Well, he’s never been the orator Ronald Reagan was, and his daddy’s syntactical explorations provided me with much entertainment - all that said I think President Bush gave a pretty good speech tonight. He’s named the threat and what will need to be done. He’s pointed out what should assuage the fears of many - that we are not out to bomb the Afghanis back to the Stone Age. In fact, when we succeed, they will benefit.
And we have a new Cabinet office with Tom Ridge at the head. I know little about him. There are debates at work about civil liberties, and I’m encouraged that we’ll (I mean the civilized world) get through that in OK shape.
“the course of this conflict is not known, but it’s outcome is certain…”
I’ve never dug the guy, but I think he did a fine job saying what needed to be said.
I think I’m getting used to his speaking style and I’m better appreciating how it enhances his delivery.
I do have to admit, however, that I didn’t pay real close attention. First of all, I’m trying to get some stuff written, and second (and perhaps more importantly) I didn’t want to cry.
Now that I reflect on it a bit more, it occurs to me that we may have reached an historic turn of events in the history of terrorist activities. When the modern terrorist effort began in earnest in the '70s, they existed by virtue of having access to safe haven. And that was a situation that could not be addressed effectively during the Cold War.
And now, safe haven will no longer be tolerated.
Cry havoc! For a different kind of war.
[sub](And yes, I know about it’s and its.)[/sub]
A great speach. Bush did a great job of addressing the main issues and recognizing people. I love that Juliani and Pataki got the biggest ovation of the speech. I am glad he spoke about toleration for Muslims; I think that is an important point to be emphasized at the highest levels.
As a general aside, I wish these types of speeches weren’t interrupted every two minutes by applause.
It was very clear and I’m glad he did not equivocate. We need to understand, however, that we face an am implacable foe and if we are not up to the physical and mental task of committing outselves to destroying them absolutely we will suffer the consequences. There is no “can’t we all just get along” solution to this coming battle. It is for our very survival.
The time for shades of gray is past. 6,000 people at the bottom of the World Trade Center rubble define a bright and shining line. You are with us in this fight or you are against us. There is no middle ground.
It took me a few moments to get used to his pronunciation of “terror” (I kept thinking he was saying “terra”), but I thought, overall, it was a good speech. I am somewhat concerned about the gauntlet, “If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists.” Not that I have any problem with the sentiment, but I’m wondering if that phrase may not start the picking of sides by various nations for a much greater conflict.
I do like that he spelled out who the target is now (and, perhaps just as importantly, who it is not), what our demands are of the Taliban (many of which, I’m sure, will not happen, e.g., turning over bin Laden and his buddies, and the closing of all terrorist bases in Afghanistan), and that this is not going to be a bloodless battle.
He’ll never be a polished orator but I’m getting used to his style of delivery. After watching him address the rescue workers atop the rubble pile last week I get the impression he’s at his best when he can cut loose and FLOW. Which probably ain’t often. No criticism intended, btw, just a reflection of how closely his every word is scrutinized.
I thought he did a good job. No ruffles or frills; he just laid out the situation and what needs to be done. Actually his un-fancy delivery suited his message very well, i.e. emphasizing the need for patience and deliberate, considered action. Not a popular message in some quarters, to be sure. Sometimes I wince a bit over his “cowboy” persona but he turned the best parts of the myth to deft advantage this time, stressing fairness, strength, self-restraint.
Not fancy but effective, which counts for a helluva lot more.
Aas an aside, I can’t believe Larry King just asked a blind guy (whose retriever guide dog helped him escape from the WTC) if he watched the President’s speech.
He pronounces the English language as he is wont to do. I visited Ohio a few weeks ago and met with thinksnow and Crafter_man, natives both. I had to tell them that while I was truly impressed by the friendly atmosphere, “Y’all talk a little funny.”
That’s a significant part he addressed about which I’ve had some concern. This isn’t a bomb Kabul kind of war, and it will likely take years to prosecute. I was looking to him to make the distinctions between combatants and non. And he did. He absolutely included our (and I mean the free world as well as the U.S.) Muslim population amongst our allies. In fact, I think he pointed out that they are an aggrieved party.
Precisely the gist of my second post to this thread. It had to be said.
We’ve got a long task ahead, and there’s quite a bit of it that is not black-and-white decision stuff. Hints of military action belie, to me, a possible near term action along the lines of Billy Mitchell’s raid on Tokyo, early in WW II, that was tactically insignificant, but had far reaching implications on both the enemy’s response and the public psyche.
EI believe he was pronouncing tempore as “tem-POR-ay.” I can’t tell you if that’s the correct pronunciation (I’ve always heard it shortened to pro tem) – can a Latinist step in here?
And I was awed by the composure of Todd Beamer’s wife. What incredibly strong and conflicting emotions she must be feeling.
I thought it was a great speech. I’ve mentioned in another thread how his speaking style often grates on me. But he was perfect in his delivery tonight. It was a well-written speech, passionately delivered, and reasonably concise.
I especially liked it when he said that our demands for bin Laden and the other terrorists were “not open for negotiation or discussion.” Firm stand. I like that.
He didn’t. He said “pro tempore.” Mrs. RickJay and I both remarked on it because we were sort of surprised he got it right.
I have to chime in again on Atreyu’s comment about it being precise, and I’ll add concise. I like that style. He said what had to be said and got off the stage.
Dunno about that, though - a raid will only have a morale effect if it produces some results against the actual enemy. This isn’t Tokyo in 1942 we’re talking about; where an entire nation was the enemy and hitting it just anywhere would have the desired effect on both nations. If it doesn’t work, that’s worse than not doing it at all. I do think you’re right that politically there has to be some near-immediate military action, though; I’m just curious about what form it will take.
Blind people often use the same words as sighted people. They see their friends and they watch TV. I guess you can count it as an idiomatic usage rather than a literal usage.
