It's no secret that public speaking is not Bush's strong suit. I must point out, however, that even Roosevelt's "day that will live in infamy" speech was read from a piece of paper and delivered with little or no emotion. Some presidents are skilled at delivering speeches. Others are not. Few in recent memory, however, wrote his most famous words. Reagan was remarkable at making speeches, which was to be expected from a professional actor. The first Bush was on par with most prominent politicians, certainly more than adequate. Clinton was something of a smooth talker, but he was quite good at it. All these men got the majority of their words, certainly during Oval Office speeches, from teleprompters. They were all much better at sounding unrehearsed than G.W. Bush. I do not, however, believe that it is a reflection of their sincerity.

Bush has bachelor's and master's degrees from two of the most challenging schools in the world. He, like Al Gore, Jr., was the son and namesake of a congressman and lived a privleged childhood. Both Bush and Gore used personal connections throughout their careers. That's what most politicians do. It's not fair, but few things are.

At the present, we have to let the man do his job and quit scrutinizing his speeches. He will most likely never deliver a truly great speech, but only once did I hear President Clinton deliver a speech where I didn't think his sincere tone sounded extremely forced (it was a very brief speech where he expressed sorrow over the loss of Russians drowned in a lost submarine).

Presidents do not, by and large, choose their own words. Some are better than others at delivering the words that are chosen for them. I do not think we can judge politicians by their speeches (or their speech-writers). I think Bush is handling the situation just fine so far, and I am confident that he will continue to do so, public speaking skills aside.

Why are you using the words 'rich' and 'party' as negative adjectives? Do you not seek wealth? Do you not party? Are these negative things? In a relative sense are you not also spoiled?

I am relieved that Bush did not speak freely and allow emotion or unscrutinized statements to escape his lips. Any other comments and further diatribe would have been superfluous. The tragedy leaves one speechless. Petty annoyance at such things should be measured against the great magnitude of this disaster. Pathetic?? Come on...you seem to value politics above patriotism.

My 2cents...
To balance that, I really like your site and am commenting beack only because I frequently visit your weblog for latest information on web programming, design and inspiration.
Thanks for providing the site and all the great info and links. Thanks for the forum for debate as well.

Here's a link to a RealAudio clip from FDR's Day of Infamy speech.

posted dead email link, sorry.
here is the right one.

I was very disappointed in that speech, as I've been very disappointed and unhappy with almost everything related to George W. Bush. And I have very little confidence in his ability to handle this. That's why I wrote that I hope he's able to rise to the challenge. I do hope that. But I fear it won't happen, based on my impression of Dubya's character.

Yes, I do want to be rich (who doesn't?) and yes, I like to have a good time (who doesn't?), but I don't want to be a spoiled rich party boy.

Quote:
Come on...you seem to value politics above patriotism.

I value humanity above politics.

Bush is probably under the most pressure that a world leader has ever been in for a long time.

Reading from a script is not conclusivly a bad thing as he would be scrutinized to a very high level and one lax word could enrage or upset an already very enraged and upset nation of people.

They have arrested afew people why I have been typing this lets hope it leads somewhere.

Add this image to your site any webmasters out there:

[Link: smithpaul.com...] in memory of the people lost in this horrific event.

I completely agree, Charles. Bush is pathetically bad at public speaking. His broken diction, poor phrasing, and stumbling over words are part of what make people think he's stupid. He's about the least expressive president we've had since I've been paying attention (say, from Carter on). Bush just oozes incompetence, and his business background reinforces that. He's a figurehead at best, and at worst, a figurehead of reactionary old white men who've done a lot of damage to our country in decades past.

Stylin' Dave: having degrees from a prestigious university means less than nothing. Most people assume that anyone who is a lawyer is smart on some level, but I graduated from law school (and I have several other graduate degrees, so I speak from experience) with people who are only marginally more intelligent than Elmer's Glue. And that doesn't even consider the possibility that W's entry and graduation from those programs was bought by family connections and/or money.

For once Bush says the right thing and he still gets shit over it.. I fail to understand that. Bush was actually more agressive than I had thought he would be.

It's important to listen to what a politician says, not the way he says it.

Enough of the crap about wealth, money and spoiled brats, that is the politics of envy, I see so much of it on the web. No wonder we're all seen as a bunch of Birkenstock wearing, hemp smoking socialists. Good God. Bush won't be judged by what he says, we're not listening. We're watching. Action speaks louder than words...I hope he's a Texan down to his boots, I hope he takes firm action and fast.

Quote:
Action speaks louder than words...I hope he's a Texan down to his boots, I hope he takes firm action and fast.

On this, I agree totally. We need a Texan right now.

I do worry about letting the Texans loose though.

Charles, your complaining of bush's 'sripted' speech shows amazing ignorance on your part.

No president would have givin a speech at this time that wasn't scripted. In fact, you may want to do a little research about presidents and their speeches before opening your mouth again.

Americans cannot ignore what their government does abroad ..

Quote:
No president would have givin a speech at this time that wasn't scripted. In fact, you may want to do a little research about presidents and their speeches before opening your mouth again.

There's a difference between 'scripted' and 'robotic.' The man is a dangerously ignorant puppet.

Thomas: your link is broken, so I couldn't read what you had to write. But it's amazing to me (and very disheartening) how many Europeans apparently want to say "I told you so" at a time like this.

I am very aware of the US government's actions. Are you aware of your government's actions? Are you aware that there is not one nation on the face of the earth that can claim the moral high ground in this modern era? You seem very eager to blame these horrible developments on the US; but the simple fact is that the burden of history weighs equally on every country. Europeans, and Germans in particular, who criticize the US at this time are indulging in the worst kind of hypocrisy. By doing so, you give moral support to the monsters who commit these crimes, and give validity to their actions. It's ugly, and it's not worthy of you.

