I must have missed that camera angle. I was responding to the earlier post that lumped them together. But the point about the 5 still holds.
Of course not. They all had to be there. Who mentioned not showing up?
Pardon me about the not showing up bit. I misread your post. As I counted it, Rhenquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Breyer were present at the speech. Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg were not there. I did not notice any difference between their own applause and that of the rest of the audience.
Sam Stone:
I was lead to believe up to this point that this incident was a wake up call for the nations of the world to unite to end terrorism. I did not see this as a War in the sense of a nation fighting another nation but a coalition of nations working together to end this scourge.
I also didn’t see this as a US force going from hot spot to hot spot but the US would act as a base of operations and a leader in helping a general war to eliminate Terrorism.
I was obviously wrong, instead, this was to become a coalition to strike at one, or two groups centred in the middle east. It’s likely most of these attacks will be aimed at one or two countries. I guess for a moment I actually had high hopes for George W. Bush to look beyond domestic self interest and truly become a world leader.
Pie in the sky hopes.
Actually, that was the only thing about it I DIDN’T like. Well, that and the weird failure to mention Canada while fellating Britain.
But those are minor quibbles. It was a strong, well-written specch, well spoken, and it was clear, concise, and stern, which is the kind of speech I like.
I liked the part about how fascism, nazism, etc. follow the same path as terrorism, and will follow them right into “history’s unmarked grave of discarded ideology.” Good little flourish.
Did I miss Chretien showing up in Parliament to pledge Canadian lives to kicking terrorist ass? If not, then I think the comparison between Britain and Canada is ill-founded.
Yeah, I guess you did.
But on that note, I’m curious; what’s more important, actually helping out during the crisis, or making promises of support?
I guess I have to do the duty of voicing a dissenting opinion. I did not see the speech, so maybe I missed the power of it, but a transcript of it didn’t exactly thrill me. The line “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” raised a mental red flag for me…this sounds too much to me like strongarming the circumstances into getting a political blank check, else any opposition on any point be branded as being “with the terrorists”. This does not sit well with me: between his history of labeling those who disagree with him as ‘unAmerican’ and the fact that public opinion right now is ready to crush anything and everything identified as a target, it’s vaguely creepy. I also don’t think it was smart or in the country’s best interest to draw an unyielding line that must be inevitably crossed.
Furthermore, I had some general misgivings about it, similar to king pengvin’s. It really seems as if Bush & Company think we can just roll in to “Bad Guy Nation”, smash the villains and live happily ever after. I don’t see it being that easy, nor do I even see a “Bad Guy Nation” to begin with.
The speech was very patriotic, yes, but I don’t think that makes it good. We need more than blind patriotism to solve this situation, particularly seeing as it’s probably one of the factors that got us into this mess in the first place.
Calvin Coolidge was the last President of the USA to write his own speeches. It makes a vast difference:
Coolidge thought,wrote down and spoke these words in 1923
“Our county does not want war; it wants peace. It has not decreed this memorial season as an honor to war, with its terrible waste and attendant train of suffering and hardship which reaches onward into the years of peace. Yet war is not the worst of evils, and these days have been set apart to do honor to all those, now gone, who made the cause of America their supreme choice. Some fell with the word of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty, or give me death,” almost ringing in their ears. Some heard that word across the intervening generations and were still obedient to its call. It is to the spirit of those men, exhibited in all our wars, to the spirit that places the devotion to freedom and truth above the devotion to life, that the nation pays its ever-enduring mark of reverence and respect. It is not that priciple that leads to conflict but to tranquility. It is not that principle which is the cause of war but the only foundation for an enduring peace. There can be no peace with the forces of evil. Peace comes only though the establishment of the supremacy of the forces of good. That way lies only though sacrifice. It was that the people of our country might live in a knowledge of the truth that these, our countrymen, are dead.
The sprit is not dead, it is the most vital thing in America. It did not flow from any act of government. It is the spirit of the people themselves. It justifies faith in them and faith in their institutions. Remembering all that has been accomplished from the day of the Puritan and Cavalier to the day of the last, least immigrant, who lives by it no less than they, who shall dare to doubt it, who shall dare to challenge it, who shall venture to rouse it into action? Those who have scoffed at it from the day of the Stuarts and the Burbons to the day of the Hasburgs and the Holenzollerns have seen it rise and prevail over them. Calm, peaceful, puissant, it remains, counscious of its authority, “slow to anger, plenteous in mercy,” seeking not to injure but to serve, the safeguard of the republic, still the guarantee of a broader freedom, the supreme moral power of the world. It is in that spirit that we place our trust. It is to that spirit again, with this returning year, we solemnly pledge the devotion of all that we have and are.”
