McGrath, we can agree to disagree. As a point of clarification, I never said or implied that Americans were the only people Bush needed to be talking to; I just felt that it was important for him to communicate with Americans as well as people in other countries. And a tepid speech would not have served any of us well under the circumstances.

I think the word "war" is entirely appropriate, and I am pleased that Bush has continued to characterize it this way, despite receiving some criticism for it. Sure, it's a different kind of war, as we were attacked by a non-state entity (although one that appears to receive substantial support from a number of established governments with a range of international "legitimacy"). But the use of the word "war" recognizes that our country was attacked by an armed foreign power intent on weakening or destroying us -- their aims are not entirely clear, but certainly they meant to do us great harm. And it suggests that we must be prepared to commit substantial resources to fighting back aggressively in a campaign involving military force (as well as other mechanisms), in which there will be bloodshed, in which some will win and some will lose, for which the people of the countries involved should anticipate real sacrifice, and from which will emerge a realignment of governments and alliances. Choose another euphemism if you wish, but it sounds like war to me.