Terrorism Re: Corporate transparency

Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net
Wed, 09 Jan 2002 23:12:43 -0600

"S. Alexander Jacobson" wrote:

> Disputing the factual content of this speech is
> either:
> a. stupid (because there is no factual content)
> b. intended to limit the rallying effect --
>    because one is either opposed to the war or our
>    troops, or
> c. intended to score political/ratings points
>    against Bush even at the cost of limiting the
>    effectiveness of the speech (and potentially
>    our effectiveness in war)

How about (d) --- just an expression of disgust at the total disrespect such a speech
betrays of the very people it is (poorly) designed to manipulate.  Look, nobody needed
"pumping up" at that point in time.  We were already in an incredibly heightened state
of aggression, etc.  Saying things like "we're on a mission to destroy evil in the
world" is just DUMB.

> Regarding timeliness, this is common sense.  If
> you were on a football team and about to play in
> the superbowl and the coach was giving a speech
> screaming "They suck!  We're goin' to CRUSH
> them!"

This is a nation, not a freaking football team, and our endeavor is much more
significant than a football game.  I'm a big football fan and frankly I think your
analogy does a disservice to everybody involved, football players, the American people,