COLUMN: Bush’s State of the Union was irresponsible
The president couldn’t help but smile during his State of the Union Address, and he was applauded generously. Mind you, he didn’t have to use the word “nuclear” or pronounce the names of any foreign leaders, but the speech was delivered well. As I listened to Bush tell half-truths about his efforts on HIV/AIDS, talk about No Child Left Behind testing standards, fail to mention the lack of its funding and bash gays and “activist judges,” I realized that this was the same speech as last year. To his speechwriter’s credit, he did cut out that silly part about going to Mars, but, looking at the transcripts of both, the similarities are eerie. So John Kerry was right, a vote for Bush was a vote for “more of the same.” Even though I don’t like much of the old stuff, it’s his new stuff that has me scared.
Two topics were indisputably highlighted at this year’s State of the Union Address: Social Security and Iraq. Bush discussed passing down freedom to future generations. Namely, he discussed a “freedom from fear.” However, Bush loves using the politics of fear in order to get Americans in line with his agenda; Social Security and his Iraq policy were no different.
“If you’ve got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter,” Bush said.
This is an obvious fear tactic misleading Americans into believing that their children as seniors will be eating cat food unless we bankrupt the current Social Security system and go with the system that countries like Chile and England are moving away from, privatized investment accounts. It is important to remind Americans, especially those who have invested in a 401k, that if social security were invested in the stock market prior to September 11, as Bush suggested, it wouldn’t be around today, much less 2042. The reason why Americans began investing in Social Security was because they had faith that their government would keep it secure. “Personal Investment Accounts” were actually what Americans hoped to retire with in 1929; we all know how that turned out.
The president went on to scare Americans again when talking about Iraq: “Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home.” Let me preface by saying that I deeply appreciate and respect the sacrifice that is given by the men and women in military service. That being said, since when do terrorist stop their agenda when an unrelated country is being bombed? Did Bush strike up a deal with the terrorist that said they wouldn’t knock our buildings over any more, if we continue to bomb middle-eastern countries? It’s shameful that Bush would suggest that we need to fight terrorism in Iraq when Osama Bin Laden is still running free and able to plan another attack on our homeland.
Various Republican members of Congress also had the audacity to hold up the victory symbol with their fingers ink-stained. Bush avoided staining his index finger, and he was also wise to avoid giving his speech under a banner that read “Mission Accomplished.”
The ink-stained fingers demonstrate the sheer hubris of the Republican party. They claim that it was meant to symbolize solidarity for the Iraqi’s who voted in the recent election, but what it should symbolize is the blood that is on their hands as a result of the way they deceived our country and mismanaged this war. I believe I speak for all true liberals when I say that Iraq having free and relatively peaceful elections is a good and beautiful thing. The Iraqi election should not, however, make our nation forget to hold our commander in chief accountable. This end cannot justify the means. There will never be enough purple fingers to make us forget about the lies of weapons of mass destruction and the lack of planning on the part of the Bush administration. We cannot afford to forget the nearly 2000 U.S. deaths and countless Iraqi deaths. The Bush administration must still be held accountable and no election at home or abroad should change that.
One election does not justify the failure to provide our troops with adequate equipment. One election does not justify lying to the American people about eminent threats and missions accomplished. One election does not justify condoning torture and spoiling our country’s image abroad. Elections do not give the Iraqi people their electricity and infrastructure back, and they most certainly do not take away the horrible mismanagement and incompetence that this administration spreads in the name of freedom.
Cy Martz is a senior majoring in public relations. Comments can be sent to cmartz@cc.usu.edu.