The State Of The Union
Tonight's the night. GW Bush will address the world regarding the state of our Union. At least in theory, anyway. The State of the Union Address has long been a policy platform used to justify programs, defend Administration courses of action, and in some cases, trumpet past victories. When the Union is going well, it CAN be a legitimate State of the Union Address. I do not expect such an address this evening.
Early reports indicate that Bush will continue to press the Iraq issue in general terms, but offer few new specifics. How this advances the Iraq agenda, I'm not really sure. People have heard the rhetoric; they even agree that Saddam is Evil, for the most part. What people want is proof and consensus, and one drives the other. Call me a skeptic, but I have to believe that if the proof existed, we would all know about it in finite detail.
Which brings up an interesting point: Does Bush pull out the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric? I'm guessing he will, because if this Administration has shown anything, it is their brazen willingness to forge ahead with an agenda beyond the point where it is obvious that it may not be wise to do so.
The Axis of Evil concept is extremely troubling to Bush, in my view. So much of the domestic and global apprehension about our advances towards Iraq is rooted in the idea that we are simply after Iraq's oil. The Administration remains mute on any oil talk, and instead tries to press a circumstantial case tying Iraq to terrorists. That is their justification for invading Iraq, at least publicly.
But we (they) made the same noises about North Korea when we included them in the Axis in the first place. So, we were on record as saying that North Korea was a terrorist concern. Then they come out with a weapons challenge that is infinitely more credible than anything Iraq has presented. (I mean, we can't seem to prove Iraq has weapons, yet North Korea sends us a Harry and David package announcing their nuclear program in the card!)
Why is our course of action different in these two situations, if not for the oil? Now, maybe there are real reasons, but they haven't been articulated, and it looks fishy to just about everybody. When average U.S. citizens are asking about our war motivations with as much frequency as they are now, that's a BIG problem for the Administration. Frankly, I think they are surprised we didn't all just sign off on Iraq as a part of the blank check to fight terrorism. I'm surprised, too, and I have a bit more respect for my fellow citizens than I did before this all went down.
Not only are their rhetorical options on Iraq dwindling; their options on the economy were non-existent in the first place. Tonight's primary focus will again be on tax cuts that benefit a small portion of the population. We've all heard that before, and we've seen cuts from this Administration already which were supposed to be a "stimulus". People are going to tune it out, fast.
The rest of the speech seems to be about minor issues, comparatively, like drug rehab money going to churches, or medicare benefits. Expect a disproportionate amount of time to be spent on these items. Why? Because if GWB talks about the real State of the Union today, he'll have to talk about a series of policy failures.
What victories can Bush point to? Not many, unless you count alienating virtually every country with foreign and environmental policy, or domestic unrest that has people lined up in the streets or the unemployment lines. Seriously, can you name one victory this Administration can point to? I can: Brushing Enron under the rug. Absolutely the best thing they've done so far for themselves, but that doesn't help the rest of us much, does it?
Tonight is the midway point of this Administration. It may also be the beginning of the end.
12:08:44 PM 
|
