Here.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with its decisive liberation of territory and its swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. 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.

This is very clear. Or should be.

But I do recall that Bush’s speech seemed, to me, to signal that he was going to take the low road, and try to exploit the terrorist attack for political gain. I heard that “us” quite clearly as not just a warning to other countries to side with America, but for domestic consumption it clearly meant “us Republicans”. For years after that we had to suffer through the ugliest of political rhetoric impugning the patriotism of anyone who dared disagree with the GOP. The tone of politics in America changed that day, much for the worse.

Remember the great “sleaze bags committing treason on the HabitableZone” flap? That slime touched us here too.

“Us or them” is fundamentally divisive. It’s literally about dividing us from them.

You are right about the seductive nature of being part of a mob. Had I been in the audience, I might have found myself on my feet before my conscious mind could engage and decide on its own. I don’t think you can really learn much by watching the liturgical rise and fall of the congregation during a speech to Congress, because people in a mob like that give up a lot of free will.

What is your opinion of the standing ovation by both sides of the aisle. Was your instant reaction the same as your feelings after reflection. I was pretty pissed off and while I didn’t see it as a memorable comment, it suited my mood at the time.

I don’t disagree that the comment was better left unsaid and I hope I have made it clear that I have never been a GWB fan. I do believe that your opinion is colored by your overall hatred of GWD and you would not think it was quite so reprehensible if it had been a gaff by someone you do not detest.

If you had been sitting there at the time would you have joined in the instant reaction? I haven’t seen any close ups of the floor. There may have been some that did not stand and applaud.

And it’s a gratuitous insult. When Hitler’s true colors became apparent, nobody needed to be bullied into opposing the monster, and that “for us or against us” formulation was, in fact, a deadly insult. Change the name to any monster, and it’s the same. Berating people with that insulting line can never lead to constructive results.

It’s a special case of the broader question of whether people can be moral without an external system of rules being imposed upon them, that system usually being religion. I believe that you can arrive at a stronger morality by thinking through the issues, and refusing to be lazy and just go along with the conventional wisdom. The moral understanding you have to work for is the one you’ll stand by when the chips are down.

Osama bin Laden was that kind of monster. But I arrived at the understanding completely independently, and after rejecting Bush’s vile demagoguery. And I continue to hold that position even now that Bush isn’t around to constantly remind me.

It is an emotionally immature conclusion and comment all of us has thought at one point of our existence, I suspect. I think it should remain in thought. Never spoken.