In light of the fact that if anybody wants commentary –commentary that will probably be a lot more educated and insightful than mine– on the SotU you can go to pretty much any political site on the internet, I will keep my comments brief. Actually, I’d just like to point to a few quotes from the address.
Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America.
I chuckled when Bush said this because I was imagining what was going through Qadhafi’s head. Yes, we have a big stick, and we will use it if the cause is just.
After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.
Emphasis mine.
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.
Gosh dang good point. And let’s not forget we did go to the UN, and, even though Saddam did break UN resolutions, the UN just wanted to poke around more.
America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
Nor should any country.
These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have, and you were right to return it.
Amen! Stop taking our money and spending it.
Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.
First, I thought this was a real savvy move by Bush to point all the way back to 1996 and President Clinton. Second, I think he hit the nail on the head about the activist judges basically sidestepping the American public. There’s far too much of that going on. It’s despicable.
My main points of critique are the proposed spending increases. If we can spend money better than the government like he claims then why does he keep wanting the government to spend more? Give it back to us, let the private sector take care of it. Also, he didn’t even mention his space plan. Why not? It seems to me this is a pretty exciting initiative and may have some huge pay-offs in the long run (i.e. technological advancements, natural resources, etc.)
The democratic response was pretty standard. Nothing remarkable save for this quote:
As a nation, we must show our greatness, not just our strength. America must be a light to the world, not just a missile.
A good zinger to be sure but pretty hyperbolic and simplistic.