"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them"
About this Quote
A threat dressed as moral clarity, this line collapses a messy geopolitical map into a single, prosecutable category: guilt by association. Spoken in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Bush wasn’t just naming an enemy; he was building a framework broad enough to justify whatever came next. “No distinction” sounds principled, even fair. It’s also deliberately blunt, designed to short-circuit the public’s impulse to ask inconvenient questions about evidence, sovereignty, or degrees of complicity.
The syntax does heavy lifting. “We will make” plants the flag of resolve and signals executive capacity, not deliberation. “Terrorists” is the fixed point of evil; “those who harbour them” is the elastic clause, expandable to states, militias, financiers, or anyone accused of looking the other way. The word “harbour” itself is rhetorically useful: it implies sheltering, knowing intent, a safe haven offered with consent. It’s an accusation that can be inferred rather than proven, and that ambiguity is the point. It invites a doctrine where refusal to cooperate becomes cooperation.
The subtext is a warning to governments: neutrality will be treated as hostility. It also reassures a frightened domestic audience that the response will be decisive and comprehensive, not limited to a handful of perpetrators. In practice, the line helped set the moral tone for the “War on Terror” and lowered the threshold for military action and coercive diplomacy, from Afghanistan to the wider architecture of surveillance, detention, and alliance-making. It works because it turns grief into a binary and sells that binary as strength.
The syntax does heavy lifting. “We will make” plants the flag of resolve and signals executive capacity, not deliberation. “Terrorists” is the fixed point of evil; “those who harbour them” is the elastic clause, expandable to states, militias, financiers, or anyone accused of looking the other way. The word “harbour” itself is rhetorically useful: it implies sheltering, knowing intent, a safe haven offered with consent. It’s an accusation that can be inferred rather than proven, and that ambiguity is the point. It invites a doctrine where refusal to cooperate becomes cooperation.
The subtext is a warning to governments: neutrality will be treated as hostility. It also reassures a frightened domestic audience that the response will be decisive and comprehensive, not limited to a handful of perpetrators. In practice, the line helped set the moral tone for the “War on Terror” and lowered the threshold for military action and coercive diplomacy, from Afghanistan to the wider architecture of surveillance, detention, and alliance-making. It works because it turns grief into a binary and sells that binary as strength.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, George W. Bush, Sept 20, 2001 — contains line: 'We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.' (UCSB American Presidency Project transcript) |
More Quotes by George
Add to List




