted), rallying together and donating blood, sending in many forensic specialists to help at the disaster site in New York.

In addition to that, the Canadian military will be right beside the Americans. The Canadian and American armed forces are constantly training together both here in Canada and in the US. It would have been nice if the president acknowledged even a tiny bit of this freely given assistance.

Canada will continue to assist the US despite the snub. After all, this isn't a popularity contest...it's a bunch of democratic, free countries supporting each other in time of need. And there is much need.

That said, despite the snub, despite the plethora of standing ovations and my own hearty dislike for Bush (his beliefs, his party, his administration, his conservative fundamentalism etc.) I thought the speech was great. He seemed to be in his element last night, and appeared very confident and strong. I don't like the guy and I don't agree with what seems to be a hasty decision to enter into a very large, expensive, lengthy and dangerous war, I hope he's doing the right thing and that it all goes well.

posted by lisel at 3:49 PM on September 21, 2001

Wow. I'm surprised at all the praise.

You shouldn't be though. People are terrified and looking for a father figure to make everything better. I predict this won't last long, given the quality of "father" we're dealing with here (although, to be fair, it would be a tough assignment for ANYONE).
posted by rushmc at 6:49 PM on September 21, 2001

Not for Puma Man!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:34 AM on September 22, 2001

sorry
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:34 AM on September 22, 2001

Great man Indeed!
posted by USA at 9:47 PM on September 22, 2001