The SERIOUS Bush Speech Thread

All I've to say at this point is that I was mightily impressed by both the speech and its presentation. Though I'm still not sure about that Homeland Defense thing.

Sorry - Homeland SECURITY.

i DO have thoughts. unfortunately the events of today (personal- wise) have broken my brain. so i'll probably air them tomorrow when this thread is already clogged with responses and no one is really paying attention anymore.

first thoughts: i was impressed too. although i trembled during that mere MOMENTARY pause between "you're either with us..." (cue jess gasp) "or you're with the terrorists." but even peter "filthy canadian" jennings awknowledged that it basically read as, yer either wit us or agin us.

Tom Ridge, the candidate for the home security position is very conservative and pro death penalty. The two bothersome points were, GWs expanding timeline, at first it was a long stuggle, by the end of the speech it "may never end". The other point of concern was the line in the sand "either you're with us or against us". Nice setup to a superpower conflict. It was good to hear him show respect to Muslims and Islam, but the general broad statments and the background "radiation" right now for revenge made this a very scary speech I think.

In case you don't have it , there's a reprint of the speech here: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010920/us/bush_text.html
Uh concern? 'Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.' So - It appears that he's not only set the stage for dragging this out indefinately, we're not to know what exactly is being waged unless the press-pool happens to be privvy to it. (A lesson learned during Vietnam, and implimented by Bush sr in Desert Storm)...

I don't see how Bush can say the equivalent of, "You're either with us or against us," but not take a position on Nas versus Jay-Z. He's very inconsistent. Seriously, I don't see how you can run a foreign policy on the basis of "You're either with us or against us," another variant of this being "If you're not part of [our] solution, you're part of the problem." This simply creates enemies where you don't need to have them. As will the insistence that we won't negotiate with the Taliban and won't distinguish between the Taliban and the terrorists. If you're among the Taliban clerics who wish to make an accommodation with the U.S., Bush has just cut the ground out from under you, and you'll decide to go along with the hardliners because you have no other choice. The U.S. has just said it's going to get you, after all.

And if our attitude is "You're either with us or against us," what right do we have to insist that Israel, Palestine, Albania, Macedonia, etc. etc. negotiate their problems?

My brother told me a few days ago that Bush doesn't understand that what's important is not only what we do but how it is perceived. So if we keep saying that we're going after the Taliban, even if we then in fact limit ourselves to surgical commando raids on terrorist bases, we will be perceived as making war on Afghanistan, and a lot of Muslims in the world who aren't sympathetic to terrorism or the Taliban will nonetheless feel that this indeed is an attack on an Islamic nation.

An op-ed writer in the NY Times the other day made the point that the U.S. had to convince not only the government of Pakistan to support us, but the people of Pakistan. So I'm wondering how Bush's speech played in Pakistan. What Bush needed in his speech was to say to the world that "We are with you" - that we support countries and regions in their attempts to achieve stability and prosperity, that we make it our business that differences are negotiated rather than being allowed to fester, that we're with them in their economic and social struggles. Our track record isn't great here, since we have a history of supporting only those governments who support us and destabilizing those who don't, with disastrous results in places like Iran and Cambodia. So the message "You're with us or--" just doesn't seem very smart, even if it plays well here and in Britain.

That would be nice to hear, but clearly this was a rally the troops speech. I also don't like the "you're with us or against us" notion. I'm all for threatening those states harboring terrorists, but there is no reason to push the rhetoric so it implies a world war.

In the end, I found it more of the same. Nothing new. And nothing to clarify the plan of action which is what everyone really wants to know.

Bush's speechwriters made some noble-sounding points about pluralism, creativity, respect for muslims, and so on. What was troubling about the speech were some glaring omissions:

No mention of the UN.

No distinction between 'those against us' and enemies (ie no room for dissent of any kind, breathing space or negotiation).

No admission that the US may have helped create the terrorists in the first place (aiding them when they were fighting the Soviets). No resolution to learn from the mistakes which produced 'blowback' in the form of Saddam and Osama.

No end in sight, and the prospect of unlimited civilian surveillance in the name of security.

No mention of the delicate balance that needs to be struck between personal liberty and security (a point Giuliani and others have been making).

No resolution to try to understand developments in other parts of the world better, to listen instead of talking. Instead: 'This country will define our times, not be defined by them'.

To many disaffected people around the world, that will mean the US means business as usual; interference, bullying, unilateralism.

