The President speaks on terrorism. Bill Clinton
October 16, 2001 11:10 AM Subscribe
The President speaks on terrorism. Bill Clinton an amazing speech for which no trascrpit available but here on audio, along with Helen Thomas...well worth the hearing. I post here to simply make it available.
Yes, but he's still called President Clinton. It's a lifetime title.
posted by starvingartist at 11:43 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by starvingartist at 11:43 AM on October 16, 2001
He didn't write "President Clinton," he wrote "The President". That would be Bush, not Clinton.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:46 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by ljromanoff at 11:46 AM on October 16, 2001
I have to say that Bill Clinton was, and still is, an impressive speaker. Comparing this to the current President's first and most recent official press conference, the difference between their speaking abilities is staggering.
posted by chacal at 11:46 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by chacal at 11:46 AM on October 16, 2001
If I wanted a President who was good at giving speeches, I would have voted for Reagan
posted by Dagobert at 11:53 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by Dagobert at 11:53 AM on October 16, 2001
Although Bush is an appalling lecturer, I must admit that he's had some high-quality speech writers on staff during all of this. It has almost made him appear somewhat more competent.
posted by travis vocino at 11:58 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by travis vocino at 11:58 AM on October 16, 2001
The correct title for a former president is "Mr."
A cursory search only turned up this CNN article on the subject but I'm positive that Judith Martin agrees; I've looked it up before.
posted by mimi at 11:58 AM on October 16, 2001
A cursory search only turned up this CNN article on the subject but I'm positive that Judith Martin agrees; I've looked it up before.
posted by mimi at 11:58 AM on October 16, 2001
I have to say that Bill Clinton was, and still is, an impressive speaker. Comparing this to the current President's first and most recent official press conference, the difference between their speaking abilities is staggering.
Note taken, but I'd still take a president of action over a president of words anyday. GWB may not be as good a speaker as Clinton, but he does seem to be growing into the presidency and a lot more at ease during those press conferences and public speaking.
posted by the_0ne at 11:58 AM on October 16, 2001
Note taken, but I'd still take a president of action over a president of words anyday. GWB may not be as good a speaker as Clinton, but he does seem to be growing into the presidency and a lot more at ease during those press conferences and public speaking.
posted by the_0ne at 11:58 AM on October 16, 2001
That former lawyer and former president also is known as a man of action--just ask the babes! but kidding aside, Bush heading for trouble till something happened (the terror attacks). Numbers dropping like pancakes. Clinton very active in trying to bring peace to Ireland, Palestine. And he had a budget that baleneced for the first time in our country since RR. And it was out of balence BEFORE the terror attacks. And I am a right winger!
posted by Postroad at 12:04 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by Postroad at 12:04 PM on October 16, 2001
Numbers dropping like pancakes. Clinton very active in trying to bring peace to Ireland, Palestine. And he had a budget that baleneced for the first time in our country since RR. And it was out of balence BEFORE the terror attacks.
I'm not sure why you're trying to stir up a discussion about the Clinton and Bush presidencies at this point, but your above facts are highly debatable.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:11 PM on October 16, 2001
I'm not sure why you're trying to stir up a discussion about the Clinton and Bush presidencies at this point, but your above facts are highly debatable.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:11 PM on October 16, 2001
And he had a budget that baleneced for the first time in our country since RR
Actually, first time since LBJ.
And it was out of balence BEFORE the terror attacks. And I am a right winger!
There's still gonna be a surplus this year. Now next year...
posted by boaz at 12:14 PM on October 16, 2001
Actually, first time since LBJ.
And it was out of balence BEFORE the terror attacks. And I am a right winger!
There's still gonna be a surplus this year. Now next year...
posted by boaz at 12:14 PM on October 16, 2001
Bush's speechwriters certainly are top-notch. Not only do they write amazingly, but they do it in such a way so as not to include too many big words or phrases with too many syllables.
