posted on September 20, 2001 09:23:20 PM
Hillary Clinton's reaction as given to press when asked:
"``I certainly hope it's a description of what not only is being demanded, but what is likely to happen.'' - Sen. Hillary Clinton , D-N.Y., on the specific, nonnegotiable demands Bush laid out.
posted on September 20, 2001 09:34:34 PMjulie321I stand corrected
Julie321, and I apologize for not giving you the information in a more polite manner, I am sorry, it just seemed that 'on bended knee' caused unearned negative comments and you just happened to make the last one. Again my apologies, for not being nicer.
posted on September 20, 2001 09:35:47 PM
I could be wrong but I believe Shosh was referring not so much to the bended knee but the phrase "here I stand on bended knee!"
posted on September 20, 2001 09:37:54 PM
Zilvy, I generally do ok, but can you restate this using common speech? I drank a half a glass of wine...but I don't think that's the problem.
He made two goofs protemporary and an elide at one point.
Helburn, glad to see you feeling on top of the world.
T
posted on September 20, 2001 09:53:45 PM
Taken from the White House archives:
I want you all to know that America today -- that America today is on bended knee in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn.
posted on September 20, 2001 09:54:44 PM
In the opening of his speech he referred to the President Pro tem as "pro temporary" his elide (surpress or alter a word) was quickly retrieved and normally would have gone unnoticed by me. Anticipating that krs and others would be quick to jump on the reading as opposed to the substance of the speech I was on tenterhooks and much relieved in the outcome.
posted on September 20, 2001 09:56:23 PM
I'll tell you what: Substitute 'kneeling' for 'on bended knee' and see if it's possible to be standing there kneeling. D'oh!
Great speech, BTW. First time I've felt a few goosebumps since Stormin' Norman gave his no-notes battle assessment.
posted on September 20, 2001 10:01:42 PMIcyu do I detect just a little tension here. Our, The US of A's President did very well. God I would not want to be in his shoes, nor would any other world leader at this time.
Rally round and we'll support what will make us stronger and ignore the petty crap!
Don't sweat the small stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff! (Who said that?)
posted on September 20, 2001 10:13:34 PM
zilvy: I'm not sure what your question(?) is...
Hey, I voted for him when he was still considered a dope (and later a thief) by the intelligentsia.
The standing on bended knee answer was directed at several earlier posts that apparently didn't see what the funny was in that sentence. I never took Bush's mangling of the language seriously--but some of his malapropisms and Spoonerisms were howlingly funny.
Edited to move a word...
[ edited by icyu on Sep 20, 2001 10:15 PM ]
posted on September 21, 2001 12:28:49 AM
excerted commentary:
"Fortunately, Ms. Coulter’s article suggests a more appropriate target for carpet-bombing: Germany. As she says, "We did it before, why
not do it again?" As far as "harboring terrorists," the credentials of the Germans are much better than the Taleban. Where did this terrorist cell originate before it came to the US to do its evil work? Hamburg! If we’re going to start carpet-bombing countries that harbor terrorists, here is our obvious first target. To make things easier on us, most of the Germans even have funny names like "Gunter" and "Helmut," practically as strange as "Osama." And while we’re sending in the heavy bombers, we can wipe out Dresden
again, just for old times sakes."
"Once we’ve "bombed back to the stone age" those harborers of terrorism in Germany, let us not forget the stirring words of Sen.
Lieberman: "In this struggle, vengeance is not victory. Retaliation for yesterday's atrocities is only the end of the beginning of what should be our response, not the beginning of the end of that response." Vengeance upon Germany should be only a start, but where should we strike next? The answer is obvious: Egypt and Saudi Arabia!"
