David Swanson is co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, Washington director of Democrats.com and a board member of Progressive Democrats of America.
It was disturbing to see so many members of Congress in both parties clamoring to get Bush's autograph on their copies of his State of the Union-not because it was such a dishonest speech that did such a disservice to this country, and not because they should have been handing him subpoenas instead. Rather, my concern arises from the habit Bush has developed following the signing of any document. Typically he goes home, talks to his lawyers, and issues a "signing statement" the next day radically altering what he has just signed. Bad as that speech was, it could get a lot worse.
Of course the state of our union is what it is regardless, and Bush had almost nothing to say about it. He claimed our economy was thriving, a claim fairly well debunked by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's Democratic response. But, for the most part, when the president got at all specific in his speech, he proposed new initiatives and said little or nothing about the past six miserable years. In the seventh year of his presidency, he proposed balancing the budget in five years and reducing gasoline usage in 10 years. The president mentioned "courage" a lot, but wouldn't it have been more courageous to have admitted that similar rhetoric over the past six years has been followed by actions that have taken us in the opposite direction, and wouldn't it have been more courageous to have set goals for the next two years?
During most of the speech, the president avoided specifics. His rhetoric was so vague and his changes of topic so swift that he was closer to listing issues than discussing them. Some more detail on his various proposals was posted on the White House website, but it didn't always add much. For example, immigration reform "without animosity and without amnesty" turned out to mean that immigrants would have to pay a "meaningful penalty" before they could become citizens.
Bush began by congratulating Nancy Pelosi repeatedly on becoming Speaker of the House. He had nothing special to say to the large man seated to Pelosi's right. Vice President Dick Cheney had been in the news earlier that day when the prosecutors in the trial of his former chief of staff claimed that Cheney had played a central role in exacting retribution against a whistleblower who exposed one of the main lies that took us into the war, a lie made during Bush's State of the Union speech four years ago. Somehow the announcers on NBC failed to mention that or to make note of Bush's record low popularity, and while their affiliate had filmed it, they did not reveal any awareness of the fact that eight state senators that day had introduced a resolution to impeach Bush and Cheney into the state legislature in New Mexico. (A state can begin impeachment by sending a petition to Congress.)
Bush began his speech and jumped immediately to warning us about "determined enemies," but did not immediately make clear who they were. Then he said our government needed to spend our money wisely, solve problems rather than leaving them to future generations and be faithful to our troops. (Apparently the NBC announcers were right when they said that we were in for drastic changes.)
Schemes And Lies
The wonderful economy was the first topic Bush tackled, and he opened with a coded attack on restoring any value to the minimum wage, claiming that the economy would stay wonderful "not with more government, but more enterprise," the idea being that the minimum wage is bad for business. Of course, this is a blatant lie, but that didn't stop both sides of the aisle from cheering, as they did 62 times in 49 minutes, according to NBC.
Then Bush proposed balancing the federal budget (three years after he leaves office if we don't throw him out ahead of schedule). Now, Bush has drastically increased the government's single largest area of discretionary spending: the military and war. He would propose a significant increase in the size of the military later in the speech. And Bush has slashed taxes for the very wealthiest and for corporations. How will he balance the budget? Well, he won't, of course. But he might move in that direction in two ways: first, by cutting useful programs and second, by keeping massive amounts of money off the books. The Iraq war, for example, is off the books. Bush has already planned an "emergency" supplemental request for Iraq War funding in 2008-and this despite a law passed by Congress requiring that by 2008 the war costs be part of the standard budget. Congressman Jim McGovern, one of the bravest members in the House, told me just a couple of days ago that members of Congress should vote "no" on the supplementals for the war this year and in future years, but he made clear that he intended to ignore the president's violating the law by proposing a 2008 supplemental.
Bush did indicate one area where he would reduce funding: earmarks, something that suddenly concerns him with Democrats in charge.
