Come on guys, how come no-one's started a thread about it yet? It wasn't that dull and uninspired was it? Even the COR beat us to it. In case you haven't seen / read the speech yet and you don't know how to use google, here it is.

Anyway, what'd everyone think? Seemed like a fairly typical Bush speech to me - big on rhetoric and allusions, small on ideas and substance. The first half read like a propoganda piece to garner support for a failing war, the rest read like the work of an administration that's short on vision and direction. Nothing particularly new or interesting in there (with a couple of exceptions that I'll get into) and much of it seemed to have just been lifted straight from other speeches and public statements. Maybe I was just so pumped for this year's SOTU address that I went into it with unrealistic expectations, but it still seemed pretty bland and pointless overall.

Just running through some specific parts of the speech (offering my own rebuttals, since - by all accounts - the Democrats rebuttal was even worse than the SOTU itself):

quote:

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism.

The Bush administration caught up in "misguided idealism"? Dismissing the practicality of the somewhat, shall we say, "broad" goal of ending "tyranny in our world"? Even after we've witnessed Iraq's smooth transition into a liberal-democratic paradise at such a cheap price? Wow, these "some" sure were wrong for ever doubting you, Mr. Bush!

quote:

[O]ur 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.

Hey, speaking of misguided idealism... "we are winning"? Based on what definition of "winning" would he be basing that assumption, exactly? Are we winning just because he says so, or are there actually any positive, tangible indicators there that he conveniently forgot to mention during this hour of dribble? Also note how he says that the coaltion has been relentless "in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces", not successful. Telling, isn't it?

quote:

In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122.

Remember what I said about lifting statements off other speeches?

quote:

"In the dark days of 1941 – the low point of our modern epic – there were about a dozen democracies left on the planet. Entering a new century, there are nearly 120." - George Bush, November 1999. http://www.logcabinwa.com/archive/199911190000.shtml

(Found that by accident while searching for something else.)

quote:

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.

Is it me, or does this just seem like a way of avoiding responsbility for the production of a troop pull-out timetable? "Well, obviously we'd like to get them out as quickly as possible, but hey - you know what those 'military commanders' are like..."

quote:

And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.[...]They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder. Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. [...] A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country.

I'm not sure if he's intentionally oversimplifying the situation here, or whether he really is that naive. Osama bin Laden (who was only mentioned twice in the speech, by the way, including here) wants to be "in charge" of Iraq? What do you think he is basing that on exactly?

I think it's clear that he's trying to frame the current conflict in Iraq in terms of a group of Islamic fundamentalists (coincidentally, the same group of Islamic fundamentalists who were responsible for 9/11) trying to gain control of Iraq for the puposes of establishing an anti-western empire under Islamic law, but that really is a gross oversimplification of the nature of the insurgency (which isn't just comprised of Islamic extremists, but former Baathists and disenfranchised Sunnis as well).

Besides which, he neglects to mention that Iraq never had the potential to become a "safe haven" for radicals until he ousted the secular Baathist party, or that the Iraqi constitution now explicitly states that no laws may be introduced which "contradict the undisputed rules of Islam" (Chapter 1, Section 2a - link). I think that, regardless of what we do from here, we, the coalition, have done a fine enough job of spreading Islamism (and political intolerence of the west) in Iraq as it is.

quote:

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. [...] Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties, who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom.

Wow. "Defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure"? Is that what we're calling dissent these days? Perhaps if you gave the impression that you had some practical solutions to the problem, Mr. Bush, the Democrats (or the majority of Americans and people around the world) wouldn't be quite so "defeatist"? Again, isn't it telling that he'd much rather be critical of people for being critical than to actually outline what he's doing to solve the problems he created in the first place?

As for "bi-partisan support", I know what that means. It means "You might as well support what we're doing, because we're sure as fuck not going to be listening to anything that you have to say..."

quote:

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

Ah, flipping Iran's government the bird while we're involved in talks to dissuade it from persuing nuclear weapons. Such a delicate sense of diplomacy!

quote:

I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed.

I think we've heard this before as well. Again, he frames the issue in terms of "listening to terrorists" rather than "spying illegally on American citizens". MisterOpus did a pretty good job of dismantling this view in this thread. Also, considering what a major scandal this could become for the administration, it's strange that this is the the only part of the speech he should devote to it. It is, however, not so strange that all he could manage to say about the issue was the repetition of the same flawed, tired justifications that we've already heard many times before.

quote:

The American economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors, like China and India, and this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them. (Applause.) All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction -- toward a stagnant and second-rate economy. [...] Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American. With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker.

To be honest, I like this call for trade-liberalisation, but I'll believe it when I see it. So far as I can tell, Bush hasn't made any great progress on this issue since coming to power 5 years ago, and the lack of definitive policy statements in this section here makes me think that - yet again - it's all just empty rhetoric.

quote:

Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will [...] stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

Hmmm... where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, that's right:

quote:

"[O]ur budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term, so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner." - 2002 SOTU.

quote:

"The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is [...] to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C." - 2003 SOTU.

quote:

I will send you a budget that [will] cut wasteful spending. [...] By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years." - 2004 SOTU.

quote:

" I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities.". - 2005 SOTU.