Why do people insist on placing the blame or responcibilty on each other?

The people to blame are obviously franatical butchers mascarading their murderous activities under the name of religion beleiving they are servants of 'god' as one report suggested today.

Why squabble about how a president addressed the nation or which nation is morally better than any other.

Personally I feel that all countries have there evil's, some more than others.

Everyone has been suprised by this attack but the reaction to it from certain portions of the world has been just as suprising to me.

People dancing in the street in pakistan as opposed to people crying in the street of London outside the US Ambasadors office.

Charles,

the reason why you could not read my posting is - my ISP took my weblog "wopizza.de" OFFLINE at thursday, 13 september 2001, 11.45h cet without any prior notice. Cut off my e-mail as well.

Due to my very critic comments on what is happening in the world right now. He called it "anti-american propaganda".

So, I am in the OFF (for now).

I had installed last night the link Jason Kottke had posted on his site and followed a link this morning to an article posted by the Guardian in London and cited it on my site. Pls have a look.

Here's the point:

I am in Milano, Italy at the moment and only a few weeks ago this country hosted the G8 in Genoa. You know what happened ..

After Seattle, Goteborg, Prag, Genoa - there is a growing group of citizens in America, Europe and in the world who believe - and stand up for their beliefs - that the injustice in our world must come to an end. The way things are they are just no good.

Wallstreet is the leader of global capitalism and the american president the leader of the G8. Let me be very clear: I do make no difference between Mr. Schroeder, Mr. Berlusconi, Mr. Jospin, Mr. Bush or any other government or people on the globe.

This issue is adressed to you and me, every single man and woman on the streets (and in front of the computers), whereever we are and whatever we do. I make no difference between the chairman of the board of a multinational company or somebody without a job somewhere ..

Everybody is responsible, nobody innocent. One of the problems we are facing today is a dramatic lack to civil courage.

In a couple of hours America and NATO will send cruise missiles and worse to locations in the 3rd world .. It is clear in no way who is responsible for what has happened in Manhattan at this point. But they want to go to war.

Italy's most intellectual newspaper "Il foglio" (article is not online to my knowledge) wrote today:

"Whoever hit America has demonstrated that he wants peace, because if America understands that it is not invulnerable peace will be possible. But, does America want that?"

And Il foglio cited a citizen saying:

"They are all content, believe me. Even you Italian (** put any nationality here), but you do not have the courage to say so."

I personally believe that these statements are very much to the point.

What do we have to do?

War/terror and oppression must come to end NOW. We must change. And live as brothers with everybody in the house and outside of it. In respect. Did you see what Noah Grey had posted on his site? It is the answer!

All the best.

thomas

Quote:
"Whoever hit America has demonstrated that he wants peace, because if America understands that it is not invulnerable peace will be possible. But, does America want that?"

Thomas,

Reading your comments, I feel that you're honestly convinced you're presenting a rational viewpoint; you're not just trolling, as JB was.

But the quote above is one of the most repellent, stupid, and ass-backward things I have ever had the displeasure of reading. You have a German domain address. How well did appeasement and inaction work in WWII? Is that what Hitler was doing too -- just letting all the other nations of Europe in on the incredible secret that they weren't invulnerable?

They "wanted peace?"

Have you no decency?

There was a group of young children on one of those planes, on a class trip to the Channel Islands. Think of the terror those children felt. Then tell me again how much those animals wanted peace.

History holds numerous lessons for people who think this way. What you're saying is so far outside of reality, so twisted and illogical that I won't waste any more time trying to rebut it. Thank God most people aren't as suicidally naive, and as willing to make excuses for evil.

The theory that peace from that fact your not invulnerable is a good one but not in this instance.

So I would have to agree with Charles on this one, although the only peace that relates to that ideal (so far) is nuclear peace or MUTALLY ASSURE PEACE there will hopefully never be a nuclear war because of the very fact that no-one is invulnerable in that type of war.

The Ghandi quote on Noah's site good but that really depends on who you are doesn't it ?

If your Talaban for example then you would definatly go with that statement by Ghandi but if your a Family member of an innocent person injured/murdered then "Do un to others, as you would have.. others do to you"
might be more fitting.

Don't you think?

correction. It shoudl be Mutally Assured Peace.

Typo on Assure

Charles,

read this, this, this, this.

Don't allow yourself to indulge in emotion and oppinion. Start asking better questions. Look at the facts.

Have you no decency?

Yesterday I saw a posting on indymedia saying "On what happened in NY we had just some thousands more people (and children) dying than on every average day are dying all over the world".

Maybe you should waste some more time to think about the world as one place.

Good night.

Thomas,

I hope you get to experience the same terror and pain someday. You'll find that it's not so easy to brush it aside with such appalling and callous glibness, when it happens to you.

Thanks for the links. If you're getting your opinions and world view from anarchy.tearitalldown.net, I'm not surprised your head is all screwed up.

You must be very young; only very young, very naive people fall for shit like this. Since you don't seem like a stupid person, one day I'm sure you'll regret the things you've said, after life has had a chance to teach you a few lessons. Or maybe not.

In the meantime, consider this one lesson. Like your ISP, I'm revoking your right to post your poisonous comments. Feel free to call it censorship if you like, call me a capitalist swine like every other American.

But you're making me sick. And I don't have to put up with it here.

What does it matter where he gets his links from? What is wrong with tearitalldown.com ?

Does a more squeaky clean name like littlegreenfootballs.com make your site somehow more legit or contain better information?