> My reaction to President Bush's speech last night was pretty much the same as Stephen's. I did not vote for the man, nor did I vote for his major alternative, Al Gore. My vote was a protest vote for Ralph Nader, not because I really wanted Nader to win (in fact, I think that probably would have been the worst result of them all) but because I refused to vote for either of the two silver-spoon, spoiled twins. However, I will say had the choice been between just Bush and Gore, or Bush, Gore, and Buchanan, I would have voted Bush simply because I feel he was definitely the lesser of two evils.

I wavered back and forth between favoring Bush and disliking both him and Gore for awhile (I didn't know enough of the other candidates to really say). My first comment on the first debate during the campaign was that one (Bush) built himself up while the other (Gore) tore his opponent down. To blow up that point a little, I didn't like the idea of someone who looked down upon everyone, but I didn't want someone who would spend his time in office praising himself, either. I must say I'd have voted for Bush, though, if I were old enough. Your comment that he is the "lesser of the two evils" describes exactly how I felt.

> But strange things happen during crisis times. People come together under their leadership, regardless of party affiliation or who voted for whom. I'm sure there are still a lot of Americans out there who wish Al Gore was president right now, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find one who won't stand behind Bush and the Congress in this time of trouble.

This is what gives me a lot more faith in my country than I've ever had. Instead of fighting over which candidate would have been better or looking hard to find flaws in everything our president does, I've seen nothing but support for the speech he gave last night.

> Another thought, on allies and friends in this coming conflict. British PM Tony Blair was in attendance last night, and Bush made the stirring comment that "America has no truer friend than Great Britain". It's a statement that deserves reflection. The history of Britain and America is in many respects the history of a parent and a child. Many nations colonized the new world, but in American public schools, we are generally taught that the history of our country began with the English colony of Jamestown in 1607.

And I note that, being in high school at the time, mostly everything I've been taught of Britain and America's past has been said with respect.

> Again, in World War II, we were slow to react. We were still thinking that isolationism was something that was a valid option, and that we could keep ourselves out of what we saw as a strictly European conflict. Pearl Harbor proved us wrong, and we entered the war against Germany just days later, when the Germans declared war on us.

From what I've learned of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, we did nothing in return - no "retaliation," not even an attempt to find whoever was responsible (Correct me if I'm wrong on any of that information; it will only help if I know more). I suppose it, again, took something like this to wake us up. Maybe it's the fact that what happened last Tuesday is much larger than the '93 incident. Maybe it's because we're under different leadership. I don't know on that one.

> I have often been derisive and condescending towards many "furiners" here on the forum, but I hope most people realize that I do not seriously think that the US is always good and always right and that other countries and their citizens are stupid and weak.

Exactly. Doing that would only get us in more trouble. Going into another country believing we WILL win whatever this might be - war, battle, campaign, I don't know the right term for it - might only impair our ability to make correct, successful decisions. In addition, it's just plain disrespectful to other countries.

> Finally, a point that is only tangentially related to the President's speech.
(snip long paragraph)

In other words, we should not fight back to get revenge on those involved or even just to have someone to blame, but, should we go into war (battle, campaign, still unsure of the correct term), we should instead do so to stop the groups involved from doing this again. (If I interpreted that right, I agree. If not, correct me.)

Another short note - I'm glad to see a few people dropping their joking about other countries and being serious about this issue. Making jokes, even if in a very lighthearted manner, about those who ally themselves with the US, and even those who don't, will only add salt to the wound. It's great to know that people know when that kind of thing is appropriate and when it isn't.

> -- Dave

ri "Yes, I'm still here, just lurking and silently agreeing with, disagreeing with, or laughing at posts :-)" a