A point that I don't see discussed much is that there were more than Americans killed. It was called a *World* Trade Center after all.

There were Chinese and Russians and lots of nationalities killed. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush has the common sense to spin this information to the benefit of all.

Man, don't go attacking Bush again...This isn't really the time for President-bashing. Let's just support the poor guy. He undoubtedly has the hardest job in the world right now.

You're right -- this really is a tragedy that affects us all.

I saw footage this morning on CBS of people in St. Paul's Cathedral in London. They were singing the American national anthem. Simply incredible.

"Unfortunately, I don't think Bush has the common sense to spin this information to the benefit of all."

Wrong. This has been a topic of discussion during Bush's discussions with world leaders - in fact, one leader (was it the French leader?)made the comment that Bush had expressed his condolences for the foreign citizens killed.

Speaking of common sense, have the common sense to realize the spin that is applied to attack political candidates is just that and don't be stupid enough to believe it on face value. The guy had the smarts and common sense to be a fighter pilot (F-102s,) run a company, be elected to governor, be elected to president, select the cabinet he is surrounded by, etc.

Bites tongue
Smiles at Jeff a little crazily
Backs out of rooms slowly
The peace is maintained.

Heh heh - I thought of you, Andrew, when I posted that.

The fact is, we all love to buy into the political propoganda that is slung against the guy we don't like. Me too. That's why my admonishment was "face value." Look up the data yourself, and then make your own data based conclusion. Do you really think that Bush has no common sense (the charged leveled?) Particularly, no political common sense (the specific charge leveled?)

Not at all. I was disagreeing more with your achievement list at the end of your post (and no, respectfully, I don't think we should argue about that stuff specifically here and now -- ;-> later, I promise!).

I agree that Bush has common political sense but he is decidedly lacking as a statesman. Perhaps a president needs (un)common political sense to rise to an occasion such as this. His speech Tuesday night was notably lacking, Americans feel angry and want vengeance certainly, and he addressed that. But they also needed to feel secure and assuaged. We needed inspiration and we got something by the numbers. Colin Powell, and others in his cabinet did a far better job of balancing the two. Giulani, frankly, looked and acted far more presidential this week than W.

Yesterday's Press Conference where he broke up a bit is a step in the right direction. Bush keeps an emotional distance from the press, and from people he feels are judging him, and it was nice to finally see a human being in there.

Still, I bristle that you'd think my assessment of Bush here is influenced by a media agenda Jeff. It was influenced by what Bush didn't do. It's a lot to expect of any man, but it's how presidents are judged.

(All that said, I DO stand behind Bush because he is our president. His office deserves respect no matter my personal esteem of him. I very much want him to "grow in office" but I don't think he's even half the man his father is. Or at least, I fear he isn't.)

Respectfully,
-Andrew

PS: I'm not confident Gore or Clinton would have fared any better.

I think Clinton could have made a more moving speech, though I wonder if he'd be finished yet.

Gore's a bit of a better speaker, but to me often comes across as too rehearsed and condescending. George Sr. I think was better than W or Gore, but definitely well behind Clinton. I think Reagan was definitely the most effective speaker we've had as President in my lifetime, but it sort of was his career before politics too.

I'm just referring to public speaking skills here, which are really just sort of cosmetic. Though with a disaster like this it becomes prominent.

I hate that I hear politics in small bits of what some reporters and politicians have said this week, but I'm afraid it's not my imagination. I tried to keep that out of this post.

I personally think that Bush is in over his head, but I also think that nearly every other person would be as well. I absolutely would not want his job right now, and (hopefully), he will come away from this a much stronger President. He does have a decent cabinet, and in situations like this, everyone pretty much pulls together (across party lines), putting aside their petty concerns over stuffing this amendment into that bill, or killing another because it doesn't have a particular bit of pork. Pretty much anything proposed will go through the twelve-item-or-less lane because there will be very little political ballast (Mixed Metaphors R' Us).

On the international scene, I think exactly the opposite is true, contrary to the thrust of the original post. It is a global attack, and this has been pointed out by pretty much every world leader (including G.W. Bush). Yes, it hits us much harder in the US, obviously because the WTC is (was) here. I keep running into people who have family in either DC or NYC.

One excellent obvservation of the world community was made by an old Polish woman outside the US embassy in Warsaw. When asked why she was there, she answered, "America is always with us, now we are with America."

- Raife

"Still, I bristle that you'd think my assessment of Bush here is influenced by a media agenda Jeff."

I wouldn't have responded that way to you, Andrew - it wasn't your post that I was replying to. FWIW. ;)

I agree that Clinton would have made a better speech - although I'm not sure that he would have made a better speach in his first few months of the Presidency. We remember the Clinton of the latter era: polished, smooth, experienced. Recall that in his first few months he was snickered at as a "Bubba". Still, outward appearence was certainly Clinton's key strength.

Bush is not a slick or smooth speaker. No doubt. Hopefully he will get better. I'm not as thrown off as some by his unpolished delivery - the message he has delivered is quite clear.

As for the note someone made wrt politicising - yes, it's already starting. I've already read a couple of comments where people accused his visibly emotions of being a political ploy. Several columnists are having a field day jabbing Bush. And some people are trying to point fingers at some Democratic policies. All of this is petty and reprehensible. Peter Jennings has taken some very inappropriate shots at the president.

I highly recommend a wonderful column by Walter Shapiro in today's USA Today. Superbly done, superbly articulate.

Hehe, also FWIW Jeff, I apologize, "bristle" was an example of the unintentioned hyperbole Chick always slams me for.