The word "evil-doers" is dumbed-down just enough for the President to understand, deliver and sneer in that stupid way - while having Joe Sixpack believe that GWB really wrote it: Brilliant! I mean it.
posted by tsarfan at 12:24 PM on October 16, 2001
The word "evil-doers" is dumbed-down just enough for the President to understand, deliver and sneer in that stupid way - while having Joe Sixpack believe that GWB really wrote it: Brilliant! I mean it.
posted by tsarfan at 12:24 PM on October 16, 2001
I agree tsarfan, unfortunately they've yet to come up with another word for "terror" so I suppose he'll continue to say "Terra."
posted by travis vocino at 12:31 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by travis vocino at 12:31 PM on October 16, 2001
I agree tsarfan, unfortunately they've yet to come up with another word for "terror" so I suppose he'll continue to say "Terra."
that's not a grammatical "mistake" that's his accent.. I love his Texan accent.. I'm glad that I don't have to listen to a yankeefied president anymore.. I feel that Bush's accent makes him more endearing.. (yea I'm Texan.. so shoot me)
posted by KimmishKim at 12:40 PM on October 16, 2001
that's not a grammatical "mistake" that's his accent.. I love his Texan accent.. I'm glad that I don't have to listen to a yankeefied president anymore.. I feel that Bush's accent makes him more endearing.. (yea I'm Texan.. so shoot me)
posted by KimmishKim at 12:40 PM on October 16, 2001
There's still gonna be a surplus this year. Now next year...
Um. Doubtful there will be a surplus this year. All this money being asked for (and given) to airlines, NYC, DC, etc, is ALL coming out of the social security surplus. The surplus was already being eyed by Bush even before the terrorist attacks, and Bush said during the presidential race that he wouldn't touch those funds.
Plus, everyone (in Congress) is already admitting that they are more than likely going to have to start deficit spending again, especially if Bush wants to increase spending on the military, and anything else he labels "homeland defense" or "economic stimulus."
So, what's the answer? Why more tax cuts for big business of course! Trickle down worked so well in the 12 years the Republicans practiced it before that they are going to try it again. Because what else do rich folks have to do with their money during a recession than to think up new ways to give it to their hard working employees.
Plus welfare limits are about to run out. And while Welfare reform may have looked like a huge success during the economic boom of the 90s, it is gonna get ugly as the economy turns sour. Think there will be a bail out to help these people? Hell no. They don't have high-priced lobbyist that the airline and other industries have.
So everyone still happy with their big $300 checks?
posted by terrapin at 12:43 PM on October 16, 2001
Um. Doubtful there will be a surplus this year. All this money being asked for (and given) to airlines, NYC, DC, etc, is ALL coming out of the social security surplus. The surplus was already being eyed by Bush even before the terrorist attacks, and Bush said during the presidential race that he wouldn't touch those funds.
Plus, everyone (in Congress) is already admitting that they are more than likely going to have to start deficit spending again, especially if Bush wants to increase spending on the military, and anything else he labels "homeland defense" or "economic stimulus."
So, what's the answer? Why more tax cuts for big business of course! Trickle down worked so well in the 12 years the Republicans practiced it before that they are going to try it again. Because what else do rich folks have to do with their money during a recession than to think up new ways to give it to their hard working employees.
Plus welfare limits are about to run out. And while Welfare reform may have looked like a huge success during the economic boom of the 90s, it is gonna get ugly as the economy turns sour. Think there will be a bail out to help these people? Hell no. They don't have high-priced lobbyist that the airline and other industries have.
So everyone still happy with their big $300 checks?
posted by terrapin at 12:43 PM on October 16, 2001
And, since Clinton was the last person actually elected to the Presidency, it seems reasonable to call him the President. Ha ha.
posted by nicwolff at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by nicwolff at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2001
There's still gonna be a surplus this year. Now next year...
Um. Doubtful there will be a surplus this year. All this money being asked for (and given) to airlines, NYC, DC, etc, is ALL coming out of the social security surplus. The surplus was already being eyed by Bush even before the terrorist attacks, and Bush said during the presidential race that he wouldn't touch those funds.
Plus, everyone (in Congress) is already admitting that they are more than likely going to have to start deficit spending again, especially if Bush wants to increase spending on the military, and anything else he labels "homeland defense" or "economic stimulus."
