George W. Bush should be damn mad at his speechwriters. His final State of the Union speech was pedestrian. And it was irrelevant. After all, at this point, his deeds drown out any words he could issue. As he faces the last year of the presidency, he really has nothing new to say: win, win, win in Iraq; tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts; freedom, freedom, freedom. He certainly is not in any position to propose major new policy initiatives. He cannot move anything significant through the Democratic-controlled Congress in the next eleven months--except the continuation of his unpopular war. So the speech barely warrants analysis. That said, here are portions that stood out and the obvious commentary.
"As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. So in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives and their futures."
Then why won't the Bush allow the U.S. Senate--which represents the people--to authorize or not authorize the agreement the Bush administration is now negotiating with Iraq concerning the U.S. military presence there? Democrats maintain this accord should be treated as a treaty and put to the Senate for a vote. Bush says he can do it on his own. How's that for empowerment?
"Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about the federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There is only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: make the tax relief permanent."
He keeps calling tax breaks for millionaires "relief." Why do people making over $250,000 need "relief"?
"Next week, I will send you a budget....And this budget will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. American families have to balance their budgets, and so should their government."
Just not during Bush's entire time in office and not for the four years after he departs the White House. He will be leaving his successor $9.2 trillion in national debt.
"I ask you to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. These are difficult times for many American families, and by taking these steps, we can help more of them keep their homes."
What about the predatory lending industry that created the subprime mess? Nothing.
"We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control. So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions."
But not for all of those millions of Americans who are uninsured. Bush's plan would give a modest tax credit to people who can afford to buy their own plans. If you can't, well....
"Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil."
After seven years of the Bush II administration, is the nation significantly closer to energy independence?
"And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases."
Complete an agreement? How about getting one going? The Bush administration has demonstrated no urgency on this front, repeatedly blocking international steps toward redressing global warming.
"Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources."
This was Bush's only mention of China in the speech. China presents perhaps a fundamental challenge of this century. And what about freedom in China? Apparently, that issue didn't make the final cut for this address.
"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow."
But it's okay to censor the work of government scientists when it involves climate change.
"Tonight the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region. We reaffirm our pledge to help them build stronger and better than before. And tonight I am pleased to announce that in April we will host this year’s North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans."
If it's a march, it's a rather slow one. Much of New Orleans is still a wasteland. At least Bush is sending the city diplomats.
"Every Member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is growing faster than we can afford. And we all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits. I have laid out proposals to reform these programs. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and grandchildren."
Translation: I give up.
"Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals."
Translation: I have no idea what to do next.
"Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace."
See Hamas.
"We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to the enemies of America."
Haven't we heard this before? Paging Osama bin Laden.
"And we gave our troops [in Iraq] a new mission: Work with Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in its strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country."
That mission, Bush said a year ago, was to create breathing space for the Iraq government. In this speech, Bush did not mention breathing space for the Iraq government. Nor did he note that 2007 was the deadliest year overall for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. He did say that "American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission." A "protective overwatch mission"? Bush did not define what that meant? But it sure sounds like mission creep.
"Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."
Bush always talks about the war in Iraq as if the primary battle is against al Qaeda, though numerous military and terrorism experts have repeatedly said that al Qaeda is a rather small slice of the insurgency in Iraq.
"Reconciliation [in Iraq] is taking place."
That remains debatable.
"A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven."
In Saddam Hussein's unfree Iraq, al Qaeda had no safe haven. And there is little chance that should the U.S. withdraw troops from Iraq, the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds would hand over the country to the small and unpopular al Qaeda outfit in Iraq.
"This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year."
It just took Bush a little while to get around to working on the Middle East.
"America is using its influence to build a freer, more hopeful, and more compassionate world."
That must be why the United States' standing in the world is so low.
"America is leading the fight against global poverty."
Other Western nations devote a higher percentage of their gross national product to foreign assistance. By the way, there was no mention of American poverty in the hour-long speech.
"So long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the State of our Union will remain strong."
We just cannot trust the people when it comes to war. Two-thirds of the American public now say the Iraq war was a mistake. Bush refuses to acknowledge that. This profound gap between the people and the president was not part of his assessment of the state of the union. Then again, how could it be?
