I hate to say this, but I found there to be nothing new in SOTU. . Bush's speech fell flat. It was predictable.
Although he seemed to be genuinely sincere in his congratulation of Nancy Pelosi as the first "Madame Speaker," he congratulated the new "Democrat" majority in Congress, with his usual "doublespeak," a backhanded complement if I ever heard one.
And a very revealing tell from a man who claims that he wants a bipartisan Congress. Funny, but it's only after control of Congress was wrested from a corrupt Republican party that he has revealed this new brotherly spirit. Before ‘06, ol' Dubya had a fine ol' time running over the Dems with his "Rubber Stamp faction. Now he's all lovey-dovey now that We Dems are back in power!
That's if you can assume that when he says things like:
Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority. (Applause.) Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.
In other words: ‘‘it doesn't matter what all crazyass ideas you all have in Congress. We all are going to do things the right way - the Dubya way!" Bush's idea of bipartisan effort is where everyone shuts up and obeys every fiat from the Decider.
He showed how obstinately out of touch he was by bringing up some old failed chestnuts liked privatization, and the voodoo economics of balancing the budget and cutting the deficit without raising taxes on his precious "base."
On "No Child Left Behind," he has proved again to be intransigent, as he has refused to drop the impossible standards of the law, and called anyone who tried to reform the law "backsliders."
And then we heard the same old drivel desperately camouflaged to sneak past the public, like appointing judges only he likes, pretending that we are "fighting over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." And then, he had the NERVE to tell us that the responsibility for this war would be left to someone other than the guy who started it!
Of course Bush is decidedly simplistic about every last item of the rest of his speech. The Arabs who are terrorists "hate our freedom," as if poverty, tyranny weren't at all reasons to feel a great deal of antipathy toward the country that propped up the perpetuators of these conditions.
And it's all going to be Mickey-Mouse easy to bring democracy on the heels of those 21,000 new troops to Iraq right?
Wrong! "Some people," as Sean Hannity would say, believe that in the end we have only 3 choices: 1) Accept that there's a civil war on, and either back the Shia faction, which would be like backing your worst enemy, and make enemies out of the Middle East's Sunni majority. Or 2), we force a minority Sunni government on Iraq, which will oppress the Shiites once more.
Of course, Bush would not be Bush without brainlessly or thoughtlessly pushing on ahead with his plan without consulting with Congress. Most people tell him that 21,000 troops are not enough that more like 250,000 troops is necessary. But Bush doesn't see that as he accuses detractors of "stepping back.”
If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.
In case, you hadn't noticed Dubya, too late to close the barn door!
Posts
