A citizen's response to the State of the Union
Robert Rouse
February 01, 2006
This is my first chance to write about the annual State of the Union Address - I just started offering my opinions for the world to see in April of last year - and I decided after I had time to digest what Bush said and look over the transcripts of the speech that I would give a citizen's response to the State of the Union.
Those of you who have read my thoughts on George W. Bush before may be surprised to see that this response is not entirely negative. To begin with, I was pleased that the President thought to honor the life of Coretta Scott King, although I'm sure he felt it was a necessary addendum to his speech. I know the President and Mrs. King were miles apart on philosophy. Another person who is at odds with the President is Cindy Sheehan who was escorted from the rotunda before the speech even began - for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. How ironic is it that the very place where our laws are written would be the site of someone being arrested for practicing freedom of expression.
Early in his speech Bush said, " . . . tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another - and I will do my part." These words rang false in my ears. They come from an administration that has sought to portray those who disagree with the policy of the right as the wrong kind of people.
After Karl Rove's speech in which he said, "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." The White House rebuked those who called for a public apology from Rove. I did not see this as acting in the spirit of good will.
Bush said, "Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear." Yet he continues to instill fear in the nation by reminding us of the horrors of terrorism. Yes, terrorists are out there, no one is disputing that, but we cannot allow ourselves to live in fear.
But there is an old Moorish proverb that makes much more sense. "He who fears something gives it power over him." I choose to be aware rather than fearful.
Perhaps the terrorists are following Bush's lead. We are the ones who invaded Iraq and will attempt to use it as a strategic base to force our will on the Arab states, yet Bush says, "Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world." I know Bush doesn't believe in evolution, but this is a clear case of "monkey see, monkey do."
He stated that, "there is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat," yet I have to wonder what honor there is in bombing innocent civilians and sending our brave men and women to die - whether the reason was lies or bad intelligence. The honorable thing would be to leave the nation of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis. We are no longer liberators, we are conquerors. The honorable thing would be hiring Iraqis to do the job of rebuilding their nation instead of putting more money into the coffers of Halliburton.
Bush says that the decision to leave Iraq will be made by our military commanders. I say leave the decision up to the people of Iraq. Is it really a democracy if you're forced to write a Constitution by a nation with a bigger army? The people who were forced to live in many of the failed Communist states were never really Communists. The men of Iraq may say they're now living in a democracy, but behind closed doors at home, their wives are still forced to follow strict guidelines that in no way fit the democracy mold.
One of my favorite (and by favorite, I mean laughable) quotes from Bush was when he said, " . . . there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure." If there were successes, I would acknowledge them, but this is a failed presidency. A miserable failure.
The problem with Bush's argument about Iraq is that he wants us to believe that if we leave, that the people of Iraq will immediately hand over the keys to the kingdom to al Qaeda. He certainly isn't giving the people of Iraq very much credit.
The Right Wing commentators of this country have savagely berated Cindy Sheehan over the past year, saying that she is using the death of her son as a tool to further the agenda of the peace movement, yet Bush continues to use the nearly 3,000 deaths of 9/11 to further his own wartime agenda. Tonight, he introduced the family of slain Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay and added his death to the myriad of spectral tools of wartime propaganda.
Bush's former "Axis of Evil" seems to have expanded. Perhaps the people of Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran should start to wonder if they're next on the United States' democracy hit list.
Bush is right about our need to continue humanitarian aid throughout the world, but he talked of "spreading hope in hopeless lands" while we continue to ignore many parts of Africa that are being torn apart by warlords. There is more to helping these sub-Saharan African nations than dropping off crates of food and medicines (that are invariably stolen by thugs and warlords). We should be working strongly with the United Nations to come up with better solutions for these problems.