So, what's the answer? Why more tax cuts for big business of course! Trickle down worked so well in the 12 years the Republicans practiced it before that they are going to try it again. Because what else do rich folks have to do with their money during a recession than to think up new ways to give it to their hard working employees.
Plus welfare limits are about to run out. And while Welfare reform may have looked like a huge success during the economic boom of the 90s, it is gonna get ugly as the economy turns sour. Think there will be a bail out to help these people? Hell no. They don't have high-priced lobbyist that the airline and other industries have.
So everyone still happy with their big $300 checks?
posted by terrapin at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2001
Um. Doubtful there will be a surplus this year. All this money being asked for (and given) to airlines, NYC, DC, etc, is ALL coming out of the social security surplus. The surplus was already being eyed by Bush even before the terrorist attacks, and Bush said during the presidential race that he wouldn't touch those funds.
Plus, everyone (in Congress) is already admitting that they are more than likely going to have to start deficit spending again, especially if Bush wants to increase spending on the military, and anything else he labels "homeland defense" or "economic stimulus."
So, what's the answer? Why more tax cuts for big business of course! Trickle down worked so well in the 12 years the Republicans practiced it before that they are going to try it again. Because what else do rich folks have to do with their money during a recession than to think up new ways to give it to their hard working employees.
Plus welfare limits are about to run out. And while Welfare reform may have looked like a huge success during the economic boom of the 90s, it is gonna get ugly as the economy turns sour. Think there will be a bail out to help these people? Hell no. They don't have high-priced lobbyist that the airline and other industries have.
So everyone still happy with their big $300 checks?
posted by terrapin at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2001
Even though his old man made me wince almost as much as he does, I liked it back in the day when GW called the other desert dweller Sa-DAMN.
They played it off as a Texas accent, but we all knew better.
posted by tsarfan at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2001
They played it off as a Texas accent, but we all knew better.
posted by tsarfan at 12:44 PM on October 16, 2001
poop. sorry for the double post.
that's not a grammatical "mistake" that's his accent.. I love his Texan accent
What's not to love? Every time he says "terrorist" it sounds like he is saying "tourists." And living in Washington, DC I am all for getting rid of tourists ;)
posted by terrapin at 12:49 PM on October 16, 2001
that's not a grammatical "mistake" that's his accent.. I love his Texan accent
What's not to love? Every time he says "terrorist" it sounds like he is saying "tourists." And living in Washington, DC I am all for getting rid of tourists ;)
posted by terrapin at 12:49 PM on October 16, 2001
Touche, NicWolff! You've got a damned fine point there.
posted by mimi at 12:51 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by mimi at 12:51 PM on October 16, 2001
So everyone still happy with their big $300 checks?
Yes, thanks for asking.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:54 PM on October 16, 2001
Yes, thanks for asking.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:54 PM on October 16, 2001
To support terrapin's point, but to make clear that this isn't a Republican-only sell-out: the airline industry's lobbyists aren't just high-priced; one of them is Tom Daschle's wife.
posted by nicwolff at 12:59 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by nicwolff at 12:59 PM on October 16, 2001
All of our $300 checks are fine as long as we all go out and spend them instead of stashing them under our mattresses.
posted by mau at 1:05 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by mau at 1:05 PM on October 16, 2001
What's not to love? Every time he says "terrorist" it sounds like he is saying "tourists." And living in Washington, DC I am all for getting rid of tourists ;)
i don't notice that it sounds like that.. maybe it's because i'm texan too..
posted by KimmishKim at 1:07 PM on October 16, 2001
i don't notice that it sounds like that.. maybe it's because i'm texan too..
posted by KimmishKim at 1:07 PM on October 16, 2001
I can hear (see) Clinton's speech were he still the president.
Clinton: (biting lip). Well, ah. (looks left, nods head solemnly) Ah am heer to hep you! Ah feel yore pain.
posted by prodigal at 1:13 PM on October 16, 2001
Clinton: (biting lip). Well, ah. (looks left, nods head solemnly) Ah am heer to hep you! Ah feel yore pain.
posted by prodigal at 1:13 PM on October 16, 2001
Tax cuts for big businesses? Sounds good to me. No business anywhere pays taxes. All they do is shuffle the costs to the pockets of their customers, employees, and stockholders. It's a way to tax PEOPLE without the people being as aware of it.
