• Political Insider • Political Insider Live • Live: "Free Media" • Subscribe to the OnPolitics e-mail update • Talk: OnPolitics message boards • Live Online Transcripts

Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Sept. 21, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT

Tuesday, Sept. 11, in a horrific series of events, hijacked planes hit and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center and crashed into the Pentagon in what's being described as the single worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil. The Bush administration and law enforcement officials are actively seeking those responsible and have declared war on terrorism.

Charles Babington, chief political correspondent for washingtonpost.com, will be online to discuss President Bush's speech to the joint session of Congress, the government's handling of the crisis and other political news from the past week.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for taking my question.

My husband and I were watching the joint session and he was surprised to see the Supreme Court members clapping and standing along with Congress and Executive staffers. He said that they generally are just there to listen unemotionally and without response. Is that generally true? Or was last night's response from the Robes standard?

Charles Babington: Your husband is right. Typically, at State of the Union speeches and such, the justices sit silently. The nation is now in an extraordinary situation, and it appears the justices felt it appropriate to express their support for the president.

Alexandria, Va.: I was wondering who wrote President Bush's speech. I thought it was the best written speech since Bob Dole's acceptance of the Republican nomination in 1996.

Charles Babington: We're told the speech was drafted by the White House speech-writing team, headed by Mike Gerson, with strong assist from John Gibson. Karen Hughes also played an important role.

Sparta, N.J.: I don't like Bush and most of his policies, but he gave a good speech last night and is starting to rise to the occasion after a slow start following the attacks.

I hope he uses his current political capital for defeating the Taliban (and it increasingly looks like Saddam will be targeted, too) and weakening the terrorist networks. He will have almost everyone's support for that.

I hope he doesn't use it and Congress is smart enough to stop funding for the white elephant missile shield or his energy policy which doesn't do anything to wean our dependence on oil.

Charles Babington: When things settle down a little, it will be very interesting to see how the missile-defense debate evolves. Some people say the Sept. 11 attacks show that the greatest threats to the United States will come in the form of hijacked planes, truck bombs (as in Okla. City), and possibly suitcase bombs, etc., not from ballistic missiles. Others say the missile threat has in no way abated.

Jersey City, N.J.: The President's speech last night lacked a clear definition of the enemy. He mentioned several specific organizations, but then used general terms like "terrorists with worldwide reach" (I am paraphrasing). Doesn't that refer to hundreds of different causes around the world? I do not think that we can simply say that we are fighting terrorism. That concept clearly covers far more than what we wish to destroy or are even capable of destroying. Shouldn't he have at least narrowed the definition of our enemy to something like "terrorists who threaten the United States and its allies?"

On a related thought, do you believe that the attacks of Sept. 11 can fairly be characterized as terrorism? The alleged terrorists appear to me to have intended far more than to instill fear and extract political concessions -- they wanted to destroy the government of the United States and kill thousands of people. Isn't that an act of war and not an act of terrorism?

Charles Babington: The president did say that there are thousands of terrorists in more than 60 nations. But he didn't suggest we have to wipe out all of them. In fact, I thought he was quite clear in saying our first targets are bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, and the Taliban if it refuses to stop harboring terrorist activities. Beyond that, I don't think the president made any commitments. See my colleague Dan Balz's excellent analysis of the speech for more on this.
As for terrorism's definition: When civilians are directly targeted, that usually is called terrorism. The line between an act of terrorism and an act of war can be quite thin, as President Bush has indicated repeatedly by saying war was declared on the USA.

washingtonpost.com: A Resolute And Focused Call to Arms (Washington Post, Sept. 21)

Arlington, Va.: I hate to sound unpatriotic or to imply that I'm not "standing behind my president," but I've been a little disconcerted by the reappearance of the George's famous frat-boy smirk in the past few days, especially in moments when he was describing possible retaliatory measures.

And I don't think it is being hypercritical to note this. The image the president conveys in these moments is almost as important as his message.

Charles Babington: I think George W. Bush's facial expressions are what they are.... And what some see as a smirk may not be intended as a smirk at all. Anyway, most pundits and analysts seemed quite impressed by his delivery last night.

Washington, D.C.: The attitude that America some how "had it coming" in Europe and indeed in other parts of the world is deeply concerning. America's record in terms of foreign policy is far from perfect, but I would ask anyone to deliver me a country whose record is. This attitude only lends credibility for an act that that redefines evil. Let us not forget that prior to the 1960s England with France were the "Western Aggressors" of the Middle East and have far reaching culpability regarding the region's present state.

More importantly lets not forget that the people responsible for the events of last week are nihilists. They have no greater goal than to bring their fanatical interpretation of Islam to the entire world. If the people of Europe (or others) think this conflict is simply confined to the U.S. I would ask them to think of their children's future for they would certainly be next.

I am ashamed at the lack of "legitimate journalism" pervasive in modern society. My wish is for someone to direct their efforts in looking at the history and events of the region from an objective standpoint. There are and have been numerous leaders in the region who have purposely cheated their own people.

