The President's State of the Union address was an upbeat statement of his convictions and a promise of his determination to stay the course. Of our progress in the war on terror he had this to say.
America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders -- and for the others, their day will come.
We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy. We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.
Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom. (Applause.)
Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning.
The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)
Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. (Applause.) Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine had the honor, or the misfortune, of responding to the President's address. In his response, the Honorable Governor went straight to the second-guessing to offer criticism that sounded quite pathetic, really.
We now know that the American people were given inaccurate information about the reasons for invading Iraq. We now know that our troops in Iraq were not given the best body armor or the best intelligence. We now know that the Administration wants to cut tens of thousands of troops from the Army Reserves and National Guardat the very time America is facing new and dangerous threats. And we now knowthe Administration wants to further reduce military and veterans' benefits.
There's a better way.
He repeated that phrase, "there's a better way," throughout his speech as if he needed to convince himself. Then he finished it off with a weak threat.
If we want to replace the division that grips our nation's capital, we need a change. Democrats are leading that reform effort, working to restore honesty and openness to our government, working to replace a culture of partisanship and cronyism with an ethic of service and results.
Our greatest need is for America to heal its partisan wounds and become one people. You know, those are the words Thomas Jefferson wrote after being elected President. They ring as true today as they did in 1800. Tonight we pray, earnestly and humbly, for that healing, and for the day when service returns again as the better way to a new national politics.
Doesn't it sound almost like blackmail? Is he promising that Democrats will continue their partisan attacks and their tantrums until the American people wise up and vote them back in power? And when a Democrat resides in the White House we can "become one people" again? Is that the message?
The President was inspiring while the Governor was pathetic. The President expressed his confidence that the American people would, as always, rise to the occasion. The Governor urged the American people to tally up their misfortunes and injuries and to demand a government that would take care of them. Pathetic.
(Emphasis above in bold is mine.)
And here I thought you would offer a fair criticism of the president's SOTU. But in such typical fashion as a Bush apologist you instead focus on the post-SOTU criticism rather than on the context - or lack thereof - of the speech itself. This gets so old Tom. Can you not look at what the president has to say objectively? Can't you think for yourself, form your own opinion, on the primary source of the discussion - the SOTU - rather than the partisan criticism hack that immediately follows every president's SOTU? Where's the fair and balanced Tom? Did you like the sppech? did you find anythinig original from it?
I first came to this site because of it's title. It has become so apparent however that there is very little to do with libertarian principles in here. Time and time again you fall into the hand-to-mouth rut of swallowing whole whatever this president, or perhaps even worse, what the conservative wing of his party preachs. Can you for once have an original libertarian thought?
Posted by: ny patriot | February 01, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Pat, it sounds like you suffer from a severe case of chronic Bush Derangement Syndrome also known as BDS. Those afflicted with BDS lose certain powers of observation. As a secondary symptom the ability of a victim to draw rational conclusions is severely impaired. It's sort of like that old baseball phrase, "You can't hit what you can't see."
"Where's the fair and balanced," you ask? I've never tried to provide balance. In fact some have accused me of being quite unbalanced, but the question comes as a mild surprise since you ought to know that these are my views not somebody else's.
"Did I like the speech," you ask? Of course I did, but I won't claim there's anything original in it. In fact I think I could have predicted it. It was the speech I thought he should have given. True, he could have been more forceful in spots, but overall it was what I thought he should have said.
The telling moment was the Democrats standing and applauding themselves for preventing Social Security reform. It was a thing of beauty, but I'll save that for a post.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | February 01, 2006 at 05:36 PM
Even in rebuttal you fail to step up. What did you think of the President's proposals - or actually, the lack of any of significance - in the SOTU? It seems the only story line you're interested in regarding what is uaully tantamount to the presidents biggest public speeking engagement of the year is how it was perceived by the Democrats. Well let's just assume that 85% of the country turns into Bush's SOTU and already has a firm opinion about his speec, regardless of its content (that's assuming a 42.5/42.5% core republican/core democrat makeup.) Well, what do you think the remaining 15%, the undecided or so-called independent voter bloc think of his speech and of his proposals? I personnally think they found nothing of substance at all in it. His proposal to reduce Mid East oil imports seems hollow given his and Cheney's track record. His ideas about reducing the government deficit despite a pledge to an ever-increasing war on terrorism and its subsequent drain on the treasury was without merit. And the continuing trend of out of control healthcare costs went unaddressed (his proposal for individual accounts to deal with the costs of healthcare does nothing to address how to stop healthcare costs from going higher.) Sure the speech had the required rhetoric about leadership and standing tall in the face of terrorism - so what? A fifth grader could have delivered that same message.
We live in the most troubling of decades, be it Iraq/War on terror, the ever-increasing emergence of China as global superpower, ballooning energy and healthcare costs, out of control deficits, social security, et. al. What did the president propose in this lame SOTU? for the most part, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Yet all you can talk about is the Democratic repsonse to his speech.
Wake up Tom. Think for yourself.
Posted by: ny patriot | February 02, 2006 at 10:46 AM
his proposal for individual accounts to deal with the costs of healthcare does nothing to address how to stop healthcare costs from going higher
I guess there's a lot you don't know about the cost of things. Look, Pat. We've had this conversation before. You don't agree with the President's proposals and I do. Time will tell which of us is right, and I'm ahead at the moment.
And as to the ever-increasing war on terrorism, are you suggesting we stop fighting? That would put you right there with the rest of the Democrats.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | February 03, 2006 at 06:38 AM