Last night (January 31st, 2006) was State of The Union night in Washington DC. The U.S. Capitol was filled up to the brim with congressmen, reporters and judges of the Supreme Court. Around 9:15 PM EST George W. Bush, the president of the United States, started pronouncing his 45-minute allocution to the audience. Every major TV news channel in America covered the event from beginning to end. I was able to watch everything, and I got some things to say about it all. Here’s my take on the 2006 SOTU.

Overall I thought Bush’s speech was correct, although about 40% of it only concerned Iraq, Iran, Al-Qaeda, the War on Terror and the difficulties the American military is currently facing there. Nothing new under the sun here, the Bush administration is still singing the same tune. But the president managed to bring some great insight in the “bring the troops home” debate we’ve been spectators of for some time now. He said that the “road to victory is the road that will bring 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.”. Can’t agree more with the guy, especially now that there’s been an election in Iraq and that the Iraqi people are on the threshold of giving birth to a stable, democratic society in the Middle East, it’d be foolish for the United States to turn around and say “We’ve had enough of this shit and we’re leaving. Good luck with the insurgents!” which would equate to literally handing over Iraq to terrorist factions and having to start all over again in ten years. Undoable. No way. The United States just can’t back out now.

Plus, the president acknowledged that “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.” Bravo! Sometimes the Democratic party’s stance on the war is just defeatist. It looks as if they think that the United States will never get out of Iraq and that the effects of that war will make the entire country crumble. Sorry, but the United States are a lot stronger than that and they have proved it many times in the past. I have no qualms whatsoever with the president’s position to stay the course and work for an efficient victory. You just don’t quit when you’re about to win. You can criticize the work that’s been done, but sometimes that criticizing attitude teeters way too much on the edge of defeatism and undermines moral support for victory.

Like the president said, “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, and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission”. I assure you it’s the only way that this battle can be fought, and that it’s the only way the United States, symbolizing the Western world as a whole can prevail. If America backtracks now, the entire Western hemisphere could feel the heat of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. I’ve said it before, I never really supported the American invasion of Iraq, but now that they’ve got both feet, both arms and most of their head in the door, we can’t just shut it off.

But enough with Iraq and the War on Terror, let’s now speak about other concerns as addressed by the president’s speech.

He has praised American interventionism in the world before he was president, and he still praises that way of dealing with things. While I disagree with him on the whole because I think that whatever the United States do in the world, they’ll always be hated for it so it’s best that they do nothing at all, I see where he comes from and can understand his point of view. To me, however, at least for a time the United States should play the isolationist card and quit meddling in the affairs of other countries, just to see what happens next. They’d focus on their own problems to solve and it would make them a lot stronger as a union. And then when the entire world would start criticizing them because now they don’t interact with the international community anymore, they’d be able to give them all a strong rebuttal in the simple fact that when they DO interact they are criticized by world panelists and analysts on their constant meddling in the affairs of others, and that when they DO NOTHING and keep to their own problems then they are labeled as selfish isolationists. Having once again recently been able to prove that simple fact, they could finally tell the world they JUST DON’T CARE ANYMORE. Can you guess what would happen next? The entire world would come to their knees and plead with them to start policing the world again. They won’t admit it, but the world needs the United States as a world police in order to work properly. The problem is that it’s costly to Americans (military expenses and soldiers’ lives) and that there has to be something in for them so they accept to do it. And that something is the ability to pursue their own interests using their military. Some might disagree with those interests, but I don’t think we have much of a choice. And if you ask me, it’s probably for the better. Unlike many -especially left-wing pundits- I still believe that the United States represents good, not evil, and that in the end, it’s best for all of us in the Western hemisphere if they prevail.