Bush's second topic involved his second big lie of the evening, an oldie but a goodie: He claimed that Social Security was threatened and in need of salvation. Topic three, education, brought lie number three: the No Child Left Behind Act has improved our kids' education and allowed greater local control of schools. Topic four, health care, began with Bush announcing that private health insurance is the best system for most people (whereas the elderly, the disabled and poor children should be covered by the government). Actually, if you look at this country and many others, the best thing for everyone is clearly single-payer health care.
Bush proposed a number of solutions to the health care crisis in this country, beginning with tax cuts (though still not indicating how he would balance the budget, and not stating whether the tax cuts would increase every year along with the inevitably rising cost of private health insurance). Bush listed a half dozen other Band-Aid solutions to the lack of health coverage. He got applause for each idea, even "better technology." Maybe that's finally the explanation of why we have this insanely complex and inefficient health care system: It's for the multiple applause lines.
It was in discussing immigration that Bush first mentioned "terrorists" in his speech, and in claiming that the U.S. is too dependent on foreign oil that he touched on them for the second time. His very brief mention of global warming (which he called "global climate change") was immediately drowned out by his third reference to terrorists. Now he dug into the topic of 9/11, and spoke as if he had been doing something about those attacks ever since, something connected to the war on Iraq and the "war on terror." He insisted that we "must take the fight to the enemy." It's not clear how he could be so certain of that when NBC kept insisting that the Democrats needed to make friends with the Republicans, and not take any fight to them.
Bush claimed credit for four supposed incidents of preventing terrorist attacks on Americans, including Britain's scary toothpaste bombers. These claims have been debunked, but Bush needed something positive to say before he turned to the topic of Iraq. He encouraged us to fear al-Qaida. There would be no "the only thing we have to fear" comments for this president.
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
As a Vietnam war vet, U.S. Navy Hospital Corps, I sometimes think my head will actually explode, if the Bushites are not brought down and held accountable, before I have to listen to one more lie come out of this bastard's mouth, let alone the snarly mouth of the the immense, psychotic blob who sat behind him last night.
Hope Nancy Pelosi had herself fumigated or blessed or something, after her close encounter with the evil kind. Seems like everyone who remains in contact with the Bushites for any period of time are changed, somehow, for the worse.
Sorry for the rant, but I am approaching the end of my tether.
by
wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments)
on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 2:15:50 PM
I could barely stomach the State of Union speech last night. As usual Bush smirked his way through it and Cheney has a permanent smirk. The crital point of the whole drama for me was the hypocrisy of both sides clapping for the #1 Terrorist in the world. I felt so sure that the House would let Bush and Cheney know that their jig was up and that no one would clap for either one of them. The American people are going to have to let them know BIG TIME!!!!
by
Patrinka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 5:12:56 PM
Great article, as usual David, but I have yet to see any mention of Harry Reid standing in line after the SOTU and being ignored by Bush on his way out. The expression on poor Harry's face was priceless. Just one more bad decision by a Majority Leader who can't figure out what being a Democrat means. If he had any integrity at all, he would resign and propose that either Sen. Webb or Sen. Feingold take his place. Harry is a very frail Reid indeed.
by
Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 11:02:45 AM
Bush's signature will be worth money, historically, so I would want his autograph too. He will go "hands-down" out as the worst president in the history of the United States, and the worst modern leader of the "supposedly" civilized countries in the world. Quite a feat for a man who cannot read a book. I LOL, when they post all of the books he is supposed to be reading. Are you kidding me? The man is lifting weights and riding a bike. He "aren't" reading a thing, and, "... Hey Laura, what does 'B O M B A S T I C" mean and how is it pronounced. Maybe I should "opine" about it and use it in a speech. It sounds good!" The only big word he knows is "opine", and uses it all too often.
by
Dale Hill (58 articles, 0 quicklinks, 101 diaries, 347 comments)
on Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 2:42:02 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
