by Jayne Lyn Stahl
 The president's speech last night was more important for what it didn't say than for what it did. In an address that could well have been titled "Hubris Unbound," the president delineated a domestic agenda which was replete with sins of omission among the most egregious of which was, of course how his administration dealt with Hurricane Katrina, and a f Iraq war policylinguistic surge that can only be described as "redux," and reductive..Any illusions that we, his subjects, may have had about his "compassionate conservatism"have beenirrevocably dispelled bybothdisaster.
For me, thepartof the 50 minute monologue I liked best was watching Dick Cheney try to keep a straight face while his protegee attempted to do the math, embarking on a laundry list of numbersby which he hoped to prove how much he's decreased the national debt, and how his economic program is right on plan. And, as Senator Webb later mentioned, he is right on plan inasmuch as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies now earn as much in one hour as the average worker earns in a year.
While his comments about what's going on at home were clearly intended to be foreplay, and warm-up exercises for his foreign policy pep talk, there was just enough to make one nauseous when we heard the same tired rhetoric formerly applied to his abortive efforts at privatizing social security now being applied to the need for "medical savings accounts." The solution for the more than 40 million Americans who are uninsured is to be found in giving tax breaks, said the president which is all well and good, but how about the unemployed, and uninsured? How about those for whom tax breaks don't apply?
Mr. Bush's idea of offering federal help to those states that are
trying to guarantee health benefits for all its citizens is a good one,
but where are the specifics? And, more importantly,can we expect an
administration that cut and ran from those we saw daily waving their
hands in despair in New Orleans to honor its abstract, and generalized
pledge to provide support for those states? The bottom line is that
what we heard last night from this presidentwas more of the same old,
same old with regard to health care falling on the individual and not
the state, a view which makes us a distinct minority in the
industrialized world most of which, as you know, provides national
health insurance. Go figure: we have $200 billion more for war, but
nothing in the coffer to ensure that each, and every one of us has
access to much-needed medical care.
And, alas, not only is the chief executive officer of this country in
denial, but so is Congress if they think, for a minute, that the
average American can live on a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. It's time
for those who are in the upper one percentile of the earning population
to sit down and talk with the rest of us who aren't. Who can possibly
face the escalating costs of housing, food, gas, and college with a
minimum wage of $7.25 an hour? It's time for Congress to propose a
"liveable wage," and not a minimum one.
And what would a speech about what's happening on the domestic front be
without mention of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The
president's suggestions, on that front, all but stopped short of
suggesting that everybody buy a Prius which he, no doubt, would have
done had it not been that Cheney (and maybe daddy?) rehearsed the
script with him before he read it.
But enough about the homefront, saving the best for last, Mr. Bush
proclaimed: "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the
fight we are in." My, my, my... picture this: a friend of yours walks
into a club and thinks he sees another friend with his wife, pulls him
from his stool, takes him outside and starts beating the shit out of
him. When you tap him on the shoulder, and tell him he's got the wrong
guy, he continues to wipe the sidewalk with the poor man. If this is
the president's idea for a rationale for picking a war, or staying in
it, we're in a lot more trouble than any of us thought, especially when
his own pick for commander of Iraqi forces, Lt. General David H.
Petraeus, told the Senate, the same day of the State of the Union
Address, that "the situation in Iraq is dire." (NYT)
"And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure," Mr. Bush
said. Indeed, we did not vote for Mr. Bush. Al Gore won the popular
vote, by a wide margin, back in 2000, but no matter; that's water under
the proverbial bridge.What's more, while everybody is delighted by the
president's claim to have averted two or three more terror attacks on
our soil.we did not vote for theillegal use of warrantless wiretapping,
data mining, an abrogation of responsibilities under FISA, not to
mention the unprecedented assault on a free press which is going
onright nowwhile something liketen renowned journalists are being
called to testify before a grand jury in the Libby case, the kind of
round up we haven't seen since the days of Joe McCarthy.
At best, the demander-in-chief's generalized, redundant, and facile
foreign policy efforts may be summarized by the adage: "The operation
was a success, but the patient died." The question is, which patient
died? What kind of "democracy" are we exporting to the Middle East that
redefines torture, that flies "terrorists" from countries that have
agreed to abide by Geneva to those where Geneva does not apply to be
interrogated (extraordinary rendition), that pummels habeas corpus,
holding "enemy combatants" indefinitely without charge, and without
access to counsel or evidence in Guantanamo and around the world, and
engages in NSA spy programs? What kind of democracy is it that censors
the writings of its leading scientists when their suggestions might
cause inconvenience and hardship to their corporate bottom line?
Let's hope that Senator Webb of Virginia, in his Democratic response to
Mr. Bush's address, meant what he said that if this president refuses
to change direction, and soon: "we will be showing him the way." And,
hopefully, the way to the door, too.
|