In his speech, the president also addressed the controversy of alleged phone-tapping of Americans suspected of talking with Al-Qaeda. This once again fuels a long-lived debate between putting the emphasis on individual freedoms or national security. I, for one, think it’s better to temporarily give up SOME of the individual freedoms we have so we can be safer, because if we are actually attacked, we risk losing THEM ALL. I am, however, far from doing the apology of Bush’s tactical phone-tapping fiasco. It’s still a very wrong thing to do, even if as a honest model citizen of America you have nothing to worry about in my opinion.

Another subject in the president’s speech that striked a chord with me is America’s growing dependence on foreign oil. I personnally do NOT oppose Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling partly because of that. He started off saying that America’s dependence on foreign oil should be addressed by new technology and alternative sources of energy. I totally agree with him, and would like to point out that the United States’ record on the issue is a lot more encouraging than that of many other countries, Canada included. Keeping that mindset, the Bush administration took advantage of the opportunity by announcing “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. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.” Not half bad from someone who is supposedly on the payroll of Big Oil…

In addition to all that, Bush also talked about the economy’s strength, proposed legislation and bills to be passed in Congress on pork-barrel spending, earmark reform, new teachers, the No Child Left Behind act, Health Savings Accounts, Social Security reform and much more that I won’t address here. It was, like I said, a very decent speech, although not his best ever. And yes, he did unfortunately say “nyookular” instead of “nuclear” a number of times. Oh well.

As for Tim Kaine’s (Democrat, Governor of Virginia) rebuttal to the president’s speech, it was good in my opinion, not too harsh on the administration but not too soft either. Kaine made some good points when he called for Americans to work together and leave behind the ideological differences and partisanship-related issues, something that also stood out from Bush’s speech as well. One would think that, with this supposedly tremendous amount of goodwill and eagerness showing from both parties to work together and solve problems, by now America would be a perfect country. But in reality, it’s quite different. If you only intent for something to happen and do nothing to actually make it happen then it’s just not going to happen at all. Seems to me that they all “talk the talk” but not a lot of them actually “walk the walk” and get things done.

Of the issues the newly elected Virginia governor addressed a few really caught my attention. Firstly, there was his claim that the Bush administration has done nothing to “manage our staggering national debt.” Then Kaine proceeded to say that “Over the past five years, we’ve gone from huge surpluses to massive deficits. No parent makes their child pay the mortgage. Why should we allow this Administration to pass down the bill for its reckless spending to our children and grandchildren?” I totally agree with him on the issue. Reckless spending it is. However, it’s historically supposed to be the Democrats who spend recklessly, not the penny-clutching Republicans who technically should prevent deficits and reduce debt at any cost. Methinks a government should not be allowed to spend money it does not have. This should never have happened in the first place. If everybody had stuck to this principle, national debts would not exist today. I know that’s only wishful thinking, but now that we’re into it way over our heads, what are we supposed to do?

I also agree with Kaine’s stand on the “prescription drugs’ rising costs” issue: he said “Many states, following the lead of Illinois, have set up simple ways to help our seniors purchase safe, American-made prescription drugs from other countries at a fraction of the price they would pay here. The Administration actually fought against that Democratic effort! In Virginia, we have worked to provide health insurance coverage for nearly 140,000 children who weren’t covered four years ago. And Republicans and Democrats alike have banded together to fight the Administration’s efforts to slash Medicaid and push more costs on to the states.” This is all true. I recall hearing about all this on television. If the federal government isn’t going to help on reforming healthcare or prescription drug costs, at least it shouldn’t stand in the way of those who are willing to go the distance and actually make it happen!

And last but not least, I liked Tim Kaine’s stand on America’s oil dependence and providing the troops with the equipment they need. I didn’t hate his position on immigration policy reform either.

All things considered, it was a hell of a SOTU night. And if what we’ve heard from both parties on Tuesday night is in fact a prediction of what will actually happen over the next couple of months, it’s going to be an interesting year for those who watch what’s going on with the mighty old Uncle Sam.

——————–
Sources

2006 State of The Union Address Transcript
2006 State of The Union - Democratic Party’s Response