misStatement of the Union
Recent controversy over the President's "State of the Union" address prompted me to investigate the speech further. I have presented some of the more disturbing moments and, just for fun, have added some commentary. I will admit that some of my points are "picky," but hey, we hold the President to a higher standard (or so I've been told). Enjoy!
We will work for a prosperity that is broadly shared, and we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people.
We won’t share with the poor, the homeless, and the non-tax paying lower class. People of unfortunate circumstances don't deserve our prosperity...they didn't earn it.
Every danger? We attacked Iraq without physical provocation, yet North Korea builds nuclear weapons that could be attached to rockets that could reach California.
...we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations.
But it’s okay to have a $455 billion deficit and increase the national debt to record numbers, because no future government will have to deal with that.
To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation.
Funny, our economy came out of recession just fine after Bush (41) and Clinton passed sweeping tax increases. Yet our economy continued to falter after both Reagan and Bush (43) passed record tax relief packages. Hmm, maybe there’s something to this "fiscal responsibility" thing after all.
...we are holding corporate criminals to account.
Yep, that Martha Stewart really had it coming...what was she thinking giving herself a .0001% raise and deceiving investors. Mr. Lay’s day is coming, too...in about 35 years or so. All he did was ruin the lives and retirement accounts of a couple thousand people.
The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes -- and it will help our economy immediately...
Did you hear that: immediately! Like ten years from now. Semantics!
Our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small businesses
Someone needs to inform Bush that most businesses don’t look at income taxes in their bottom line. For a definition of “bottom line”: gross income minus gross expenses. State license fees, yes. Operating costs, yes. Income taxes (although painful) are a springtime inconvenience for most companies, even small ones.
It's fair to tax a company's profits. It is not fair to again tax the shareholder on the same profits. (emphasis mine)
The old "double taxation" line! Dividend taxes are only “double taxation” if based on direct profits. Dividends typically come from profits based on stock performance, related to, but not directly attained from sales. Any money that changes hands is potentially subject to taxation. That also goes for the so-called "Death" tax.
The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth, and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C.
I couldn’t agree more.
I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year
Wait a second, wouldn’t that be around $80-100 billion in increases. There’s more than that outlined in this speech, not to mention the cost of occupation in Iraq and the exorbitant increases in defense spending that have recently been discussed.
Yet for many people, medical care costs too much -- and many have no coverage at all. These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care.
Valid statement, if taken ideologically, but "nationalized" health care by its very nature would cover all citizens of the U.S. and control costs.
To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of higher cost, the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be unfairly sued.
The “primest” cause of higher health care costs is greed and unchecked power. Certainly, there are frivolous law suits against health care establishments, but not enough to cause a significant rise in all health care costs. Besides, who is to define "fairness" except the justice system? It is the place of courts to hear all law suits and judge those cases based on their merits.
I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion.
Oh, yes, I think it would be much better for them to die outside the womb and possibly take the mother with them. Our priorities for human life are skewed. We (meaning the general populace) tend to put more importance on the life of an infant or fetus than we put on its parents.
And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning.
Truth be told, most of us started as the object of an experiment (big laughs). Honestly, what is the big stink about human cloning? One day, cloning technology could be more important than the toaster.
We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country.
Yet it goes against principle to increase funding for AIDS research.
...outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons...could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.
First of all, nobody is going to “give” these things away. Secondly, if Saddam Hussein is suspected to have sold weapons to terrorists over the last two years, why haven’t they tried to use them? I guess it depends on your definition of “hesitation.”
Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again...And we accept this responsibility.
Yes, this was taken out of context, but it’s pretty funny that the words were so close together...continuing.
...the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.
Apparently not.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
First sentence to be proven wrong from this speech, although the administration still calls it “technically correct.” There will be more, I assure you.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Questionable intelligence? Some intelligence people have dismissed this claim as well. They cite reports that conclude the tubes could be used more readily in conventional weaponry.
He clearly has much to hide
Of whom are we speaking? If it’s Saddam, he hid it so well that noone, not even people who worked with him, can find anything. I wonder if Saddam could have found the weapons to use them.
The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
First of all, I don’t want to come off like I’m defending Saddam Hussein, but he did rule a country in the Middle East. Weapons are usually a security item, not simply for use in domination.
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.
Yet again, a case that’s hard to prove. Luckily for Bush, it’s also hard to disprove, which is why it was such a big part of the case for war.
[speaking to the Iraqi people] Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
Now as far as most liberals are concerned, this should have been the case for invasion. It would have immediately put us in the role of nation-building (which the President condemns) and given the Iraqi people something for which to hope. The WMD “distraction” was a way to make war more palatable for the nations neoconservatives who will ultimately decide the fate of George Bush's political life.
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make.
Apparently not so profound as to bring forth a good case or iron-clad evidence.
We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended.
This is just bullshit! No president ever got re-elected for refusing to go to war.
And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.
Very true, except war was not forced upon us. We forced war upon the world.
The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
Just a disagreement on the nature of God here. God apparently got in no hurry to extend liberty to the world. After all we are arguably the first “free” country in the world, and we are only 226 years old. Technically speaking, "liberty" was the gift of the "Enlightenment" age which had a distinctly "anti-religion" vibe to it.
