My opinion on the 2004 State of the Union Address

First off you can read the speech at
(please moderators don't strike me for including this)

Whitehouse.gov

I'm going to try not to rant to much I just want to point out some things i disliked!

Taxes



I don't know about you but the 400 bucks I got didn't help me out at all , my federal income tax might have went down but my state went up an so did my property taxes so to me the bush taxs were a wash , my overall tax burden went up!
and i don't belive the economy has gotten any better , wall street might be doing better but that hasn't corelated to a better economy for working class Americans!
jobs,jobs,jobs!

Check these sites out for info:Bushtaxcut.com

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Patriot Act



I thought that was funny that the democrats applauded the expiration of this act I think the whole act should be trashed its just unconstitutional!

War



some how I don't see this happening aren't we still trying to do that in Afganastan.
I don't see Iraqi sovereignty happening any time in the next 5 years, maybe civil war.



I don't have the info but I'd like to know what exactly these other nations are doing , how much of the costs are they paying?, how many frontline troops have they committed(not some guy in kuwait in a support roll)? I don't belive the people of these nations were not behind this war , I think these leaders fell to the pressure from the Bush war machine " your with us or aginst us " mentality!



Is that funny or what more people around the world doubt us now after all the lies told about the war , Are credibility is in the can!



Can you say, back peddling



I don't know About you but I don't like my Tax dollars funding a private group that I have no say in! No taxation with out representation!



Not in the Country I live in , we a still very much in a recession if not depression

recession
The state of the economy declines; a widespread decline in the GDP and a decline in employment and trade lasting from six months to a year

depression
A long-term economic state characterized by unemployment and low prices and low levels of trade and investment

Sounds like were in a depression don't it I didn't make this up it was in the dictionary!

I could go on an on but I'm getting to mad to continue

It's been mentioned before, but the "permission slip" comment that has drawn so many plaudits, here and elsewhere, rests on Iraq being a clear and present danger to the security of America and Americans.

Someone mentioned that they support the right of America to respond with force, if attacked. What is missing from this is that France, Germany, and Russia (the most prominent of the "few nations" who tried to hold America back from attacking Iraq through the UN) also supported this right, because none of them batted an eyelid when America responded against al-Quaeda and their Taliban hosts in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.

What they DID object to was the conflation of Iraq into that response, which Bush (and Blair) have continually tried to imply is part of the War on Terror.

Before the invasion, I (and many others) tentatively supported it on the grounds that the Baathist regime still had dangerous quantities of WMD, which if they did not use them directly, could have fallen into the hands of AQ and similar organisations.

That no such weapons have been found almost a year later - and remember, the UN inspectors found that Iraq suddenly became cooperative when the US/UK military presence in the Gulf was enlarged prior to invasion; and the objections of France and the rest were limited to "give the inspectors more time" - indicates to me that either the intelligence was incompetently obtained or dishonestly presented, or both, and that the US and UK governments (at the very least) knew this perfectly well, but ignored it because they had predecided that invasion would go ahead anyway. Possibly in line with the long-standing Neo-Conservative aim of doing so to secure US hegemony (rather than US security - the two are entirely different).

What Dubya should have said was "This administration does not need a permission slip to do whatever the hell it likes, right or wrong". Doubtless some of the people whose hearts leapt at his actual comments would not feel any different had he been more honest.

I would like to note first, that at home, I applauded the expiration of The Patriot Act, and I found NOTHING inappropriate with the response of Congressmen, Democrat or Republican, who also applauded its expiration. It is a law which many of us find frightening, and which the President said, "allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists." If I understood him correctly, the provisions they are actually using reflect pre-existing techniques which were already legal.

Second, I want to compare and contrast where the President wants to lead, with his goals of four years ago. The Republican Platform 2000 is quite long, so I will only be excerpting a little at a time.



In most doctor's offices, I have noticed that the drug companies offer inexpensive programs that allow low income and elderly patients to purchase drugs at a discount if they have no insurance available. Four years after his platform said, "It's time to give older Americans access to the same health insurance plan the Congress has created for itself," he has "pushed" through a Republican Congress, a plan which will allow me as a Medicare recipient to subscribe to a discount card so that I can purchase drugs at a discount. In all likelihood, my formal employer will now say that because I am eligible for Medicare drug benefits, they will drop all medical coverage that I am eligible for through them. That insurance currently picks up about $3,000 of my annual prescription costs.

I disagree with the majority of the President's agenda set forth in his speech. The points I am adamantly against are as follows:



I think this is the biggest concern I have with the current administration. The events of September 11, 2001 will never be vindicated, nor will the ongoing threat of terrorism toward our country be defeated by the means in which President Bush is pursuing.

