President's nationwide address.

[Rex Kickass]

To anyone who watched or read the speech.

 

I skimmed it when I got home from work today.

 

I couldn't get past this second line.

Five years ago, this date _ September the 11th _ was seared into America/s memory. Nineteen men attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history.

 

September 11th was horrible. Definitely one of the most challenging days in the last 65 years of US history.

 

But it was more barbarous than the Holocaust? Rwanda? Trench Warfare in WW1?

 

Maybe its terror fatigue, but I'm sick of seeing this tragedy amplified so out of proportion.

[NorthSideSox72]

To anyone who watched or read the speech.

 

I skimmed it when I got home from work today.

 

I couldn't get past this second line.

September 11th was horrible. Definitely one of the most challenging days in the last 65 years of US history.

 

But it was more barbarous than the Holocaust? Rwanda? Trench Warfare in WW1?

 

Maybe its terror fatigue, but I'm sick of seeing this tragedy amplified so out of proportion.

Well, he did say OUR history, so none of those examples really apply.

 

That said, its still an absurd overstatement.

[mr_genius]

it's pretty much impossible for me to watch a George W. Bush speech without getting bored/annoyed and turning the channel

[whitesoxin']

Our history is referring to United States history. I don't find his statement outrageous or uncalled for. I do not understand why you are trying to downplay what happened.

[Rex Kickass]

It's not downplaying it. This anniversary gets me so angry every year because what I see is the politicization of it. What I see is the commercialization of it. And ultimately what I see is the terrorists winning.

 

Terrorists sow terror. That's what they do, by definition. They want us to feel that our way of life is jeopardized by a few thousand people who live in caves - literally. They want us to change the way we do business as a result of what they do to us.

 

If we're fighting for freedom, we ought to be letting people fly on planes with t-shirts that have arabic writing on it. Someone flying two weeks ago was denied that.

 

If we're fighting terror, we shouldn't be diverting planes because someone's Blackberry fell out of their pocket on the last flight. We shouldn't be closing airports for two hours because someone left an empty laptop carrier bag in a returned rental car. All of those things happened today. You can say it's just an abundance of caution, but what it really is, is an abundance of fear.

 

You can't carry Shampoo in your baggage anymore because it might be a liquid explosive? How about screening the cargo that flies underneath the passengers? We don't do that. And that's a much more likely terror possibility. It seems like we do ridiculous, over the top "protections" on our safety - some of which are really a restriction on the freedom we're claiming to fight to protect - and the common sense ones that may bear fruit on a regular basis are never put into place. In my honest opinion, every time our society panics needlessly about a non-existent Rube Goldberg like threat, we cheapen the loss of 3000 lives on September 11th. Every time we ignore real ways to increase our safety without sacrificing the freedoms we claim to defend in place of ridiculous restrictions that bear no fruit, we cheapen the loss of 3000 lives on September 11th.

 

Being free means a certain degree of vulnerability exists. It's the price you pay for freedom - and not understanding that - and giving that freedom up to your government cheapens the loss of 3000 lives on September 11th.

[kapkomet]

It's not downplaying it. This anniversary gets me so angry every year because what I see is the politicization of it. What I see is the commercialization of it. And ultimately what I see is the terrorists winning.

 

Terrorists sow terror. That's what they do, by definition. They want us to feel that our way of life is jeopardized by a few thousand people who live in caves - literally. They want us to change the way we do business as a result of what they do to us.

 

If we're fighting for freedom, we ought to be letting people fly on planes with t-shirts that have arabic writing on it. Someone flying two weeks ago was denied that.

 

If we're fighting terror, we shouldn't be diverting planes because someone's Blackberry fell out of their pocket on the last flight. We shouldn't be closing airports for two hours because someone left an empty laptop carrier bag in a returned rental car. All of those things happened today. You can say it's just an abundance of caution, but what it really is, is an abundance of fear.

 

You can't carry Shampoo in your baggage anymore because it might be a liquid explosive? How about screening the cargo that flies underneath the passengers? We don't do that. And that's a much more likely terror possibility. It seems like we do ridiculous, over the top "protections" on our safety - some of which are really a restriction on the freedom we're claiming to fight to protect - and the common sense ones that may bear fruit on a regular basis are never put into place. In my honest opinion, every time our society panics needlessly about a non-existent Rube Goldberg like threat, we cheapen the loss of 3000 lives on September 11th. Every time we ignore real ways to increase our safety without sacrificing the freedoms we claim to defend in place of ridiculous restrictions that bear no fruit, we cheapen the loss of 3000 lives on September 11th.

 

Being free means a certain degree of vulnerability exists. It's the price you pay for freedom - and not understanding that - and giving that freedom up to your government cheapens the loss of 3000 lives on September 11th.