Clinton would have made a better speech, but his speechwriters were much the same uninspired lot Bush is using these days. Lowest common denominator. That speech needed a poet, IMO.

I did laugh out loud at Tim's line that Clinton would still be speaking though. Ain't that the truth!

The big difference between Bush and Clinton is the off the cuff stuff. I grew dismayed watching Bush at the Pentagon when asked how he felt viewing the carnage. As I recall he said:

"Um...er... ah... I felt angry. Er... um... ah... and sad."

Fine, me too. But I'm also sad..er ah.. troubled that he had to think so much to come up with so little. Sure it's devastating to view, and he understandably may've been at a loss, but he looked like he was saying what he was supposed to say rather than how it *really* felt. Feelings for which "angry and sad" are superficial descriptions at best.

My favorite off the cuff line was from Powell. The reporter told him that 93% of Americans want retribution and he barked: "I bet they do!"

Not eloquent, but definitely in touch.

-Andrew

Disturbing stuff.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/13/backlash/index.html

Some quotes from it:
In her syndicated column, Ann Coulter penned these words: "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Radio host Howard Stern, for example, filled his show on Wednesday with jokes about "rag heads." This type of bigotry was also on glaring display on the Internet. Online bulletin boards were filled with anti-Arab venom. "If you see any of these (Arab) piss-ant's from now on, lets strip off their head-wear, men and women and spit on their faces. They should leave this country. Now," wrote one poster on the normally liberal Craig's List bulletin board. At the conservative Free Republic, a poster demanded that the United States "revoke the green cards and student visas of all residents of middle-eastern countries immediately."

I'd like to see Bush get on Prime Time and denounce these assholes pre-emptively. I understand how easy prejudice is and how subtle, and fanning it is certainly a First Amendment Right, but this sort of thing also needs to be ridiculed from the highest office in the land.

-Andrew

I may have some racial tendencies spreading thru my mind the past few days, but none are as strong as these jarheads who think it's okay to do what people have done in the past.

To think that we can just force the Arabs and Muslims---who support our Country and disagree with what the terrorists did---out of our country is wrong.

I may say, "Kill all of them in the middle east." But that's anger talking. We would be no better than the terrorists if we went in and killed innocent victims.

However, if the country (countries) harboring them has innocent people in it, then no doubt they'll be hurt. But there's a big difference between casualties of war, and targetting innocent people.

I may say things like, "Kill them all. Let's take them all out. Men, women, and children," but I'm a young American hothead male, your typical post-mid-teen pre-20's asshole. There's a reason people my age aren't running the country, and people your (most the people on this forum, I'd assume) age are.

What burns me up, and what the President should speak out against, is the 30-something's and 40-something's I hear on the radio and watch on TV, who sit there and are unable to reason or comprehend the fact that what they say is wrong.

If they're so patriotic, maybe they'd listen to Bush. But if they're ignorant, and refuse to listen to Bush, or anyone else, then I'm very glad they're a small minority compared to those of us who have clear-minds.

"Do you really think that Bush has no common sense (the charged leveled?) Particularly, no political common sense (the specific charge leveled?)"

His actions speak louder than words. This is the fellow who promised to be a moderate President for all. Yet, immediately upon taking office, he's been appointing far-right, hate-mongers to important positions. And I haven't got to the corruption, yet. So, yes, I believe I am justified in saying he has little to no common sense.

He's got some left-wingers in there, too. And I think he selected people based on their qualifications, not based on their party affiliation.

That said, please, let's not attack our President. I didn't care much for Clinton (and that's an understatement), but were he President now, I wouldn't choose this time to bad-mouth him.

Our President needs our support. Please, Mr. Anonymous, be respectful. Save your personal attacks for another day, when I will be happy to discuss them.

'He's got some left-wingers in there, too.'

Not to "attack the president," but can you name one? Bush hasn't been very bipartisan in his appointments, nor should he be. After all, he's supposed to appoint people who agree with him.

---

Quote:

Not to "attack the president," but can you name one? Bush hasn't been very bipartisan in his appointments, nor should he be. After all, he's supposed to appoint people who agree with him.

---

Interesting: Just now, I saw the broadcast of the three minutes of silence observed across Europe. There was one shot of at least a hundred people, sitting around a large meeting table in a huge chamber, just sitting...silent, in memorance of the lost.

In Bucharest, several hundred -- maybe approaching a thousand -- people stood in the streets, silent.

Very moving.

I think Jennings mentioned 200,000 people showed up at the Brandenberg gate in a demonstration supporting the US. It's pretty comforting to see the first-world nations come together.

"Our President needs our support. Please, Mr. Anonymous, be respectful. Save your personal attacks for another day, when I will be happy to discuss them."

Well...I'll leave off with all the things I could say about our President, but I will conclude with this:

Some think that we should all whip out our flags and rally around our President in enthusiastic, unanimous agreement. Pish-posh. Balderdash. Poppycock. This is *exactly* the time in which we should be questioning all decisions. The potential is there to turn this incident into years of bloody retalition and death. Blindly stamping anything the President wants, like the Trillion Dollar Missile shield, is NOT the solution.

I've already contacted my Senators and Congressmen, have you?

Not what I meant. Of course, we need to make our voices known on his policies, and on this matter. It's certainly a big deal, and I didn't mean that we should be blind or complacent.

On the other hand, we need to keep bipartisanship to a minimum and not fight amongst ourselves. And, mainly what I meant was that personal attacks on the President that have nothing to do with supporting or opposing his decision seems inappropriate to me, at this time.