SOTU Speak By Donnel Jones, January 19, 2004	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

First off, happy Martin Luther King day. May his memory not fade.

As to business, we have a State of the Union (SOTU) address given by President Bush tomorrow night.

Whatever happens to the Dems, Bush and Co. are taking them seriously. As they should. It was easy to feel a false comfort in the lunatic pronouncements and the oft- noted vein clenched neck of Howard Dean when, like some contortion a baby performs when exploring its body for the first time, he put his foot in his mouth. Same with Clark. I more than once frivolously remarked that the whole occasion would be entertaining if Dean were to win. It would be ugly but amusing. Yet nothing less than the utmost seriousness should accompany our watching the Iowa Caucus and Bush's SOTU.

SOTU has become a political tool to re-jump a president's term in office. Although called for in the Constitution it has become an unavoidable tool of political sloganeering and grand standing. If done well, as I believe Bush did last year, it can lend enough political credibility for the president to carry out his agenda. I wonder how the Democrats will react tomorrow. I mean the ones in Congress who will return from recess to listen to Bush live, in the audience. Remember when Clinton gave his last SOTU and many Republicans simply ignored his existence—on TV for America to see?

Not for a long time, however, have the stakes been this high. The nation is divided, not only by Party but, more importantly, by the respective views of how to treat September 11th. These views reflect a profound understanding of what America is, what it stands for, if anything, and how it should behave in the world. The nuances will continue to be studied for decades to come but the dividing line can be drawn between those who believe a strong leader like Bush can prosecute the war on terrorism and those who believe a strong leader is needed to prevent further incursions of a radical foreign policy, fraught with peril, into world affairs. Bush is counting on the pro-war crowd to get him through. Especially if fiscal conservatives rail that Bush just changed his stripes to spots by becoming a big bleeding-heart domestic spender.

Will one more term of Bush fix the mark on how the terror war should be fought, that it should be fought at all, even after he leaves office after a second term? It is not certain the Democrats will fight this war. My mother told me that her father didn't like Roosevelt and probably voted for his opponents, though she didn't really know for certain, yet he knew that the war against Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese Imperialism had to be fought and won. He must have assumed that a Roosevelt detractor and victor would equally fight civilization's enemies even if he were to cut and slash the New Deal.

Today, there is no such consensus among the Democrats, who to some degree modify or flatter the European view that America is part of the problem of terrorism, not the only hope, to date, in leading the fight to destroy it. There is no reasoning either side can give to convince the other. Indeed, I think the Democrats have been out-to-lunch in the war on terrorism. Would Kerry or Edwards carry on in a soft voice of feel-good reassurance to our bruised allies on the Continent and on the east side of Manhattan? Will Kerry's Vietnam war record secure our victory in this war?

Since the stakes are high and the opposition is delusional about the war, what about the WMD issue? Bush seems not at all concerned with WMD not being found in Iraq.

Democrats also said Mr. Bush's address would give them an opportunity to remind voters that it was in the State of the Union speech a year ago that Mr. Bush made a case for military action against Iraq because of what he called "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons. But American inspectors have not found any evidence of unconventional weapons, and in a speech in Los Angeles last Friday the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman of California, said that Mr. Bush should use his State of the Union address "to acknowledge the problems and outline specific steps to fix them."

White House officials indicated that Mr. Bush would almost certainly not do that and that he would instead tell Americans on Tuesday that the decision to go to war was the right one. "It will be clear in the American people's mind that the president is very comfortable with the decision we made, and that, as a country, we ought to be proud of the actions we've taken," a senior administration official said in a briefing for reporters on Friday.

You can bet the Democrats won't and don't forget the WMD issue. The Bush tactic seems to be to ignore the credibility issue of not owning up to the bad intelligence concerning WMD. Should Bush come out and say he didn't have the best intelligence given the absence of such weapons in Iraq? Is he waiting for a miracle find, something like the capture of Saddam, whom we knew for certain does exist? If that were to happen, however, how many anti-Bushies would claim Bush had WMD all along and, as Madeline Albright claimed with respect to Saddam, they will be revealed at the right time for a boost in the polls! Because whatever happens, even if WMD are found, Bush will still be Bush and those who hate him will still hate him.

So would it be worth Bush coming out and admitting that the WMD snafu was bad intelligence? I'm not so sure. It would make him seem defensive and weak. Yet ignoring it isn't too smart either. Some American families, who dead sons and daughters were proud to serve their country, might want a few answers. But the partisan atmosphere is so toxic that a show of good will on Bush's part may backfire. Will Bush be forgiven for going into Iraq, even on flimsy intelligence? I think you know we won't wait for the spit to hit the fire.

Some will object that WMD was not the ultimate issue anyway, that Saddam is a bad guy and needed to be removed whether or not he had WMD. I myself have so argued. However, that is not what is at stake. Perception is. Not reasonable arguments about why Saddam's removal was necessary. How Bush performs tomorrow night will be crucial. It will be the kicker-off of his campaign for a second term as president at a time when the opposition is looking stronger than it did and than we hoped. If the Dems elect a sane candidate, don't think it will be smooth sailing for Bush, whatever side of the divide you find yourself.

Here's hoping his SOTU speak will navigate his enemies waters while he steers his own course amid huge domestic spending, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and the possibility that Iraq could blow up in all our faces.