Charles Babington: I don't know what you mean by a lack of "legitimate journalism'' in this context. Over the years there has been tons and tons of reporting from the Middle East -- some of it better than others, of course, but quite a lot to choose from. One other quibble: Those behind the 9/11 atrocities certainly don't see themselves as nihilists (which are people who believe in nothing, correct?). They seem to believe in a fanatical form of Islam. To the great majority of the world, it's a twisted version of faith to be sure. But if they believed in nothing, they wouldn't make these suicide attacks, I'm convinced.
thanks for writing

Chicago, Illinois: I have been a harsh George W. Bush critic...not anymore. I thought his presentation last night showed us who is in charge (as he has over the past week). What has gone on to transform him? He seems like a reborn man? On another note, was the message of Dick Cheney's absence last night to show who was in charge on the podium? I understand that a member of the line of succession is always absent when the president addresses Congress, but this seemed like a calculated absence on many levels.

Charles Babington: Sometimes it takes a great tragedy to test whether someone can grow and meet a huge challenge. For now, at least, it seems that President Bush is doing just that.
As for Cheney's absence: Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, security agents generally have kept Bush and Cheney in separate locations. I don't think there was any special message beyond that in last night's logistics.

St. Louis, Mo.: I noticed last night that the speech, while cautioning Americans for a long struggle, didn't spell out many costs to average Americans beyond military casualties (not to minimize that cost). How about future attacks, financial carrots to foreign governments to address root problems, etc. He also makes the defining of who is a terrorist sound very straightforward, which it may be domestically but is certainly not internationally. Isn't the type of characterization used in the speech risky in terms of maintaining domestic support when the inevitable complications arise?

Charles Babington: You make a good point. Discussions of likely costs -- especially financial costs -- will have to take place eventually. I'm guessing the president felt it didn't have to be done in last night's speech.

Columbia, Md.: The Taliban has repeatedly refused to hand Osama bin Laden over to U.S. authorities without some evidence implicating him. Why has no one in the administration offered any evidence? Clearly there must be some or else bin Laden would not be a suspect. Is there some principle I do not understand at work here?

Charles Babington: As far as we can tell, the evidence against bin Laden is compelling, but not iron-clad conclusive. The administration obviously feels it doesn't have to wait for such conclusiveness to take action.

Hanover, Germany: President Bush's speech was unique and inspiring, as he seemed to able to rally the nation around the cause of fighting the terrorists behind this vicious attack. It was probably his best speech yet, possibly the best speech of his entire term. However, how long do you think will he be able to sustain the huge public support in the United States, especially for consequent military action. Thanks for accepting my question.

Charles Babington: Thanks for writing. I think the public will stay strongly behind the president and his mission until and unless we get bogged down in murky attacks and counter-attacks that fail to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and also fail to reduce terrorism threats in general. Certainly, two unpleasant possibilities could erode public support: 1. Heavy losses of U.S. troops, especially in some type of ambush or misstep that causes no casualties on the other side. And 2., Significant deaths and injuries among civilians in Afghanistan or any other place that gets attacked. It's inevitable that such civilian deaths will be gruesomely displayed for the world's TV cameras. Then, it will be very important to see how people in the USA, in allied nations and in Islamic nations react.

Fredericksburg, Va.: So is this the end for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? Will Republican politicians still be willing to associate with them? (This isn't the first time they've said something loony -- remember Falwell and the "Clinton Chronicles" and Robertson's babbling about "the New World Order.")

Charles Babington: We'll supply the links for those of you who missed the stories about Falwell's and Robertson's very controversial remarks about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. (In short, they suggested the USA partly brought the tragedy on itself because of immoral behavior, provoking God's wrath).
As you suggest, I think Falwell and Robertson have significantly diminished their ability to influence mainstream politics. In particular, Republicans will have to reassess their relationships with these two heretofore influential men.

washingtonpost.com: God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve," Falwell Says (Washington Post, Sept. 14)

Falwell Apologizes for Remarks (Washington Post, Sept. 18)

NW Washington, D.C.: I find it amazing that people say how they moved from disliking to liking Bush after this speech. This speech only shows undeniable quality of his speechwriters and says nothing about its reader!

Charles Babington: I disagree. I think it mainly shows the power of a horrific event -- 6,000 murdered civilians! -- to galvanize a nation. The great majority of Americans WANT President Bush to be a strong, decisive, successful leader in dealing with this tragedy. Last night, he apparently gave them what they wanted to see and hear.

Greenwood, Va.: Since the enormity of the September 11 attack far surpasses any other terrorist act, I tend to conclude that its purpose was to start a war. How could Bin Laden's terrorist organization expect to benefit ultimately from a war with The U.S.? Although I was moved by the President's words, I can't shake the feeling that we are playing into Bin Laden's hand.