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Thanks for taking the time to deconstruct Bush's "State of the Union" fallacy. If yur Bush, why not deliver the same old warmed-over "free people" don't attack the WTC with airplanes speach? It's his legacy he's playing for now, not anything else. Did you notice him giving his signature like Brittany Spears? What a moron. He's the president not a celebrity or professional athlete. Legacy, legacy, legacy. It's all about the legacy. The man must have a twisted mind becuase for EVERYONE else, its all about cleaning up the mess he leaves.
Posted by: Neil
| January 29, 2008 10:04 AM
The Bush administration never does anything wrong so why point out what the public feels they screwed up?
Bush believes that all he did was with the consent of the Father in the sky so it can't possibly be open to criticism.
Posted by: kalpal
| January 29, 2008 10:23 AM
"Father in the sky "
Bush believes in the great spaghetti monster?
Another darn pastafarian.
Maybe he couldn't get any good writer because of the strike?
Posted by: capt
| January 29, 2008 10:41 AM
Regardless of our political beliefs, when it comes to oratory skills - and content - none of us will ever confuse President George W. Bush with FDR or JFK or Reagan.
Posted by: Tomcantu
| January 29, 2008 11:21 AM
Dubya was a much better speaker years ago. There is footage of him (running for gov. ?) where he sounded clear and nearly articulate.
The burden of office really ages our chief executives - at the end of two terms they all seem spent.
Posted by: capt
| January 29, 2008 12:18 PM
Any State of the Union address is really an exercise in priority-setting, and last night’s speech was disappointing in one regard.
President Bush asked Congress to double federal support for the physical sciences–which is much needed–but when it came to the health sciences, his mention of medical research was limited to the morality of stem cell research and cloning.
He did ask for a doubling of the budget for fighting HIV/AIDS and cutting in half the number of malaria deaths in Africa and around the world.
But for the day-to-day funding of our nation’s medical research, which has lengthened life expectancy and drastically improved the quality of life for millions of Americans, zilch.
The administration and Congress have flattened the growth of federal funding for medical and health research for several years to the point that it has fallen below inflation, dampening long-term economic growth proven to have resulted from medical innovations, helping create a brain drain and slowing the pace of progress.
For more on the effect of medical research on the nation’s health and economy, visit the bipartisan www.researchamerica.org
Posted by: IraRAllen
| January 29, 2008 2:29 PM
www.researchamerica.org
Looks like a bunch of good stuff.
Thanks
Posted by: capt
| January 29, 2008 3:08 PM
Captain,
You hit the nail on the head a couple of posts ago.
I don't know whether it was 9/11 or the war or the pounding he is taking in some media, but he now always has that deer-in-the-headlights look when speaking. I know second graders who give better oral recitations on what they did on their summer vacation.
This was certainly not the case when he was governor of Texas, but you could certainly see it by the 2004 elections. Never to be confused with William Jennings Bryan, at least at one time he was fairly articulate, but by now he is barely coherent. And I think that has to be admitted, regardless of political persuasion.
We all know that convincing people consists of two factors - what you say and how you say it. And the latter may be more important than the former. Do we really admire Senator Obama for his policy positions, or more because he seems to be able to inspire us with his oratory?
It is really a sad sight for a President of the United States not to be able to speak.
Posted by: Tomcantu
| January 29, 2008 3:34 PM
No doubt, and the orator versus wonk has yet to be decided for this (s)election cycle.
People love to hope and the worse things are the more hope is in demand.
Posted by: capt
| January 29, 2008 3:53 PM
Documented Lies by Bush before the Invasion
[...]
On July 14, 2003, as the U.S.-led WMD search also was coming up empty, Bush began asserting that it was all Hussein’s fault because he had never let the U.N. inspectors in. Bush told reporters:
“We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”
Facing no challenge from the White House press corps, Bush continued repeating this lie in varied forms over the next four years as part of his public litany for defending the invasion.
On Jan. 27, 2004, for example, Bush said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”
As the months and years went by, Bush’s lie and its constant retelling took on the color of truth.