"None of the 19 terrorists were Afghanis; they weren’t even Iraqis, Iranians or Palestinians. But the FBI is indicating that most, if not all, are connected to either Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Will we withhold from these countries the "hammer of Thor" merely because they are our most reliable allies in the Middle East? No! Let us never again make the mistake of distinguishing between terrorists and those who harbor them. These countries must be wiped off the map. Let the bombing of Cairo commence. And while we’re at it, we can buy a few one-way tickets to Canada for any yellow-bellied pacifists who complain about unavoidable "collateral damage" to civilians."
"Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t drop a few bombs here and there on some other targets. After all, back in July our Department of Defense proclaimed, "The United States reserves the right to strike targets at a time and a place and a manner of our choosing." In other words, we can bomb anyone, anywhere, anyway we damn well please. In February President Bush ordered attacks on five locations around Baghdad "to get Saddam Hussein’s attention." That policy obviously succeeded beyond our wildest expectations. No reason we shouldn’t try it again. Nor will I be the kind of party-pooper who complains whenever the military has a little harmless fun rattling Moammar Qadhafi’s cage. Libya would be insulted if they were left out of the "network of terror." But doesn’t it make more sense to go after the bigger – and more obviously guilty – parties first? Only when Hamburg’s soil has been sown with salt will true-blue red-blooded Americans be able to sleep soundly at night."
posted on September 21, 2001 03:20:46 AM
Boy, krs, you are really starting to remind me of those pansies that greeted us off the planes from Vietnam. Next thing we know, you'll be calling President Bush a "twang killer" and a "diaper wiper". BTW, what a wonderful site that was.
President Bush gave about the best speech I have heard a President give in 10 years. Way to go, Sir: I salute you.
posted on September 21, 2001 03:41:03 AM
Oops, sorry: the biggest dog bit the wrong bone. Auctually, maybe sorry is the wrong word: I should use WOOFY! As long as he provides bones to be chewed upon, I will continue the chomping.
My country is built on freedoms, and I will continue to support a President that defends those freedoms. If it means defending it against an AW favorite, I understand where that may lead.
WOOF!WOOF!!GGGGRRRRRRRRR
edited for punctuation and new tag line
[ edited by mastiff1 on Sep 21, 2001 03:48 AM ]
posted on September 21, 2001 03:56:19 AM
After thinking about why his speeches are sounding better I think what you have here is a natural progression of a learning curve for his speech writers.
I think that they have a big enough sample of his speech now that they know which words to avoid that highlight the regional accent and they know to avoid unusual verb tenses - sticking with the plain vanilla forms. After all you can make very strong bold statements without flowery language. They have not progressed to the point of avoiding all new words so you had a few small problems like blaspheme which he read as blasphemy, but all in all it is getting a lot better. It is possible they have gotten him to correct a couple errors of speech if anyoone has the nerve to tell him his breath is bad.
Lincoln he is not but when he gets up there, no matter how he sounds you know if he says go all those men and ships will go, so that alone adds weight to the words.
posted on September 21, 2001 06:01:25 AM
That is true. Here, only certain people may speak out as they wish. But even in that lies freedom for the website owners to say what is allowed on "their" site.
Considering that this thread has become, once again, concentrated on a few individuals hatred of our President and will most likely continue in negativity of not only our President but America in general, I think I will now depart from this particular thread.
For those who stand behind America, our government, our President, our men in service, my best wishes and thanks for being my neighbors.
posted on September 21, 2001 06:40:32 AM
From the speech:
"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
I really don't know whether I should feel comforted or terrified by this statement. Right now, we seem to have world support, but I wonder how long that will last once we start attacking any country that doesn't instantly meet our demands. We're positioning ourselves as global policemen again, and that may be the cause of much of the resentment toward us in the first place.
If we succeed, the world may end up being a much nicer place. If we succeed. But I don't know if the stated goals are even possible, and I fear that we will either be inviting more attacks against us or else use all this as an excuse to trample the sovereign rights of other nations in an effort to establish a globe-spanning American Empire.
Of course, if we do end up taking over a few Arab countries, at least the price of gas should go down....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 21, 2001 06:41 AM ]
