If you are like me, you spent Tuesday night anxiously awaiting President Bush’s State of the Union address.
OK, OK, OK. If you are like me, you were watching reruns of “The Daily Show” and “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” on Comedy Central while President Bush gave his State of the Union address.
But during a commercial break I downloaded a transcript of the speech and skimmed through most of it, thus allowing me to pontificate about it like the rest of my media pundit buddies.
Back in 2002, Bush was still a little rusty at the whole presidential thing. During a speech in Connecticut he said, “And so, in my State of the — my State of the Union — or state — my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation …”
This time around he seemed to know exactly what the speech was called. And he wasted no time in going immediately to the patriotic rhetoric. My favorite part was when he tried to justify the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism.
“Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power,” Bush said. “We’re seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities …”
Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities? Well, no wonder we couldn’t wait for the weapons inspectors to do their job. No wonder hundreds of Americans had to lose their lives. It is just like the Bush administration has said from day one: Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction … -related program activities, and we cannot allow related program activities to fall into the wrong hands.
Thanks to Paul O’Neill and his predilection for revenge, we now have proof of what we all suspected. Bush from the beginning wanted to attack Iraq. Documents from January 2001, long before the war on terrorism, speak of “Plans for Post-Saddam Iraq,” with maps of Iraqi oil fields and potential contractors.
“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” said O’Neill during a CBS interview.
Not everything in Bush’s address to the nation was about foreign policy. For example, Bush proposed to double federal funds for abstinence-only education. It is amazing to me that the right wing would endanger our children by basing their policy decisions on archaic moral beliefs rather than on science, which shows comprehensive sex-ed is the most effective means of achieving the ends that Bush claims to desire: safer sex.
Bush also threatened to put a heterosexual-only definition of marriage in the Constitution. This is a historic idea, since it would be the first time something was added to the Constitution in order to advance discrimination rather than stop it.
Personally, I was interested more in what was missing from his State of the Union speech than what was in it. For example, Bush said nothing about the state of his AIDS initiative, the hallmark of his last State of the Union address. That is probably because not a penny has been spent in the year since he promised it.
Bush also didn’t mention his idea to rework the civics test that every foreigner must pass before they can become a U.S. citizen. I suspect that he was afraid of his distinguished guests breaking out into roaring laughter. I mean, come on. President Bush overseeing the creation of a civics test? This is the man who once said, “The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.” That’s the wrong answer to questions No. 35 and 37 on the test!
Despite great hopes, this year’s speech turned out to be no different than in years past. More than 5,000 words and 70 separate applauses later, I still feel no better about the state of our union.