British people should be particularily worried by Tony Blair's presence, and Bush's special (and horribly patronising) description of him as 'friend' and 'special friend'. They might as well have painted a big bullseye on Britain and captioned it 'Terrorists attack here'.

I thought this thread was about 'the French style'

Here, from a statement by Kofi Annan in today's New York Times, is what we didn't hear in the Bush speech:

'Just as there are common aims, there are common enemies. To defeat them, all nations must join forces in an effort encompassing every aspect of the open, free global system so wickedly exploited by the perpetrators of last week's atrocities.

The United Nations is uniquely positioned to advance this effort. It provides the forum necessary for building a universal coalition and can ensure global legitimacy for the long-term response to terrorism. United Nations conventions already provide a legal framework for many of the steps that must be taken to eradicate terrorism — including the extradition and prosecution of offenders and the suppression of money laundering. These conventions must be implemented in full.'

Unfortunately it looks as though the Bush administration now intends to add the UN's 'legal framework' to the scrapheap of other international agreements it has trashed in the past year.

I don't hear evidence of a single coherent unspoken wicked plan: I hear evidence of embattled incommensurable constituencies each being thrown scraps by a very shaken and frightened core. This administration STILL doesn't know what happened, or it's going to do. It is big on the detail of organisational things it can do (putting troops in place), and very VERY big on bogus rhetoric of unity (which to me kinda loudly shouts that it is more than somewhat aware this unity is fragile, if not spectral, if not totally absent, even WITHIN said administration). It is currently being "led" more by the momentum of its own abstract and pre-ordained contingency plans than anything addressing the actual situation. To be honest I can't make up my mind if "frightened" is bad in this context: it's certainly a new factor in American policymaking, qualitively difft from the attitude to the "Soviet threat" (which involved inventing a foe that was technologically equal-and-opposite: absolutely not so here). As a novelty, it could push things either way: make things horribly worse or unexpectedly better.

Is Colin Powell a sign of the right lessons learnt from Vietnam, or the wrong ones? Certainly Bush cannot afford to lose his public support.

What about the conditions placed on the Taleban? They'll never agree to all that esp. with no discussion or negotiation. He basically just declared war on Afghanistan. This is a bad move militarily and strategically. It's a difficult place to fight - mountainous, landlocked, full with seasoned fighters trained to fight to the death. It will be interpreted as war on Islam by many - especially in Pakistan - and may destabilize the entire region.

They'll never agree to all that esp. with no discussion or negotiation.

Surely the US has essentially said there's nothing *to* negotiate. In which case the question is -- is there?

What I mean is: if there's nothing to negotiate that will satisfy the US, why make the pretext of placing conditions on the Taleban's actions?

British people should be particularily worried by Tony Blair's presence

Oh, I am, I am. I find so many things in all this horribly worrying. I got extremely angry at Question Time last night, put on the radio to listen to Jeremy Hardy instead, got annoyed at JH for NOT ripping the situation to shreds on his "topical comedy show" (oh, and being far less amusing and far more irritating than I'd hoped: nice turns of phrase but sketches/rants as a whole seemed pointless and uninspired), and returned to Question Time to seethe gently.

But anyway, this isn't really the main reason I'm posting. I don't consider myself well enough informed or well enough trained in the arts of tact and rhetoric to post to these serious threads as a rule, but I thought I'd post this just to thank everyone who has contributed to such threads over the past week and a half: ILE had made me so much more informed (and more angry? well, possibly, but it's nice to get angry at other people instead of sitting around getting pissed off at my own ineptitude...) than I would have been otherwise. Thanks. I love I Love Everything, etc.

If you are Commander in Chief, and about to send the Armed Forces into battle, you cannot give a speech that puts America in a controversial light. I think most these concerns being voiced are legit but in light of a mission to pull these terrorists out by their roots, I really don't care if the U.S. comes across as bullying.

Unfortunately it looks as though the Bush administration now intends to add the UN's 'legal framework' to the scrapheap of other international agreements it has trashed in the past year.

There is not a chance in hell everyone involved in these terrorists cells is going to come quietly. I see nothing in the U.N.'s framework, mentioned in Annan's remarks at least, that forbids military action.

Saying the administration doesn't know anything about who did this is total speculation. It has been a mere 10 days since this happened. Also, this criticism would be more pointed if the U.S. had already acted but instead has been remarkably patient, and continues to preach that notion to the public, which they should be credited for.

On a personal note, I have never felt further from the liberal left then in this past week and a half. Everyone jumps on and attacks big, bad America, but no one seems to point any blame at bin Laden, or at the terrorists. They are like footnotes to the story.