I still find it ironic that our leadership seems hell-bent on securing liberty and freedom for nations abroad while seeking to dismantle the liberties and freedoms in our own nation. Once again, Bush is calling for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Many people don't realize that there is a little portion of the Patriot Act that makes criminals out of some people who attempt to use their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression at the "wrong venues". The law labels these people as "disrupters" and they are actually charged with a crime - simply by applying their first amendment rights. If I had the ear of our legislative branch, I would call for an immediate repeal of the Patriot Act and a new bipartisan commission to come up with a real "Patriot Law" that doesn't tread on our civil liberties. We have some smart men on Capitol Hill - I have no doubt that they could work out a solution that could fight terrorism and preserve freedom at the same time. Abraham Lincoln said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Bush is still claiming that he has Constitutional authority to wiretap U.S. citizens without a warrant - even though there is hardly any Constitutional scholars or anyone in Congress who agrees with that assertion. I really wouldn't have any problem with Bush's so-called "terrorist surveillance program" if we had assurance from the NSA and the White House that they would obtain court issued warrants and promise not to use it listen to people whom they have no business listening to. There is a certain blogger I have read, who once commented that she went on a terrorist watch list simply because she called her brother, a U.S. Marine, who is stationed overseas. And because of Bush's "terrorist surveillance program", she had trouble boarding a plane to go on a vacation. Bush said, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it . . . " Hey, George, I agree, but there are legal means to do this - without trampling on the private lives of citizens who have nothing to do with the terrorists.
Because of this never-ending "war on terror", our nation is more deeply in debt than in anytime in history. George W. Bush has borrowed more money than all the previous presidents combined. And now he wasnts Congress to max the tax cuts he imposed permanent. This is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. Yes, I enjoy the extra money I get back in my tax refund, but I don't want my children - and my grandchildren - paying off this debt. They didn't create it! Bush says if Congress makes the cuts permanent they will be acting "responsibly". Many people, myself included, have made fun of George's many faux pas uses of the English language, but this is one of the most inane things he has ever said. If any of us were in charge of a corporation and we put the corporation in more debt than it had ever had, we would lose our job - and go to prison.
Bush wants a line-item veto, so he can micro-manage legislation. It is not the job of the executive branch to make the laws, that is the job of the Congress. He also wants Congress to cut back on several "special interest" projects. I agree - although my "special interests" are probably different from Bush's. One of the ironies of Bush mentioning Coretta Scott King is that her husband firmly believed that more money should be spent on helping people at home instead of funding the military industrial complex and war. If we spent half of the time, money and energy we use to find new ways of killing people, we could drastically cut back on the poverty that is pervasive in our society. We could find cures to dreaded diseases. We could start to balance our budget.
The health care in this nation is abominable. There are people who have to scrap together every cent they earn just to make ends meet, let alone afford decent health care. Medicines and treatments are way beyond the reach of the majority of our citizens, yet we destroy hospitals in other countries only to pay even more to rebuild them.
I agree with Bush that we need to keep America competitive with the rest of the world economically. But I don't believe the leaders of our corporations should be making millions of dollars in bonuses while they continue to lay off our workers and build manufacturing plants on foreign soil. Bush talks about the growth of jobs in the United States, but what he doesn't tell us is that the vast majority of these new jobs don't pay enough to keep a family afloat. I say these corporations need to use a lot of their profit to hire new laborers instead of putting the money into the pockets of people who are already making more money per month than the average American will earn in a lifetime. There is something inherently wrong with that scenario.
Bush is proposing a guest worker program for immigrants. I have news for Mr. Bush, contrary to what many believe, there are millions of Americans who would love to have some of the jobs that the illegal aliens are getting. It is greed that makes people hire these immigrants. Employers know they can pay these people less and they take advantage of it. In many cases it is a microscopic version of the huge corporation sending jobs overseas to make more money for the board of directors.
I do have to give Bush credit for finally proposing an "Advanced Energy Initiative". While I am a little suspect at his motives, it is the best idea he has proposed since taking office. We do need affordable energy, and once again, if we put forth just a fraction of the time, energy and money we put into building our own weapons of mass destruction into trying to develop cleaner, more affordable, and renewable energy sources, we would be successful in a very short time.
I also agree with his "American Competitiveness Initiative". But let's not just stick to math and science - we are sorely missing important art and musical programs in our nation's schools. Applicable math and science may help keep us competitive in the world, but it is our art and music that provides us with a national soul.
But a couple of good proposals after five years in office isn't enough. In order for our country to regain it's balance, we must fulfill the hopes and dreams of our forefathers - that we be a nation of the people. We need to elect leaders who will fight for the best interests of their constituents, not the best interests of politicians and big business. We need term limits for both Congress and the Senate. After a few terms, many of them listen too closely to the people with the money. They want people who will help finance their next campaign to retain the office they have learned to love more than the people they were supposed to represent. We need to choke off the aspirations of leaders who follow unethical practices and succumb to the seductive side of power. Many of the Republican leaders who signed on to the so-called "Contract With America" back in 1994 have either forgotten their promises or decided to ignore the oath they took.
