|
My problem with Bush's state of the union is that it's part of a long string of policies and decisions that he has made that appear to help his buddies and hurt the common man. Including:
- Talking down the US economy when he took office to get his tax cut through
- Appointing unqualified people to the SEC committees that he was supposed to be fixing
- Failing to prosecute his friend Kenneth Lay
- Faling to pressure his own appointees on FERC to stop the price gouging by Enron, Dynegy, and others during the height of the energy "crisis". Note that FERC had the power to cap prices and failed to act.
- Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, and the assault on american liberty. (And don't say it's all ashcroft. he works for bush.)
- Failing to do what he said he would do in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is just as much of a mess as it was when we started.
There's more, but that's what comes off the top of my head. Overall, the use of questionable data certainly *seems* minor, but I think it's part of a pattern of disrespect for the common man, and a desire to take care of his rich buddies.
Remember, before the war, the argument was not over whether or not Saddam was a bad guy. Everyone agreed that he was. The argument was over whether we could take our time and remove him slowly by building up a coalition force, or whether he was such an immediate threat that we needed to take him out right away. The USA and Britain said "right away". The rest of the world and the UN said we could go more slowly.
I think history has shown that the UN approach would have been better for the world, for Iraq, and for the USA. Iraq is a huge mess that is costing us a billion dollar a week, and we pissed off most of the rest of the world with our cowboy approach. The state of the union address is relatively minor, but it is also symbolic of the way this administration has behaved and I think that's why it resonates so much with the press and the people.
|