I know what you mean about the liberal left. It's been hard to hear their message without hearing a sickening glee, an "i told ya so", a "they had it coming". I do not believe in justice as an eye for an eye and no amount of past US foreign policy abuses warrants the death of seven thousand civilians. I also agreed with what Bush said about the injustice perpetrated by the Taleban regime. What concerns me is that retaliation in the form it seems to be taking shape will only cause more death and destruction for generations. Bush and Blair are calling for war without telling us who they're fighting and how this fight will take shape. It is reason for concern. I don't think I know enough about the situation to offer any answers, but I need to ask the questions.

fuck, did that ever come off as preachy and sanctimonious. sorry.

May I just say that I find Bin Laden completely despicable. He is as bad as Hitler, and shares with Hitler the same obsession, the destruction of the jews.

(PBS Bin Laden interview.)

But what I think is valuable in John Pilger's piece, linked a couple of inches up this thread (and presumably representative of the Quisling liberalism objected to by the last two posters) is the fact, which we must never forget, that human life is valuable wherever in the world it is.

We must not be allowed to say (and I know the temptations of this as much as anyone): 'People dying in other countries matter less than people dying in New York City'. The UN tells us that since the supposed 'end' of the Gulf War, US and UK raids against Iraq have killed more than 500,000 children. Their deaths were reported, if at all, low on the news pages, in little-commented reports stating that 'UK and US jets yesterday hit Iraqi targets...'

We have been totally callous and racist to think that this killing was somehow acceptable and affordable. Now is the moment to say this, since nobody was listening before.

I have to echo Momus' point at the end there, and very strongly. Indeed, it was my conviction regarding the sickening Iraqi policy carried out over the last decade that led me to vote Nader last year. Call me all the names you want, but he saw that crap for what it was.

I agree that the suffering inflicted by the US directly influenced the terrorist attack, but it is important for the left not to ignore the suffering inflicted by the leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan on their own people (and I'm not implying that Ned or Momus are doing so).

I don't think I can honestly say I value the lives of people from other countries at the same level I do Americans. It seems in our nature to care about what is happening around us in a more immediate sense. For example, on the news you would be much more upset to hear someone was murdered down the block from you, then a couple states away.

I also agree that blaming the U.S. for the deaths of Iraqi children is a stretch, especially without acknowledging their own government which consistently hordes its wealth while its citizens starve. As for our policies punishing the wrong people, I would sadly have to agree with that as well. And I think we are all hoping that is not the result of the coming retaliation.

Blaming the US solely for the problem certainly is too much of a stretch, but holding them accountable as part and parcel of a terrible situation seems clear.

I just wish that damn fool Blair would keep the UK out of this shit. I don't want my life put at risk (cos it *could* well be in the near furture) cos he wants to score points with Bush and his cronies/handlers. If the US government and what seems to be a majority of the population want a war let them have it, but I don't want to be involved in what will be fruitless carnage, thanks very much.

I think BNW makes an important and hard point which is that yes, human sympathy seems to be roused more easily the closer you can sympathise with the victims of whatever-it-is: I'm surely part of the liberal left but on a visceral level yes I've been more upset and angry by the events of the 11th than by slaughter of Israelis *or* Palestinians *or* Iraqi kids *or* US embassy workers in 1998.

But as I said on another thread this is not - even from my liberal left perspective - 'wrong' as long as the charitable impulses and desires to stay informed don't fade when and if America starts seeming safer. The best thing anyone affected by this can do, I would argue, is to read, think, and talk about it, and other global situations, and if you've had the urge to 'do something' charitable about this atrocity then do it, and keep that urge in mind and the next time something bad happens you might find it easier to act.

I mean, I have been aware of the US sanctions on Iraq and their impact, and opposed to them, but I did nothing at all about it, not even talk. In which case my 'opposed' was meaningless, as meaningless as ignorance or endorsement without action would have been.

The word that troubles me is "value", though. It's natural to be more affected by things that happen close to you, but I'm not sure that I "value" one human being more than another.

Still waiting for one.

What's a few more deaths?

These old September 2001 threads are spooky.

'Though I'm still not sure about that Homeland Defense thing.'

'As for our policies punishing the wrong people, I would sadly have to agree with that as well. And I think we are all hoping that is not the result of the coming retaliation.'

'I just wish that damn fool Blair would keep the UK out of this shit'

If only Blair had listened to ilx instead of...whoever it was he listened too.