The war on terrorism is reactionary and ill-fated. We will lose the fight against our security at home if we continue to use our military resources in the present manner. Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspect of this 'war on terror' is that Bush has never given the people of the United States a clear plan, budget, or target date for 'winning' this war. The answer is because this is a war we'll never win, but rather a liability that will be passed on for generations to come. Being "on the offensive" as the President has proudly proclaimed will continue to drain money, lives, and hope for true peace in this world.

In regard to his statements about Iraq: LIES, Lies, and more lies.

I am overwhelmed by the lack of integrity this President has shown when it comes to declaring war against other nations. The war in Iraq was a mistake. The President needed to come clean and admit that this war was an enormous error on the part of his advisors, Congress, and himself.

But he didn't...



First of all, those who were opposed to this war were not opposed to the liberation of Iraq? Wasn't this about weapons of mass destruction last year?



Okay..."dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment..."

Using general terms to inflate the lack of substance that actually exists makes the President's case for war after the fact pretty weak. No wonder the administration misled the public last year to get support. If they had used this "bombshell" of information last year, it wouldn't have held any water at all.



I am still dumbfounded that President Bush acts as though the UN was just going to turn their backs and ignore Iraq if the US hadn't made a case for war. Weapons inspectors were peacefully allowed back into Iraq, the inspections were working, and Saddam was cooperating for the first time in over a decade. This idea that if the US had failed to act, that Iraq would have had any leverage to mount a viable threat against anyone is ridicules.



I am in agony over this part of the speech. I have difficulty putting into words the vile falseness of this statement.

First of all, support from other countries came at a price. We only garnered support through bribery and coercion. In fact, the majority of the civilian populations in the "coalition of many nations" were vocally critical of the United States and their leadership's alignment with Bush's agenda.

Secondly, the "security of our country" was never in danger when it came to Iraq. That's why they didn't call it "Operation American Security". It is patriotic and heartwarming to think that the United States acted honorably by liberating the people of Iraq. However, it is the ignorance of this country's citizens that allowed our President to abuse his power and the influence of the United States.

The ignorance of our country's citizens has also allowed the President and Congress to pass the intrusive Patriot Act...



The fact that President Bush mentions this so early in his speech is a concern of mine. I don't understand the need to erode our freedom for the purpose of defending against terrorist attacks. Especially because the only terrorist attacks Americans have seen on US soil did not take place as a result of unexecuted warrants, the inability to arrest citizens without charges, or the illegal seizure of property. The Patriot Act seems as deceitful in name as it is in purpose.

The Patriot Act is just one aspect of the President's agenda that seems to offer no real solution to the world's problems.



These statements exude the ignorance the President has in regard to the reality of these issues. The President also seems to think that the majority of the United States agrees with his religious ideology. Drug testing in schools does not send the message of love to our children. Love is based in trust and communication, not invasion and condemnation. The belief that children should be taught to abstain from drugs and sex and ignore their natural desires to experiment will lead children to make uniformed decisions based on curiosity instead of common sense. Finally, when did it become the duty of our nation's government to protect the church's sanctity of marriage?



I believe the President's lack of integrity permeated throughout the entirety of his speech. I would like to believe that health care and education is a priority to the President. I would like to believe that economic recovery for the working class is a concern. However, I believe the President has marred his credibility so much in the last three years of his presidency that anything he says I cannot take to heart. In short, I don't believe much of what he says...even if I agree with it. I really tried to be objective when reading the President's address. Unfortunately, I cannot see past the monumental mistakes he has made leading this country to accept any of his small successes.

How strong of a "point" was made when the cameras showed invited guest QB Tom Brady?

I wonder how many people are effected (or just encouraged) to vote when they see a figure like a top NFL quarterback on Bush's side.


In any case, his voting record (like many) is potentially circumspect. Though registered, he's never voted. And he may have political aspirations.

This topic also in someway applies to Wes Clark and others with less than ideal voting records. And perhaps should be discussed on another thread. In any case, I'm curious.

Okay. I haven't had time to read all the posts yet, so if I repeat what anyone else has said I apologize.
The smirks and bobble heads I saw from Hillary, Ted, and Charlie were not just disrespectful to the President but to the American people also. There's a big difference between disagreeing and criticizing, and being downright childish. Democrats should be offended by this behavior.

Truthfully Jaime Bush's speech was offensive it what it didn't say.

No mention was made of confirmation was made of repeated wmd accusations. The use of the word terrorist was overused to the point where it became a catch-all category for disisdent behaviour.

No mention was made that violence is heating up in Afgahnistan. The situation was grossly smeared on Afghan cleanup efforts.

No mention on how to sustain the various tax cuts were made. No mention was made of the twin deficits that now threaten the american populace in a way that Bin Laden could not. No mention of the new and more impulsive defense strategies of the patriot act II were made. Only a mere mention of the sunset clauses which have absolutely no business becoming permanent

Frankly so much was omitted that everything just appears hunky-dory. The intent of his speech is purposely misleading and is troubling. I feel for anyone who must now assume the presidential position because they will inheret these problems.

[T.]