Interestingly enough, it’s not my anti-Bush sentiments that caused me to make the observations that i did. I have little time for Bush, but had a similar speech been made by Al Gore, or some hypothetical other person (Democrat or Republican) my response would have been the same.
It was, as is the case with most political speeches these days, a bunch of canned cliches with virtually no substance. It reflects pretty badly on the state of a nation’s political discourse when those cliches are greeted with sheep-like standing ovations by people who are supposed to be intelligent enough to run the country. Of course, some will make the argument that the applause was designed to reassure people that the government is united in this fight against terrorism, but if the consensus is so tenuous that it requires what looks like an aerobics class of people getting up and down all night, then it can’t be worth too much.
None of this is to detract from the suffering of those involved in last week’s events, and the heroism of those who went to their aid. Nor is it to minimize the importance of addressing the issue of justice. But the curious thing, given how much people on this thread have spoken about emotion, is how little emotion Bush himself showed. I don’t mean that he should have broken down in tears, or gone red-faced with fury, but all he managed all night was his usual half-smirk. That is a key sense in which the speech was unChurchillian. Of course, i would never suggest that WC’s speeches were unrehearsed, but he made them appear as if they were, and they had something more in the way of substance for the occasion than did tonight’s effort.
My criticism is not directed so much at Bush himself (i have enough political problems with him that i won’t go into here), but rather at a system that is so orchestrated and superficial, so devoid of content on a day-to-day basis, that people actually applaud mediocrity. Bush said nothing tonight that hasn’t been said a thousand times by the media and by millions of American citizens over the past ten days. Apart from the specifics of the demands to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the speech actually, i believed, showed considerable lack of respect for the intelligence of the Anmerican people, in their ability to grasp more of the complexity of the issue, instead of simply being fed uncontroversial pieties.
And finally, Random, you criticise yourself as “overanalytical”. Methinks you doth protest too much. If you think that the diversity of opinion in the United States is represented by George Bush, a few DNC Democrats, and a few mainstream media hacks, then maybe you ought to kick that level of “analysis” up a gear or two.
Thanks for the airports. Seriously. But if Chretien pledged Canadian soldiers to this fight, I totally missed it and would appreciate a cite. It may have just slipped through the cracks, but I haven’t heard any other government nearly as serious about this as Britain has been.
Originally posted by Julius Henry
The Constitution makes Supreme Court justices terms for life. The idea being that they can ‘see’ beyond temporary political motives. They are supposed to be above the type of political motives that drive the rest of the government. (Now, before I get flamed by all the “Presidential Selection” folks, be honest; if they had given Gore the Presidency you would have thought they were legal geniuses, wouldn’t you. Hey, shot happens. Please get over it.)
As a body with such a far reaching vision, I would expect them to remain neutral during any speech by a political member. I didn’t notice who was there, but I did notice they didn’t stand alot. The one time I did see them stand was when GWB mentioned the military. They all stood and applauded our men and women in uniform, and I think that says a lot: They preserve the vision of democracy, the military protects it.
Good speech. I think he called on God a few too many times though…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mhendo *
**
Some “right-wing hate-spewers,” Mara Liason (NPR), Jeff Birnbaum, Alan Colmes, Mort Kondracke, Laurie Dhue, etc… Yup, you sure nailed that one, they “only” employ right-wingers.
As for “Florida swampland,” it doubles in value every 10 years or so.
The speech was very good, by the way. It was just what was needed. But I could not help thinking, “can he pull all this off?” He really wrote a lot of checks that his government must now cash. Moreover, he only touched on the liklihood of casualties. Maybe a good idea, but he better get realistic soon. Limiting the mission to terrorists with the ability to project power was smart, he took on enough already. It seemed strange to invoke the “Big Guy” so much. I doubt God, the symbol of love and peace, is pulling for either side in a war. Plus, the irony…
Reeder - “bad grammer”? What about spelling? Ooof.
