TONIGHT'S STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
By Neil Boortz
This will be the first time in Bush's presidency that he has delivered this address to a Democratic controlled congress. To make matters more difficult, he's delivering this address at a time when his approval ratings are at an all-time low, down near Nixonian levels.
With so many people disapproving of his administration and its policies, there doesn't seem to be much point to the whole exercise. Whatever he says will be shot down by the media. The press is eager to elect Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham president of the United States...they simply don't have time for the current occupant of the Oval Office. The public, hungry for socialism and American Idol, will be tuning out as well. So perhaps President Bush should just cancel the address and go on about his business? But he won't do that. Instead, we'll get a speech. What will it be about?
He'll no doubt address his critics on his troop surge plan for Iraq. This is not very popular, because most people and politicians want to surrender to Islamic terrorists in Iraq and cut and run. He'll announce some sort of new policy on global warming. And true to form, we'll get plenty of new spending initiatives, even though the government is broke. We can always print more money, right?
He'll also push a new health care plan, with a tax deduction for those who buy their own insurance. Well, it's about time that the private individual got the same tax breaks that an employer does when it comes to buying health insurance. Democrats won't like this idea because it could lead to health care independence. The Democrat plan is for health care dependence ... the more dependence the better. It's a shame Bush can't finance this plan with some spending cuts elsewhere .. instead he wants to start taxing people with high-end health insurance plans.
And don't forget the guest worker program for illegal aliens...yeah, that will excite people. Oh...and renewing the No Child Left Behind act. Can't forget that. Should be an interesting speech...President Bush has nowhere to go but up.
This widespread derision of President Bush bothers me. I'm distressed that a man like George Bush can be so reviled, while a moral degenerate like Bill Clinton can be so widely praised.
Notice, now, that I didn't say that I couldn't understand why this is so, I just said that it distresses me. The why is easy to understand. Bush has been a target since the day he was sworn in. Over 90% of the members of the mainstream New York and Washington press corps voted for Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Some of these people have come to accept the reality that it was a close election .. .and that Bush won. Others, perhaps the majority, have never come to terms with Bush's win and have been dedicated to the idea of destroying his presidency since January of 2000.
Since day one there has been a template applied to the media coverage of Bush's presidency. If the story makes Bush look good, either ignore it or downplay it. If the story makes Bush look bad, put it on the front page.
The media hasn't been fighting this war against Bush alone. The Democrats, of course, have been on board. There was a momentary respite in the aftermath of 9/11. But it took no time at all for the Democrats to renew their attacks. I firmly believe that the Democrats made a conscious decision that it was more important that they destroy the image of George Bush than it was for them to get behind the war against Islamic terrorism.
I believe that 9/11 transformed George Bush. I believe that since that date he has been completely dedicated to the purpose of protecting this country from further terrorist attacks.
How can he be blamed for acting against Saddam Hussein? Have we all forgotten that the official U.S. policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was adopted during the Clinton administration? Have we forgotten Saddam's cat and mouse games with U.N. weapons inspectors? Have we forgotten that American intelligence officials have recovered documents and materials that constitute proof positive that Saddam was proceeding with a program to develop nuclear weapons? Hussein defied the U.N. He defied the international community. The proof is there ... he had contacts with Al Qaeda. No, I'm not saying that Saddam was behind 9/11, but there were agents in Saddam's government who had contact with those who did plan 9/11. Add the rape rooms, the mass graves, the use of WMDs to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and his own countrymen .. .and you come up with a despot that should have been left in power --- in power to continue with his weapons programs?
Come on, folks. Either you're glad Saddam is gone, or you wish he was still in power. Which is it? You can't just wallow in your hatred of George Bush ... you have to make a decision. Saddam or no Saddam.
And what of Bush's goals for Iraq. What did he want. He wanted to create a country in the heart of the Islamic middle east with an elected government and a rule of law that protected the rights of each and every citizen .. no matter what Islamic sect that citizen belonged to. He wanted Iraq to be a demonstration project to show the rest of the Middle East what could be accomplished through freedom and representative governments. Was this such a bad goal? Do you think that Bush should have just gone into Iraq, destroyed Saddam Hussein, and then left? That has never been the way America operated. But that's the way you wanted it to be this time? Or are we back to leaving Saddam in power.
Mistakes?
Damn right he made mistakes. They're easy to chronicle. But how do Bush's mistakes compare to the Democrat Party plan to demonize George Bush? What do you think had a greater affect on the situation in the Middle East --- the mistakes Bush made in the pursuit of a better way of life for the citizens of Iraq, or the Democrat's determination to sabotage Bush's efforts?
From where do you think the Islamic fascists have received their most encouragement? From the tactical mistakes made by George Bush, or from the weakness in the American spirit that has been fostered by the whining Democrats?
Even in the face of these depressing approval polls, Bush remains determined to protect this country from Islamic terrorism. Someday perhaps the American people will appreciate him for his determination, however flawed, to protect this nation, and will come to recognize the damage that has been done by the actions of the not-so-loyal opposition, actions that have convinced them that America is becoming weak in the face of the ongoing Islamic jihad.