I'd be happy if no business anywhere paid federal income taxes. Then the government would have to explain to those with stock, and those on the assembly line, and those that MUST have that new car because of the half-naked chick on the hood, that each of them needs to give even more.
Hidden taxes suck.
posted by dwivian at 1:20 PM on October 16, 2001
I'd be happy if no business anywhere paid federal income taxes. Then the government would have to explain to those with stock, and those on the assembly line, and those that MUST have that new car because of the half-naked chick on the hood, that each of them needs to give even more.
Hidden taxes suck.
posted by dwivian at 1:20 PM on October 16, 2001
I'm glad that I don't have to listen to a yankeefied president anymore
If you start with LBJ, and throw out Ford, you have as many southern as non-southern accents in the White House.
Maybe you're to young to remember Carter and LBJ, but Clinton doesn't sound exactly yankeefied to me. Abd compared to LJB, GWB sounds like Peter Jennings.
My family's from Mississippi, so although I've long lost the southern accent I had as a child, I still have a dixified ear.
Anyone ever hear JFK's pronunciation of "Cuba"? It always sounded like "Cuber". To me, THAT was one yankeefied accent.
posted by groundhog at 1:23 PM on October 16, 2001
If you start with LBJ, and throw out Ford, you have as many southern as non-southern accents in the White House.
Maybe you're to young to remember Carter and LBJ, but Clinton doesn't sound exactly yankeefied to me. Abd compared to LJB, GWB sounds like Peter Jennings.
My family's from Mississippi, so although I've long lost the southern accent I had as a child, I still have a dixified ear.
Anyone ever hear JFK's pronunciation of "Cuba"? It always sounded like "Cuber". To me, THAT was one yankeefied accent.
posted by groundhog at 1:23 PM on October 16, 2001
Yup, JFK followed the bostonian ruleset...
-Remove all 'r's unless it begins a word.
-Any word that lost an 'r' at the end and now has an 'e' or 'o' at the end has the 'e' or 'o' changed to an 'a'.
-The first 'e' or 'o' in a word gets changed to an 'a'.
-Replace each 'a' in a word with an 'aa' (usually pronounced like 'aaaah')
-Any word that ends with an 'a' has an 'r' tacked on.
(there is some kind of wierd, partial conservation of 'r's principle at work)
posted by machaus at 2:15 PM on October 16, 2001
-Remove all 'r's unless it begins a word.
-Any word that lost an 'r' at the end and now has an 'e' or 'o' at the end has the 'e' or 'o' changed to an 'a'.
-The first 'e' or 'o' in a word gets changed to an 'a'.
-Replace each 'a' in a word with an 'aa' (usually pronounced like 'aaaah')
-Any word that ends with an 'a' has an 'r' tacked on.
(there is some kind of wierd, partial conservation of 'r's principle at work)
posted by machaus at 2:15 PM on October 16, 2001
Aggs, lags and wyre. Long A. Yes Texan is a different accent. And yaes I enunciate them that way.
posted by bjgeiger at 2:18 PM on October 16, 2001
posted by bjgeiger at 2:18 PM on October 16, 2001
So everyone still happy with their big $300 checks?
Actually, mine was $600, and yeah, I'm really happy with that and also happy with the extra $20 bucks a week I have in my paycheck since GWB took over.
posted by the_0ne at 7:40 PM on October 16, 2001
Actually, mine was $600, and yeah, I'm really happy with that and also happy with the extra $20 bucks a week I have in my paycheck since GWB took over.
posted by the_0ne at 7:40 PM on October 16, 2001
"he does seem to be growing into the presidency and a lot more at ease during those press conferences and public speaking"
This thread's all over the damn place, so I don't feel too much like a thread-jacker by saying : how much lower can expectations go when the the semi-elected president of the world's pre-eminent semi-democracy is not even assumed to have mastered public speaking before he takes the job?
::shakes head ruefully, walks away from dead horse::
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:40 PM on October 16, 2001
This thread's all over the damn place, so I don't feel too much like a thread-jacker by saying : how much lower can expectations go when the the semi-elected president of the world's pre-eminent semi-democracy is not even assumed to have mastered public speaking before he takes the job?