If we are to take back America, it is up to us, the voters to do what we know in our hearts is the right thing for our country. Henry David Thoreau once said "Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something." Now would be the best time to follow that sage advice.
Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America and the rest of the Earth as well.
Those of you who have read my thoughts on George W. Bush before may be surprised to see that this response is not entirely negative. To begin with, I was pleased that the President thought to honor the life of Coretta Scott King, although I'm sure he felt it was a necessary addendum to his speech. I know the President and Mrs. King were miles apart on philosophy. Another person who is at odds with the President is Cindy Sheehan who was escorted from the rotunda before the speech even began - for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. How ironic is it that the very place where our laws are written would be the site of someone being arrested for practicing freedom of expression.
Early in his speech Bush said, " . . . tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another - and I will do my part." These words rang false in my ears. They come from an administration that has sought to portray those who disagree with the policy of the right as the wrong kind of people.
After Karl Rove's speech in which he said, "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." The White House rebuked those who called for a public apology from Rove. I did not see this as acting in the spirit of good will.
Bush said, "Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear." Yet he continues to instill fear in the nation by reminding us of the horrors of terrorism. Yes, terrorists are out there, no one is disputing that, but we cannot allow ourselves to live in fear.
But there is an old Moorish proverb that makes much more sense. "He who fears something gives it power over him." I choose to be aware rather than fearful.
Perhaps the terrorists are following Bush's lead. We are the ones who invaded Iraq and will attempt to use it as a strategic base to force our will on the Arab states, yet Bush says, "Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world." I know Bush doesn't believe in evolution, but this is a clear case of "monkey see, monkey do."
He stated that, "there is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat," yet I have to wonder what honor there is in bombing innocent civilians and sending our brave men and women to die - whether the reason was lies or bad intelligence. The honorable thing would be to leave the nation of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis. We are no longer liberators, we are conquerors. The honorable thing would be hiring Iraqis to do the job of rebuilding their nation instead of putting more money into the coffers of Halliburton.
Bush says that the decision to leave Iraq will be made by our military commanders. I say leave the decision up to the people of Iraq. Is it really a democracy if you're forced to write a Constitution by a nation with a bigger army? The people who were forced to live in many of the failed Communist states were never really Communists. The men of Iraq may say they're now living in a democracy, but behind closed doors at home, their wives are still forced to follow strict guidelines that in no way fit the democracy mold.
One of my favorite (and by favorite, I mean laughable) quotes from Bush was when he said, " . . . there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure." If there were successes, I would acknowledge them, but this is a failed presidency. A miserable failure.
The problem with Bush's argument about Iraq is that he wants us to believe that if we leave, that the people of Iraq will immediately hand over the keys to the kingdom to al Qaeda. He certainly isn't giving the people of Iraq very much credit.
The Right Wing commentators of this country have savagely berated Cindy Sheehan over the past year, saying that she is using the death of her son as a tool to further the agenda of the peace movement, yet Bush continues to use the nearly 3,000 deaths of 9/11 to further his own wartime agenda. Tonight, he introduced the family of slain Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay and added his death to the myriad of spectral tools of wartime propaganda.
Bush's former "Axis of Evil" seems to have expanded. Perhaps the people of Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran should start to wonder if they're next on the United States' democracy hit list.
Bush is right about our need to continue humanitarian aid throughout the world, but he talked of "spreading hope in hopeless lands" while we continue to ignore many parts of Africa that are being torn apart by warlords. There is more to helping these sub-Saharan African nations than dropping off crates of food and medicines (that are invariably stolen by thugs and warlords). We should be working strongly with the United Nations to come up with better solutions for these problems.
I still find it ironic that our leadership seems hell-bent on securing liberty and freedom for nations abroad while seeking to dismantle the liberties and freedoms in our own nation. Once again, Bush is calling for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Many people don't realize that there is a little portion of the Patriot Act that makes criminals out of some people who attempt to use their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression at the "wrong venues". The law labels these people as "disrupters" and they are actually charged with a crime - simply by applying their first amendment rights. If I had the ear of our legislative branch, I would call for an immediate repeal of the Patriot Act and a new bipartisan commission to come up with a real "Patriot Law" that doesn't tread on our civil liberties. We have some smart men on Capitol Hill - I have no doubt that they could work out a solution that could fight terrorism and preserve freedom at the same time. Abraham Lincoln said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Bush is still claiming that he has Constitutional authority to wiretap U.S. citizens without a warrant - even though there is hardly any Constitutional scholars or anyone in Congress who agrees with that assertion. I really wouldn't have any problem with Bush's so-called "terrorist surveillance program" if we had assurance from the NSA and the White House that they would obtain court issued warrants and promise not to use it listen to people whom they have no business listening to. There is a certain blogger I have read, who once commented that she went on a terrorist watch list simply because she called her brother, a U.S. Marine, who is stationed overseas. And because of Bush's "terrorist surveillance program", she had trouble boarding a plane to go on a vacation. Bush said, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it . . . " Hey, George, I agree, but there are legal means to do this - without trampling on the private lives of citizens who have nothing to do with the terrorists.