You know, I agree with your sentiment... but, what would you have us do? Keep letting those few f***tards who seek to destroy everything the western civilization has become? It's not all roses and candy, but it's certainly the best thing we have in the modern world. So, let's have a few random acts of violence for .0005% of the world's population take out 3000 people every six months or so, just for the sake of "freedom"? A lot of people love to quote Ben Franklin, but what the hell do you do?

 

Having said ALL of the above, the political hackery on both sides of this argument are at best, pathetic, and really just downright shameful.

[KipWellsFan]

Thank you Angela Merkel!

[Rex Kickass]

You know, I agree with your sentiment... but, what would you have us do? Keep letting those few f***tards who seek to destroy everything the western civilization has become? It's not all roses and candy, but it's certainly the best thing we have in the modern world. So, let's have a few random acts of violence for .0005% of the world's population take out 3000 people every six months or so, just for the sake of "freedom"? A lot of people love to quote Ben Franklin, but what the hell do you do?

 

Having said ALL of the above, the political hackery on both sides of this argument are at best, pathetic, and really just downright shameful.

 

You take common sense measures to prevent yourself against attacks but you do it within the framework of the freedom we have. It can be done.

 

Instead of freaking out about cellphones on planes, you screen the cargo that goes into planes. Instead of banning nail clippers to prevent hijacking, you strengthen the doors to the cockpits. Instead of focusing on programs to find terrorists based on how much of their credit cards anyone is paying off, focus on building human intelligence assets in areas that might help us find out threats. Connecting ourselves to the world that feeds terrorists help us understand and defeat terrorists. We don't do that as a country now.

 

No program will make us 100% safe. There are lots of things we can do that will protect us as well as, if not better than some of the over the top things we do now. IMO, we work out of panic rather than caution. Caution works better.

[Steff]

Our history is referring to United States history. I don't find his statement outrageous or uncalled for. I do not understand why you are trying to downplay what happened.

 

 

Your history doesn't exist outside your existance?

 

And Rex is far from downplaying it. It's all about perspective. And it's his perspective. It seems you are trying to downplay that...

[NorthSideSox72]

Our history is referring to United States history. I don't find his statement outrageous or uncalled for. I do not understand why you are trying to downplay what happened.

So you actually think that 9/11 was more barbaric against our people than all the following...

 

All the atrocities of WWII commited against us and our allies

Same for WWI

Pearl Harbor

Villa's Siege

The War of 1812

The Civil War (being internal, this is admittedly questionable)

Genocide of the American Indians, and their violent responses

 

If not, then it is an overstatement.

[Texsox]

As I have said after almost every Bush speech, I like the guy. If the Presidents during my life time, he's the one I'd most like to sit down and have a couple beers with. Unlike Clinton, I believe he does not get a fair shake for trying to move his party towards the middle.

 

I liked most of the speech, I think he spoke what was in many American's minds. Like Rex, I think we are overplaying this when shampoo can't be taken on a plane, or nailclippers. I think we have started down a sad path when we voluntarily give up freedoms.

 

I hesitate to write the next part, but honestly, I cringe when I here the people who died in the WTC that day refered to as heroes. Heroes, in my book, have a choice to make at some point. They could either leave or stay. They were 3,000 murder victims. The heroes where the men and women who ran into the building and tried to save them. They had a choice. We overuse the word.

 

The question was what did I think of the speech? I thought it was very good. Brief, to the point. Wrong on a number of accounts, but he clearly spoke of his ideas and that is good.

[Jenksismyhero]

Being free means a certain degree of vulnerability exists. It's the price you pay for freedom - and not understanding that - and giving that freedom up to your government cheapens the loss of 3000 lives on September 11th.

 

 

Please. I've read enough of your posts on Bush and war on terror to know that if ANYTHING would ever happen again you'd be ALL OVER him for his failure to protect us. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You either expect and accept some mistakes (unavoidable consequences more likely) or you don't.

 

So you actually think that 9/11 was more barbaric against our people than all the following...

 

All the atrocities of WWII commited against us and our allies

Same for WWI

Pearl Harbor

Villa's Siege

The War of 1812

The Civil War (being internal, this is admittedly questionable)

Genocide of the American Indians, and their violent responses

 

If not, then it is an overstatement.

 

Two things:

 

First, 9/11 was unprovoked. Except for the genocide of American Indians, we voluntarily entered the wars listed above. As for carpet bombing and like while at war, well, there's your distinction, we were 'at war.'

 

Second, 9/11 was the murder of 3,000 civilians, not military.

 

 

American Indians issue I'll give you. That was pretty barbaric.

[Texsox]

Please. I've read enough of your posts on Bush and war on terror to know that if ANYTHING would ever happen again you'd be ALL OVER him for his failure to protect us. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You either expect and accept some mistakes (unavoidable consequences more likely) or you don't.