::shakes head ruefully, walks away from dead horse::
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:40 PM on October 16, 2001
Helen Thomas was, is, and forever will be a jewel. A longwinded fighter and a fine treasure of this country. She's retired but she's still kicking.
Sorry. After reading over thirty posts of people nitpicking, I just wanted to see a bit of positive stuff in this thread. Imagine my surprise to find it's mine. Though I must add that for me, the sign of a successful presidency is not a president who can help America through a war, but a president who can keep America out of war. Clinton's a lot of things, but despite his personal scruples and silliness, his actions as a president included and involved the furtherence of World Peace. You may disagree with him, but no one can say his heart was in the wrong place. He meant well, and we are better today than we were before he took office.
I'm sure Bush will do his job equally admirably. I stand behind him although I did not vote for him and wish him the best. He will do things differently, but I'm confident our country's in the right hands. Both men have proven they do deserve the title of president, in or out of the White House.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:16 AM on October 17, 2001
Sorry. After reading over thirty posts of people nitpicking, I just wanted to see a bit of positive stuff in this thread. Imagine my surprise to find it's mine. Though I must add that for me, the sign of a successful presidency is not a president who can help America through a war, but a president who can keep America out of war. Clinton's a lot of things, but despite his personal scruples and silliness, his actions as a president included and involved the furtherence of World Peace. You may disagree with him, but no one can say his heart was in the wrong place. He meant well, and we are better today than we were before he took office.
I'm sure Bush will do his job equally admirably. I stand behind him although I did not vote for him and wish him the best. He will do things differently, but I'm confident our country's in the right hands. Both men have proven they do deserve the title of president, in or out of the White House.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:16 AM on October 17, 2001
Though I must add that for me, the sign of a successful presidency is not a president who can help America through a war, but a president who can keep America out of war.
Ummmmm, I don't think Bush dragged us into this "war", I think it had something to do with those 6000+ people being murdered in cold blood, something that could have happened and almost did during the Clinton years. I can't blame this past catastrophe on Clinton, even though so many are trying, but I have to say that if he was a little stronger as a president and worried more about security and defense and THIS country and not the rest of the f'en world, maybe we wouldn't have to be where we are.
This post is correct, Clinton was a great speaker, I still remember when he declared war on terrorism. I just don't remember him taking any kind of real action against it.
posted by the_0ne at 5:56 AM on October 17, 2001
Ummmmm, I don't think Bush dragged us into this "war", I think it had something to do with those 6000+ people being murdered in cold blood, something that could have happened and almost did during the Clinton years. I can't blame this past catastrophe on Clinton, even though so many are trying, but I have to say that if he was a little stronger as a president and worried more about security and defense and THIS country and not the rest of the f'en world, maybe we wouldn't have to be where we are.
This post is correct, Clinton was a great speaker, I still remember when he declared war on terrorism. I just don't remember him taking any kind of real action against it.
posted by the_0ne at 5:56 AM on October 17, 2001
i never liked listening to clinton speak.. i like listening to bush though.. and so many are raggin on him for not using "big words".. has anyone ever thought that maybe its a good thing that he doesnt use a whole lot of flowery language so that EVERYONE can understand him? almost anyone could understand "evil-doer"s.. but everyone might not understand "perpetrator" or some other word he could have used..
i think its refreshing to have a president who tells it like it is and doesnt hide behind fancy words..
posted by KimmishKim at 11:53 AM on October 17, 2001
i think its refreshing to have a president who tells it like it is and doesnt hide behind fancy words..
posted by KimmishKim at 11:53 AM on October 17, 2001
i think its refreshing to have a president who tells it like it is and doesnt hide behind fancy words..
And Quintilian spins in his antique grave.
Look, successful rhetoric isn't about "fancy words" or "simple words". It's about using the right words. And there's a happy medium between quibbling on what the meaning of "is" is, and using banal epithets better suited to cartoons.
posted by holgate at 4:05 PM on October 17, 2001
« Older The leaflets | The Taliban Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ljromanoff at 11:37 AM on October 16, 2001