I thought it was a good speech. Rousing. My husband was enormously moved by it as well. In fact, he was moved to tears. Of course, he is:
[ul]A career naval officer
Physically exhausted from working 14 - 16 hour days since last 9/11
Mentally exhausted
Preparing to deploy tomorrow[/ul]
Still, I’ve only seen Kevin cry three times in the 16 years I’ve known him, so I’m going to have to say again – it was a good speech.
Jess
You can read comments made by members of the Canadian Parliament here. While the Canadian military does not have a lot to offer, I think you can count on them being there. My favourite quote was from Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley who said;
Still, it would have been nice to have been mentionned in Bush’s speech.
Most of you are familiar with my general low opinion of Bush, but I thought the boy did good last night. Said all the things he had to say - to the Taliban, to the Islamic nations, about racial harassment here in the USA.
A thank-you to Canada for helping us out in a tight spot would have been a welcome add-on, but that’s really my only criticism. I give it an A.
And I hate it when the Pod People take over my body. 
**
Yeah, especially those substance-free points to the Taliban and any other nations supporting terrorism.
And the vacuous part about creating a new Cabinet-level position of homeland security.
:rolleyes:
Somebody inform the Gang of Four that they may need to order more chairs.
In light of that article I stand corrected, mske. Good to have ya’ll on board!
I notice you neglected to quote the part of my post where i did in fact mention the demands made of the Taliban etc. as aspects of the speech that did indeed contain substance. But of course that would have been inconvenient, right? :rolleyes:
And as for the point about countries supporting terrorism, this was not so much devoid of content as it was an example of a thinly-veiled threat that everyone had better do what America says. As one or two people on this thread have already pointed out, the idea that you support America or you support terrorism is an extremely problematic one which attempts to ride roughshod over the rights of other nations and their legal systems, and which contends that the demands of the United States should be met at the expense of any such issues of national sovereignty.
And before you start ranting on, asking me if i support countries who harbour terrorists, the answer of course is “no”. But simple suspicion of an individual or group does not a terrorist make, and the rhetoric of Bush and others over the past week indicates that they intend to decide who is and is not a terrorist, and that the presence or absence of actual evidence will not excuse countries that refuse to hand over whomever the US asks for. I fully support international cooperation in preventing the sort of acts that we saw last week, and in breaking up the networks that support such inexcusable violence. But doing this through executive fiat rather than by the “rule of law” that the US is so constantly harping on about in the international arena, would seem to me to be abrogating the values that America claims to be fighting for.
Maybe i move in the wrong circles, but not one person i’ve spoken to in day-to-day conversation over the past week or so (conservatives and liberals, right and left) advocates the indiscriminate use of power or the casting aside of the values that Americans claim to hold dear. It’s all very easy to talk about truth, justice, fairness, due process etc. and America’s commitment to these values, but it is in the fire of adversity that values are really tested, and they can’t be worth very much if they are quickly cast aside in the lust for vengeance.
And to beagle:
Greetings again. We appear to be running into each other on more than one thread. You’re right about those people on FOX. I suppose i should have been a little more circumspect when i said that right-wingers are the only people on FOX. What i should have said is that those Murdoch has hired to run and appear frequently on the FOX News Channel come predominantly from the right. Witness:
Roger Ailes (head of the Channel) - onetime strategist for Nixon, Reagan, Bush the elder.
Tony Snow - former chief speechwriter for Bush the elder.
David Asman - former Op-Ed editor of Wall Strret Journal, whose own website includes links to Rush Limbaugh.
Fred Barnes - exec. editor of the Weekly Standard
Monica Crowley - former assitant to Nixon
Jim Pinkerton - former Reagan and Bush staffer
John Podhoretz - editorial page editor of New York Post and former Reagan speechwriter
John Fund - member of Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, who also collaborated with Rush Limbaugh on his book The Way Things Ought to Be
I’ll quote a piece from the March 12, 2001 issue of The Nation regarding FOX’s use of the people that you talk about:
The moderates that do make it onto FOX also tend to cop a tirade of shouting and thinly-veiled abuse whenever they attempt to shift the debate from the extreme right. Just because they make it onto the show doesn’t change the political bent of Murdoch’s lackeys or his network.
And even the less egregiously conservative channels, like CNN and the three main networks, don’t exactly represent the full gamut of American opinion on political issues, as i pointed out in an earlier thread.
And thanks for filling me on the value of Florida swamps. If i get some spare cash, i’ll think about investing. 