OT - Believe It or Not, The NYT Nails It
- From: mozark <swooning@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Editorial
The New York Times
January 29, 2008
The State of the Union
Six years ago, President Bush began his State of the Union address
with two powerful sentences: "As we gather tonight, our nation is at
war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces
unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been
stronger."
Monday night, after six years of promises unkept or insincerely made
and blunders of historic proportions, the United States is now
fighting two wars, the economy is veering toward recession and the
civilized world still faces horrifying dangers -- and it has far less
sympathy and respect for the United States.
The nation is splintered over the war in Iraq, cleaved by ruthless
partisan politics, bubbling with economic fear and mired in debate
over virtually all of the issues Mr. Bush faced in 2002. And the best
Mr. Bush could offer was a call to individual empowerment -- a noble
idea, but in Mr. Bush's hands just another excuse to abdicate
government responsibility.
Monday night's address made us think what a different speech it might
have been if Mr. Bush had capitalized on the unity that followed the
9/11 attacks to draw the nation together, rather than to arrogate ever
more power and launch his misadventure in Iraq. How different it might
have been if Mr. Bush meant what he said about compassionate
conservatism or even followed the fiscal discipline of old-fashioned
conservatism. How different if he had made a real effort to reach for
the bipartisanship he promised in 2002 and so many times since.
Then he could have used last night's speech to celebrate a balanced
budget, one in which taxes produce enough money to pay for the
nation's genuine needs, including health care for poor children and a
rebuilt New Orleans. Instead, Mr. Bush called -- again -- for his tax
cuts to be permanent and threatened to veto bills that contained
excessive pork-barrel spending, an idea absent from his agenda when
Republicans held Congress.
Had Mr. Bush been doing his job right just in the last few weeks, he
could have used this speech to celebrate a genuinely bipartisan
agreement on a sound economic stimulus plan. In addition to the tax
rebates agreed on already between the White House and the House, Mr.
Bush could have announced sensible proposals for extending
unemployment benefits and a temporary increase in food stamps for the
most vulnerable citizens.
Those aren't just Democratic ideas. The independent Congressional
Budget Office ranks those stimulus policies as far more effective than
rebates.
If Mr. Bush had let compassion and good sense trump ideology, he would
have been able to use last night's speech to celebrate the expansion
of health insurance to tens of millions of children with working
parents. Mr. Bush vetoed an expansion of the S-chip program, and he
did not even agree to pay for all of the existing coverage because he
thought a relative handful of parents might switch from private to
public insurance if they were offered government assistance to buy it.
In 2003, the president proposed the Medicare prescription drug
benefit, his signature achievement in health insurance reform. It
barely squeaked past conservative Republicans in Congress, and Mr.
Bush's appetite for making health care accessible and affordable for
all Americans vanished.
Mr. Bush has included a call for immigration reform in all of his
previous State of the Union addresses. But he has never matched that
rhetoric with strong ideas or political passion. A push last year for
comprehensive reform was defeated by his party's right wing, which
continues to spread hatred on the campaign trail. His insight last
night: "Illegal immigration is complicated."
In 2002, Mr. Bush spoke about the international coalition that invaded
Afghanistan, about the consensus among civilized nations of the need
to combat terrorism, about the way the 9/11 attacks had rallied
nations behind America's leadership. Afghanistan's good war was
quickly overshadowed -- and shortchanged -- by Mr. Bush's Iraq folly.
Six years later, the United States and its allies are still fighting
and dying in Afghanistan and the Taliban is back in force.
He was not even able to assure Americans that there is an end in sight
to the Iraq war. Instead, he made the same empty promise he has made
every year: When Iraq can defend itself, American troops will come
home. Iraq's defense minister told The Times recently that his forces
would not be able to fully keep the peace and defend their country
until 2018.
Mr. Bush's troop escalation has succeeded in stabilizing parts of
Baghdad and lowering casualties. But 2007 was still the most violent
year in Iraq since the 2003 invasion and -- more important -- Mr. Bush
has little to show in the way of political reconciliation, the only
guarantor of a lasting peace. Mr. Bush has made no real effort to seek
the help of Iraq's neighbors to help stabilize the country.
In the end, when it comes to Iraq, Mr. Bush's annual addresses will be
remembered most for his false claims -- the fictitious "axis of evil,"
nonexistent aluminum tubes and African uranium, dangerous weapons that
did not exist. No president can want that as his legacy.
Mr. Bush still has a year left -- and many serious problems to address.
It is time, finally, for him to put aside the partisanship, the
bluster and the empty rhetoric. The state of the union is troubled.
The nation yearns for leadership.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT - Believe It or Not, The NYT Nails It
- From: bozak
- Re: OT - Believe It or Not, The NYT Nails It
- From: Swillabrew
- Re: OT - Believe It or Not, The NYT Nails It
- Prev by Date: Second team wallops first team...
- Next by Date: Re: man do they need bynum...
- Previous by thread: Second team wallops first team...
- Next by thread: Re: OT - Believe It or Not, The NYT Nails It
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
