|
In comparison to his other SOTU speeches, I'd say it was about average. His Axis of Evil 2002 speech was a lot more moving and impressive in terms of pursuasion. The content itself I'll save for a rainy day, but in general I thought the highest point of the speech was not Bush himself, but the hug between the soldier's mom and the Iraqi voter up above. I also had some agreements with some minor points as well, but the major points, of course, I had some major disagreements with.
His foreign policy part was pretty vague, and I think this was deliberate. I can understand the rationale for not putting a timeline stamp on when we'll withdraw troops - nevertheless I think at least an estimate date of departure should be thrown on the table now or at least in the very near future. I was a bit surprised at his tough rhetoric towards Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan - telling them that they'd better shape up their efforts toward democracy. I guess he received the memo about his Inauguration speech being a bit contradictory on this part - claiming to spread democracy in tyranical countries. Needless to say, I'm quite skeptical of any actions towards these tyranical and oppressive countries that Bush has such close business ties with.
It was an interesting sign to see him step up against Iran and N. Korea. But again it seems like idle threats. In my head I was thinking that Iran and N. Korea were saying, "Yeah? Well you and what army?" Considering how bogged down we are in Iraq, and considering our decreasing levels of military recruitment, this seems a bit of a stretch to follow those neocon dreams of further invasion (unless, of course, you say the "D" word).
I also thought the ink-stained fingers by the Republicans was downright fucking stupid and misplaced. I'll let this blogger state my sentiments:
| quote: | You do not own their courage.
The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.
You do not own their courage.
They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don't own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don't own their courage, Judith Miller. They did not stand in line to provide pretty pictures for vapid suits to fawn over, so you don't own their courage, Howard Fineman, and neither do you, Chris Matthews.
You do not own their courage.
They did not stand in line in order to justify the dereliction of a kept press. They did not stand in line to make right the wrongs born out of laziness, cowardice, and the easy acceptance of casual lying. They did not stand in line for anyone's grand designs. They did not stand in line to play pawns in anyone's great game, so you don't own their courage, you guys in the PNAC gallery.
You do not own their courage.
They did not stand in line to provide American dilettantes with easy rhetorical weapons, so you don't own their courage, Glenn Reynolds, with your cornpone McCarran act out of the bowels of a great university that deserves a helluva lot better than your sorry hide. They did not stand in line to be the instruments of tawdry vilification and triumphal hooting from bloghound commandos. They did not stand in line to become useful cudgels for cheap American political thuggery, so you don't own their courage, Freeper Nation.
You do not own their courage.
They did not stand in line to justify a thousand mistakes that have led to more than a thousand American bodies. They did not stand in line for the purpose of being a national hypnotic for a nation not even their own. They did not stand in line for being the last casus belli standing. They did not stand in line on behalf of people's book deals, TV spots, honorarium checks, or tinpot celebrity. They did not stand in line to be anyone's talking points.
You do not own their courage.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6861528/#050131 |
Domestically, the big issue of course was Social Security, which the papers have begun seeing the obvious fallacies of the proposed plan:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6-2005Feb2.html
http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec4.htm
When you have an Administration official come out right before the speech and admit that Bush's plan does next to nothing to help the solvency of SS, which to my recollection was the supposed purpose of reforming/privatizing it in the first place, you can bet it won't get very far. And as Henry Reid mentioned 2 days ago in the WaPost, all Dem. Senators are firmly against privatization, so it will be pretty much DOA even if it gets through the House (and there's plenty of indication that it may not even pass the House). There's also a growing sentiment from centrist Repubs. in both the House and Senate on his proposal, so this isn't just a Dem. rebellion. I suggest you read Josh Marshall's blog for more on that (www.talkingpointsmemo.com).
And finally, here's a nice factchecking website on pretty much every point Bush came up with:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/
So again, taken as a whole his pitch was average/above average, but the content was pretty shakey at best.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