 

I've read his posts also and I can tell you he wouldn't blame Bush. The erosion of our freedoms does come at a price, as we are reminded on Veteran's Day, that price is often the lives of Americans. Civilians lose there lives to drunk drivers everyday, but that is the price we pay for the freedom to drink alcohol. No one would blame Bush for that.

[Steff]

Civilians, Military, Indians, etc...

 

 

I'm glad I choose to use "innocent human beings".

[Texsox]

Throughout history, humans have separated the men and women who fight wars from the rest of the population. Each group is given different protections, each group is almost given a different value on their lives. Steff's comment is a great reminder that when it is all said and done, we are all the same. It is human life that has ended before its time and all should be valued equally.

[NorthSideSox72]

As I have said after almost every Bush speech, I like the guy. If the Presidents during my life time, he's the one I'd most like to sit down and have a couple beers with. Unlike Clinton, I believe he does not get a fair shake for trying to move his party towards the middle.

 

I liked most of the speech, I think he spoke what was in many American's minds. Like Rex, I think we are overplaying this when shampoo can't be taken on a plane, or nailclippers. I think we have started down a sad path when we voluntarily give up freedoms.

 

I hesitate to write the next part, but honestly, I cringe when I here the people who died in the WTC that day refered to as heroes. Heroes, in my book, have a choice to make at some point. They could either leave or stay. They were 3,000 murder victims. The heroes where the men and women who ran into the building and tried to save them. They had a choice. We overuse the word.

 

The question was what did I think of the speech? I thought it was very good. Brief, to the point. Wrong on a number of accounts, but he clearly spoke of his ideas and that is good.

I would agree that I'd rather have a couple beers, or sit around the campfire, with W than Clinton. Clinton was a used car saleseman. Bush is pretty direct, and you get what you see. And I agree on our overreaching attempts to fully secure ourselves, which is futile and does in fact mean the terrorists have won that battle.

 

But if you ask who I'd rather have as President, it would sure as heck be Clinton over W. Bush is just too short-sighted and small-minded to be effective at the job. Plus he comes off as a frat boy, which makes me cringe whenever I hear him speak (much like Mr. Genius said). I don't necessarily want Mr. Niceguy as President - I want Mr. Effective. And W ain't it.

 

The speech? I don't think I've ever like one of his speeches, and this was no different. His overdramatizations belong on some reality TV show - they are just outrgeous for the sake of impact. Nothing interesting to report there.

[Jenksismyhero]

I've read his posts also and I can tell you he wouldn't blame Bush. The erosion of our freedoms does come at a price, as we are reminded on Veteran's Day, that price is often the lives of Americans. Civilians lose there lives to drunk drivers everyday, but that is the price we pay for the freedom to drink alcohol. No one would blame Bush for that.

 

 

That's a different situation. 95% of Americans drink. 1 person has been dubbed the leader with sole responsibility for the war on terror.

[Texsox]

That's a different situation. 95% of Americans drink. 1 person has been dubbed the leader with sole responsibility for the war on terror.

 

We call it terror, but what does that really mean? There are street gangs in cities that have been terrorizing residents for decades. It's all crime, we've just allowed the government to erode our freedoms and liberties in the name of a foreign criminal.

 

And there is a difference between the governent bungling an investigation and a criminal committing a crime.

 

Notice that the "blame" for 9/11 doesn't center around why didn't the government ban box cutters, nail clippers, and soap from flights, but why didn't they know of a credible threat by Bin Laden?

[Soxy]

That's a different situation. 95% of Americans drink.

Source please.

[Steff]

Source please.

 

 

 

Not a snowballs chance in hell you're getting a valid one.

[Soxy]

Not a snowballs chance in hell you're getting a valid one.

Well, I believe if peopel throw out stats they should be able to back them up. Call me old fashioned.

 

But I can't say I disagree with you.

[Steff]

Well, I believe if peopel throw out stats they should be able to back them up. Call me old fashioned.

 

But I can't say I disagree with you.

 

 

I was just part of an alcoholic intervention and learned all kinds of stats and crazy, crazy stuff. I was shocked to read some of the actual #'s regarding drinking and alcoholism. That are not at all what you'd think they would be.

[Texsox]

A Gallup poll has it at 64% of Americans, and that has been holding steady for something like 70 years.

[Jenksismyhero]

Source please.

 

 

Ok, you got me. I exaggerated a little. But you understand my point.

[Texsox]

 

Ok, you got me. I exaggerated a little. But you understand my point.

 

But your exaggeration actually helps to prove my point. 3,000 people died on 9/11. Yet many times more, over 16,000 will die from alcohol related traffic accidents. Which is going to save more lives, stopping shampoo from getting on an airplane or stopping alcohol? We accept the risk of alcohol. Why wouldn't we accept the risk of someone taking a nail clipper on a flight?