Charles Babington: It's hard to know exactly what the terrorists' motives were. But bin Laden repeatedly has said he hates Americans, and he has called on his followers to kill them whenever and wherever they can. Last week's attacks were a horribly efficient and well-planned exercise to do just that.
Perhaps, in a way, we are playing into bin Laden's hands. But what are the alternatives? One might argue we should bide our time and try to locate and arrest bin Laden and put him on trial. But I think most people feel that the enormity of last week's carnage cries out for more immediate and aggressive action.... Thanks for writing from Greenwood.

Washington D.C.: Charles,

You wrote of President Bush's speech, "...most pundits and analysts seemed quite impressed by his delivery last night."

Do you consider yourself a pundit, an analyst or something else entirely? And were you impressed by his delivery?

Charles Babington: I'm not a pundit. As a reporter, I try to be analytical (else I become little more than a stenographer). I thought he delivered the speech quite well.

Baltimore, Md.: I realize the forum was a joint session of Congress, but why did it resemble a State of the Union speech?

Why did we need all the applause and opining out victims and survivors?

My take is fantastic speech, great delivery, but inappropriate forum.

Your thoughts?

Charles Babington: When I asked my two teenage boys what they thought of the speech, they said the president said interesting things, but the constant, long applause drove them crazy. I bet a lot of other Americans felt the same.
Speaking to a joint session of Congress lends a gravity -- even a bit of majesty -- to an occasion that can't be matched if the president simply talks into a camera from the Oval Office. But I completely agree that the tradition of long, loud, constant applause has gotten out of hand (no pun). I wish there were a way to stop it, but I see none.

Boston, Mass.: Count me among the many who have not been a Bush admirer who now give him credit for delivering an excellent speech. I think that Bush tends to be tenacious when he makes up his mind and devoted to acting to back up his convictions. We've seen it before in terms of the tax cut, ANWR, Kyoto, and other parts of his agenda. For once, I'm glad he is seeing an issue the way I see it. I think he will hang onto this and follow through like a pit bull (I'd say Bulldog, but he seems to hate his old school).

Charles Babington: Today, I bet even the Elis and Bulldogs at Yale are cheering their alum. Thanks for writing.

Charlottesville, Va.: Where were you 9/11/01 will be the question for many years to come. So let me ask you where you were and your personal reaction?

Charles Babington: I was on the 12th floor of washingtonpost.com's office in Arlington, Va.... I was watching CNN cover the first explosion in the World Trade Center tower (which I assumed was a terrible airplane accident) when the second tower burst into flames. At that instant I realized it was a deliberate attack, and I knew our lives had changed forever. A bit later, many of my colleagues started running to the windows and saying "The Pentagon's on fire!'' We could see it easily from our windows. It was horrible, and we all wondered where it would end.

Cathlamet, Wash.: This may seem trivial but why did Bush keep looking to the left during the segments of applause?

Charles Babington: I don't know. He was reading from teleprompters (as all presidents do in such addresses) -- one on the left and one on the right. Perhaps he just likes to start each new speech segment with the teleprompter on the left?

New York, N.Y.: I find it amazing that Maureen Dowd is still using every opportunity to rip Bush about his missile defense shield. Every column seems to be devoted to making it sound like the most idiotic thing in the whole world. Hasn't this event shown that people or nations are capable of anything? It makes me nervous that rouge nations have nuclear capabilities and I don't find the idea of a missile defense shield silly at all. Where does the ideology come from that makes most Democrats line up against it?

Charles Babington: I think questions and comments about Ms. Dowd should be directed to the New York Times, her employer.

Wiredog: It was funny watching the host of "Hardball," or whatever that Fox show is called, trying to get someone, anyone, to show something other than total support for the president. The host seemed kind of lost without any dissension to exploit.

Charles Babington: Actually, Hardball is an MSNBC show, so I'm not sure which host you're talking about.

Pennsylvania: I'm struggling with the choice between the country's right to know what its government is doing (since the Nixon days) and the government's ability to act as it needs to without everyone scrutinizing and critiquing every step.

In a small way, I'm hoping the government is lying its pants off by making such a big public deal over bin Laden and is really out there investigating all the other possibilities.

Charles Babington: Entirely possible, I guess.

Temple Hills, Md.: I am confused. I thought that Americans had confidence in America. If they do, why is the stock market in a free fall? Why hasn't National Airport reopened? Why aren't people going about the business of being Americans and showing the bastards who flew our planes into our buildings that no matter what they do, we will not bend and we sure as hell won't break. Right now, I can see them laughing their butts off wondering what happened to the strong America they always heard about? Was it just a lot of talk? I am invested in the market and haven't sold one share and don't plan to. I will continue to fly and I will continue to go where I want. I am an American and I will not allow "them" to take away my freedom and my confidence in America.

Charles Babington: While your patriotism is laudable, we can't uniformly equate investment strategies with national loyalty. Much of Wall Street's trading is done by investors responsible for billions of dollars of OTHER people's money (via mutual funds, large retirement programs, etc.). In good faith, they can't buy or sell stocks based on patriotism or other emotions as opposed to their best judgments on which stocks' values will rise or fall in the future.

Charles Babington: Thanks for the good questions and comments. Hope to see you next week.