Halfway down the Danube

"Leave the above sentence away, proceed with

"We mourn the innocent lives that have been lost, we stand with the people of Russia, we send them our prayers for this terrible situation",
and it would have been OK"

Except that could be describing an earthquake. I see nothing wrong with being a little more explicit, and I suspect President Kerry, President Dean, or even President Nader would respond the same way.

Ah, but see... I don't mind him mentioning terrorists or that terrorists are a continuing, horrible problem that needs to be solved (not that I think he has any clue as to how to do this).

But at this point, his duty was to react, as I said, as a president. He reacted as a campaigner. That's a different thing and it was tactless to do so.

I know your political opinions, Gareth. I don't want to discuss this in order to convince you of my point. I'm just stating my point, is all.

Far from being a "campaign" statement, it was a presidential as all these other, nearly identical statements, from Europeans!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3625692.stm

It was not a "campaign" statement, unless all these are too--from Europeans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3625692.stm

Sharon - eh, no.

I've watched all those statements, most of them live (yeah, I did watch a lot of news lately). Not a single one of them said anything but condemn terrorist acts and sympathize with the victims. Or ask for why the Russians botched it so horribly.

But if you think this is logomachy, then please mind that none of the statements were made

- by a campaigning politician
- in front of a cheering crowd
- during a campaign rally.

They were all statements by politicians to cameras, not politicians to crowds of own party touting for votes.

See the difference?

Claudia,

I share your outrage and I understand your perplexion. As Germans our Australians we expect heads of state - President Köhler and Queen Elizabeth II - to stay above the fray and not make stupid, insensitive and well... downright dishonest statements about contemporary events.

And as an Australian I am entirely unsurprised when a politician, in this case Immigration Minister Phil Ruddock, makes a statement eerily similar, to that of President Bush's.

In the conservative Sydney Morning Herald the editorials and readers alike poor scorn on Mr Ruddock's statement. Because, after all, he is just another politician.

It is very difficult for Americans with their amphibious President - half Head of State, half politician. He is a representative, an embodiment, of their great nation. And a lying, callous scumbag. It must be very difficult for Americans at this time and we must hold them all in our prayers.

- Syd

Ah, missed the URL. Here is Attorney-Gerneral and former Immigration Minister Ruddock's statement on the North Ossetia tragedy and the Australian election:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1190971.htm

- Syd

It was entirely appropriate for Bush to make that comment to his constituents. The U.S. is in a war against terrorism after all.

He wouldn't be wrong to imply what you suggest anyway. His opponents in the U.S. downplay every terrorist-related item. For example; the terrorists who took over the Russian school were called "guerilla's" or "hostage-takers" in most mainstream U.S. news reports. Another example is that every terror alert in the U.S. is questioned by the opposition as being politically motivated.

So while I don't agree with your interpretation(it seemed to me that Bush was trying help the audience identify with the victims in Russia), I wouldn't hold it against Bush if you were right.