You'll forgive me if I don't place a great deal of faith in Bush's "plan" to curb the deficit here, given the inaction we've witnessed so far. After all, it calls for "spending discipline", something he hasn't shown a great deal of over the past 4 years.

quote:

This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad's favorite people -- me and President Clinton. (Laughter.) This milestone is more than a personal crisis -- (laughter) -- it is a national challenge.

quote:

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.

This is the only part of the speech that I was in the least bit enthused about. I'm glad that he's acknowledged the need to fund research into cleaner energy sources, even if it does seem to be motivated by the need to overcome America's "addiction to oil" (and thus the dependency on Middle-Eastern states and crackpot South-American socialist states) rather than a more altruistic, environmental goal.

Still, if he actually makes it happen (i.e. if it isn't just empty rhetoric like the rest of the speech) then he wins my plaudits.

quote:

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They're concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. [...] I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench.

The fucking nerve. Yes they're "concerned about unethical conduct by public officials", that is the public officials within your own party. And, it must be said, you have done nothing to correct this unwholesome shift in the "direction of our culture", choosing instead to smear the Democrats who were distantly connected to Abramoff rather than publicly taking a stand against the obvious depth and bredth of corruption within the GOP. I'm sure that "many Americans" ("especially parents") would be less concerned if you had chosen to take action on the issue, rather than spouting moralisms from behind a podium about it several months later. It's hard to believe that you're against the "unethical conduct" of public officials when you've refused to make any strong statements about the conduct of the congressmen connected to Abramoff, which is to say nothing about DeLay or Rove. Rather than telling the American people what they are self-evidently against, perhaps you should be taking steps to fix the problem?

Oh and "activist judges"? Please. Didn't you just nominate someone to the supreme court bench on the basis of their conservative ideological slant? What is the definition of an "activist judge", if not one who legislates on the basis of political inclination rather than on the letter of the law?

quote:

Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing. Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?

Great way to wrap up a speech. Did he just compare himself to Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Roosevelt? Did he just equivocate the war he's waging in Iraq with the war which liberated an entire race of people, the most significant civil rights movement in the history of the planet and the greatest, most necessary conflict the world has ever seen? Jesus, what a self-aggrandising prick. Check that - what a delusional, self-aggrandising prick.

Anyway, those were my thoughts. What were yours?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Feb-01-2006 at 17:36

Overall, I was pretty uninspired.

It will help in raising Bush approval ratings for a week or so and than things will be same again.

___________________
___________________

Great summary Renegade

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Did he just equivocate the war he's waging in Iraq with the war which liberated an entire race of people, the most significant civil rights movement in the history of the planet and the greatest, most necessary conflict the world has ever seen?

Yeah, the same civil rights movement that was constantly under attack by our federal government via COINTELPRO and other such means.

quote:

From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to "neutralize" him as an effective civil rights leader. In the words of the man in charge of the FBI's "war" against Dr. King: No holds were barred. We have used [similar] techniques against Soviet agents. [The same methods were] brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business. The FBI collected information about Dr. King's plans and activities through an extensive surveillance program, employing nearly every intelligence-gathering technique at the Bureau's disposal. Wiretaps, which were initially approved by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, were maintained on Dr. King's home telephone from October 1963 until mid-1965; the SCLC headquarter's telephones were covered by wiretaps for an even longer period. Phones in the homes and offices of some of Dr. King's close advisers were also wiretapped. The FBI has acknowledged 16 occasions on which microphones were hidden in Dr. King's hotel and motel rooms in an "attempt" to obtain information about the "private activities of King and his advisers" for use to "completely discredit" them. 2 FBI informants in the civil rights movement and reports from field offices kept the Bureau's headquarters informed of developments in the civil rights field. The FBI's presence was so intrusive that one major figure in the civil rights movement testified that his colleagues referred to themselves as members of "the FBI's golden record club." 3 The FBI's formal program to discredit Dr. King with Government officials began with the distribution of a "monograph" which the FBI realized could "be regarded as a personal attack on Martin Luther King," 4 and which was subsequently described by a Justice Department official as "a personal diatribe ... a personal attack without evidentiary support." 5 Congressional leaders were warned "off the record" about alleged dangers posed by Reverend King. The FBI responded to Dr. King's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize by attempting to undermine his reception by foreign heads of state and American ambassadors in the countries that be planned to visit. When Dr. King returned to the United States, steps were taken to reduce support for a huge banquet and a special "day" that were being planned in his honor. The FBI's program to destroy Dr. King as the leader of the civil rights movement entailed attempts to discredit him with churches, universities, and the press. Steps were taken to attempt to convince the National Council of Churches, the Baptist World Alliance, and leading Protestant ministers to halt financial support of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and to persuade them that "Negro leaders should completely isolate King and remove him from the role he is now occupying in civil rights activities." 6 When the FBI learned that Dr. King intended to visit the Pope, an agent was dispatched to persuade Francis Cardinal Spellman to warn the Pope about "the likely embarrassment that may result to the Pope should he grant King an audience." 7 The FBI sought to influence universities to withhold honorary degrees from Dr. King. Attempts were made to prevent the publication of articles favorable to Dr. King and to find "friendly" news sources that would print unfavorable articles. The FBI offered to play for reporters tape recordings allegedly made from microphone surveillance of Dr. King's hotel rooms. The FBI mailed Dr. King a tape recording made from its microphone coverage. According to the Chief of the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division, the tape was intended to precipitate a separation between Dr. King and his wife in the belief that the separation would reduce Dr. King's stature. 7a The tape recording was accompanied by a note which Dr. King and his advisers interpreted as a threat to release the tape recording unless Dr. King committed suicide. The FBI also made preparations to promote someone "to assume the role of leadership of the Negro people when King has been completely discredited." 8 The campaign against Dr. King included attempts to destroy the Southern Christian Leadership Conference by cutting off its sources of funds. The FBI considered, and on some occasions executed, plans to cut off the support of some of the SCLC's major contributors, including religious organizations, a labor union, and donors of grants such as the Ford Foundation. One FBI field office recommended that the FBI send letters to the SCLC's donors over Dr. King's forged signature warning them that the SCLC was under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS files on Dr. King and the SCLC were carefully scrutinized for financial irregularities. For over a year, the FBI unsuccessfully attempted to establish that Dr. King had a secret foreign bank account in which he was sequestering funds. The FBI campaign to discredit and destroy Dr. King was marked by extreme personal vindictiveness. As early as 1962, Director Hoover penned on an FBI memorandum, "King is no good." 9 At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."' 10 The FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division described this "demagogic speech" as yet more evidence that Dr. King was "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country." 11 Shortly afterward, Time magazine chose Dr. King as the "Man of the Year," an honor which elicited Director Hoover's comment that "they had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one." 12 Hoover wrote "astounding" across the memorandum informing him that Dr. King had been granted an audience with the Pope despite the FBI's efforts to prevent such a meeting. The depth of Director Hoover's bitterness toward Dr. King, a bitterness which he had effectively communicated to his subordinates in the FBI, was apparent from the FBI's attempts to sully Dr. King's reputation long after his death. Plans were made to "brief" congressional leaders in 1969 to prevent the passage of a "Martin Luther King Day." In 1970, Director Hoover told reporters that Dr. King was the "last one in the world who should ever have received" the Nobel Peace Prize. 13 http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/coint...lreportIIIb.htm

And no, I didn't bother to listen to the shrub regurgitate all of the same fluff that he's already passed off on us - like they think that ALL OF US citizens are such f*cking idiots. A few of us saw through his bullsh*t way before he was ever even elected to a first term.

Same BS,same promises, and at the end of the year we will get the same results as before, accomplish nothing.
Its funny the only time I heard boos where when he talked about his social security plan. I thought it was suppose to be all claps and cheers.

Helllllooooo??? Manned missions to Mars and the moon??? He made us a promise last year! A PROMISE!!!!

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Feb-02-2006 at 04:05

Mars Bitches!

If you guys haven't seen it, check out Dave Chapelle's "Black Bush" skit:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/...n_2/index.jhtml

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Anyway, what'd everyone think? Seemed like a fairly typical Bush speech to me - big on rhetoric and allusions, small on ideas and substance. The first half read like a propoganda piece to garner support for a failing war, the rest read like the work of an administration that's short on vision and direction. Nothing particularly new or interesting in there (with a couple of exceptions that I'll get into) and much of it seemed to have just been lifted straight from other speeches and public statements.

OMG how did you do that? You read my mind! Thats exactly what I figured it would be and exactly why I didn't listen to it. In a way its also the reason I stopped reading your post at this point.

I mean even occrider only posted a sentence in here. A sentence! That man doesn't post less than half a page in any thread unless the thread is less important than not important enough to post. Then he only posts a sentence to poke fun at it.

I'm sorry, I know you're just tryin to liven the place up a bit. Truth is, it has been slow around here. My guess is there really hasnt been any new news. Its all the same recycled crap from the same recycled mistakes the administration keeps making.

This may not be the best source example, but CNN.com international edition has the following lead story on the front page.
U.S. busts dogs-as-mules ruse
Dogs! Common! Then again, at least they don't have some story about casualties in Iraq... Pfft, I mean who hasn't gotten tired of reading those stories!

Out of all the scandals so far what have we got to show for them? The assistant to the vice president. Big whoop. By this time last presidency we had a stained blouse and an impeachment damnit!

Last edited by josh4 on Feb-02-2006 at 04:51