Because of this never-ending "war on terror", our nation is more deeply in debt than in anytime in history. George W. Bush has borrowed more money than all the previous presidents combined. And now he wasnts Congress to max the tax cuts he imposed permanent. This is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. Yes, I enjoy the extra money I get back in my tax refund, but I don't want my children - and my grandchildren - paying off this debt. They didn't create it! Bush says if Congress makes the cuts permanent they will be acting "responsibly". Many people, myself included, have made fun of George's many faux pas uses of the English language, but this is one of the most inane things he has ever said. If any of us were in charge of a corporation and we put the corporation in more debt than it had ever had, we would lose our job - and go to prison.
Bush wants a line-item veto, so he can micro-manage legislation. It is not the job of the executive branch to make the laws, that is the job of the Congress. He also wants Congress to cut back on several "special interest" projects. I agree - although my "special interests" are probably different from Bush's. One of the ironies of Bush mentioning Coretta Scott King is that her husband firmly believed that more money should be spent on helping people at home instead of funding the military industrial complex and war. If we spent half of the time, money and energy we use to find new ways of killing people, we could drastically cut back on the poverty that is pervasive in our society. We could find cures to dreaded diseases. We could start to balance our budget.
The health care in this nation is abominable. There are people who have to scrap together every cent they earn just to make ends meet, let alone afford decent health care. Medicines and treatments are way beyond the reach of the majority of our citizens, yet we destroy hospitals in other countries only to pay even more to rebuild them.
I agree with Bush that we need to keep America competitive with the rest of the world economically. But I don't believe the leaders of our corporations should be making millions of dollars in bonuses while they continue to lay off our workers and build manufacturing plants on foreign soil. Bush talks about the growth of jobs in the United States, but what he doesn't tell us is that the vast majority of these new jobs don't pay enough to keep a family afloat. I say these corporations need to use a lot of their profit to hire new laborers instead of putting the money into the pockets of people who are already making more money per month than the average American will earn in a lifetime. There is something inherently wrong with that scenario.
Bush is proposing a guest worker program for immigrants. I have news for Mr. Bush, contrary to what many believe, there are millions of Americans who would love to have some of the jobs that the illegal aliens are getting. It is greed that makes people hire these immigrants. Employers know they can pay these people less and they take advantage of it. In many cases it is a microscopic version of the huge corporation sending jobs overseas to make more money for the board of directors.
I do have to give Bush credit for finally proposing an "Advanced Energy Initiative". While I am a little suspect at his motives, it is the best idea he has proposed since taking office. We do need affordable energy, and once again, if we put forth just a fraction of the time, energy and money we put into building our own weapons of mass destruction into trying to develop cleaner, more affordable, and renewable energy sources, we would be successful in a very short time.
I also agree with his "American Competitiveness Initiative". But let's not just stick to math and science - we are sorely missing important art and musical programs in our nation's schools. Applicable math and science may help keep us competitive in the world, but it is our art and music that provides us with a national soul.
But a couple of good proposals after five years in office isn't enough. In order for our country to regain it's balance, we must fulfill the hopes and dreams of our forefathers - that we be a nation of the people. We need to elect leaders who will fight for the best interests of their constituents, not the best interests of politicians and big business. We need term limits for both Congress and the Senate. After a few terms, many of them listen too closely to the people with the money. They want people who will help finance their next campaign to retain the office they have learned to love more than the people they were supposed to represent. We need to choke off the aspirations of leaders who follow unethical practices and succumb to the seductive side of power. Many of the Republican leaders who signed on to the so-called "Contract With America" back in 1994 have either forgotten their promises or decided to ignore the oath they took.
If we are to take back America, it is up to us, the voters to do what we know in our hearts is the right thing for our country. Henry David Thoreau once said "Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something." Now would be the best time to follow that sage advice.
Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America and the rest of the Earth as well.
Print
Email