At a March 21, 2006, news conference, Bush again blamed the war on Hussein’s defiance of U.N. demands for unfettered inspections.
“I was hoping to solve this [Iraq] problem diplomatically,” Bush said. “The world said, ‘Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.’ … We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did.”
At a press conference on May 24, 2007, Bush offered a short-hand version, even inviting the journalists to remember the invented history.
“As you might remember back then, we tried the diplomatic route: [U.N. Resolution] 1441 was a unanimous vote in the Security Council that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. So the choice was his [Hussein’s] to make. And he made a choice that has subsequently caused him to lose his life.”
In the frequent repetition of this claim, Bush never acknowledges the fact that Hussein did comply with Resolution 1441 by declaring accurately that he had disposed of his WMD stockpiles and by permitting U.N. inspectors to examine any site of their choosing.
******
The lies are about the inspectors, Saddam’s submission of requested documentation and the simple truth. Bush made the inspectors leave Iraq because we were going to attack.
Lie after lie to get his war on.
One cannot assert Bush didn't know he was lying. He was the only person responsible for invading Iraq based on his lies and fabrications.
Posted by: capt
| January 29, 2008 5:36 PM
It looks like the proverbial stake through the heart is being driven through the conservative movement in Florida this evening, If McCain gets the nomination this will be the biggest throw away presidential candidate since Bob Dole in 1996. A true conservative, including myself, will never vote for John McCain, A lot of conservatives will be blaming the MSM for propping up McCain in the coming weeks and months but I have a whole different take on it. The blame rests, in order, as follows:
George W. Bush: For not picking a running mate in 2000 that would not be able to succeed him and for keeping Dick Cheney on after the election in 2004.
Dick Cheney: Probably accepted the 2000 running mate position as a favor to Bush 41 and the party, but could have easily stepped aside in 2005. Lets be truthful here. There has not been one significant accomplishment in the second Bush 43 term. No matter who you think is actually pulling the strings in the White House, Nothing can be accomplished by anybody. Cheney could have gracefully stepped aside and would have been the better for it, in my opinion.
The Religious Right. For all their holier than thou attitude, they basically have pushed aside a good man who I believe would have made a good president, Mitt Romney just wasn't the "right religion" to receive their approval. Sad day in America. Freedom of Religion
is one of the primary tenets of our very constitution and one of the main reasons our founders came to this country in the first place. I say this as smeone who was baptized a Mormon but have never really practiced the faith. That is why I will never criticize anyone for their religious or non-religious views. If you worship a tree, more power to you if it makes you happy. I won't criticize yours if you don't criticize mine.
That being said, don't think that all things are peaches and beans on the Democrat side. You have many questioning Obama's faith. Why? Why does it matter.
You have a candidate with the highes negatives of any presidential candidate who, were it not for the dream of many voters to have Bill back in the White House, would not be even aken seriously as a candidate. All in all, should be interesting, only in one way. Will the Democrats nominate Obama? If they do not, they have just nominated the biggest throw away candidate since Mondale. Conservatives may not come out for McCain, but they will come out in droves against Hillary.
Dem's best bet: Obama/rIRichardson.
Repub's best bet? Romney/?
Posted by: tytandanmar
| January 29, 2008 9:35 PM
Mea culpa to Bush on Presidents Day
Plain Talk by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY founder
Our great country has had 43 presidents. Many very good. A few pretty bad. On Presidents Day next Monday, it's appropriate to commemorate them all.
I remember every president since Herbert Hoover, when I was a grade school kid. He was one of the worst. I've personally met every president since Dwight Eisenhower. He was one of the best.
A year ago I criticized Hillary Clinton for saying "this (Bush) administration will go down in history as one of the worst."
"She's wrong," I wrote. Then I rated these five presidents, in this order, as the worst: Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, Hoover and Richard Nixon. "It's very unlikely Bush can crack that list," I added.
I was wrong. This is my mea culpa. Not only has Bush cracked that list, but he is planted firmly at the top.
*****
OUCH, still nearly a year to screw things up worse.
No matter who ends up in the top slot - none will take the crown “Worst President Ever” (unless they really try).
Posted by: capt
| January 29, 2008 11:38 PM
Post A Comment