Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush's SOTU: Nixon Would Have Been Proud

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted January 24, 2007.


Bush's seventh State of the Union speech was loaded with proposals that will go nowhere and had little relationship with reality. So much for hoping that a 28 percent approval rating would teach him anything.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

America's Frightening Alzheimer's Epidemic
Rebecca Hyman, AlterNet

Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?
Robert Parry, Consortium News

CNN's Lou Dobbs Is Clueless When It Comes to the Drug War
Tony Newman, AlterNet

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
Huffington Post

Election 08: Misogyny I Will Not Miss
Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group

Three Things That Won't Help End the Foreclosure Crisis
Dean Baker, Liz Chimienti, Center for Economic and Policy Research

More stories by Joshua Holland

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

With 500 members of Congress packed into the peanut gallery, the attention of the nation's political and media establishments and millions of Americans hanging on his every word, the president of the United States gave his State of the Union address last night.

He does it every year -- it's in the Constitution!

Earlier yesterday, when asked by reporters what the best part of the speech was going to be, White House Spokesman Tony Snow replied, "You know, it's difficult to say. It's like looking in a drawer full of diamonds."

But those who were expecting some glittering bling-bling would have been disappointed; what made last night's SOTU noteworthy is that George W. Bush simply had nothing to say. It might have been the first time in American history.

Of course, everyone will pretend he said something important -- that it was a major address. The media will pick it apart and discuss its "significance"; lawmakers from both parties will quote bits and pieces of it to support or oppose this or that legislation; bloggers will remind us of what he said when he actually does the opposite and so on. But all you really need to know is that last night president George W. Bush could have come out on stage and, after pausing to let the ovation die down, he might have looked at the cameras with those beady little eyes and said, simply, "Folks, I got nothing. G'night!"

Yes, he went through the motions. After slowly making his way to the podium, straining to bear the weight of a 28 percent approval rating -- the lowest any president has had on the day of the Big Speech since Nixon's 1974 SOTU -- he engaged in a mini love-fest with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying, "I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own -- as the first president to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker." It was, admittedly, a nice moment, even coming as it does 19 years after Pakistan had its first female prime minister.

He then gave a surprisingly smooth version of the usual boilerplate, laced heavily with tried-and-true focus-tested language. But consider what he really offered the American people last night, during what most folks consider to be a time of real crisis in this country.

The first 30 minutes focused on domestic issues. He said the "economy is on the move" and touted 41 months of job growth, even as new data released last week shows that income inequality is rising to "unprecedented" levels.

He called for a balanced budget -- the Fox camera caught new Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel laughing out loud -- and for earmark reform a week after the Dems passed a bill doing just that. He talked about "entitlement reform," saying that Social Security needed to be "saved" -- a narrative that economist Dean Baker calls Bush's "Social Security WMD story."

He told a nation with over 40 million people who lack health insurance that -- aside from poor children and the elderly -- "private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs." The centerpiece of his speech, if there was one, was a proposal for a standardized tax deduction of $7,500 for singles and $15,000 for families that would allow them to purchase a "basic private healthcare policy" -- code for the cheap, high-deductible plans that accompany those health savings accounts he's proposed in the past. It sounds good, but it's a nonstarter -- the tax credits would discourage younger, healthier people from buying decent coverage -- taking them out of the risk pool and increasing rates for everyone else -- and provide a disincentive for preventive care. American Prospect writer Ezra Klein called it "almost laughably wrongheaded," and said it "won't survive an instant in Congress. Pete Stark, chair of the House Health Subcommittee, has already dismissed the idea of hearings." It was, like the rest, much ado about nothing.

On immigration, the president again said he'd double border patrols and called for a civil debate leading to "comprehensive reform." It was the only time he got more applause from the Democratic side of the aisle than from the Republicans. I should note that despite a near-rebellion among his base over the issue, Bush has yet to offer a concrete proposal on immigration, instead mumbling positive words about various measures put forth in the Senate last year. More nothing.

On energy, he said that technology would ultimately wean us from our addiction to oil just one day after a high-powered group of business leaders, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, declared that inventing new technology isn't enough.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: 2007, bush, state of the union

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush, the broken record:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 24, 2007 12:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every year, US oil imports increase: 2.7 billion barrels in 1995, and now it's up to 3.7 billion barrels in 2005. In each SOTU speech, Bush gives empty lip service to renewable energy, while at the same time cutting funding for renewable research.

There is no such thing as a 'zero-emission coal plant', nor will there ever be; the 'hydrogen cars' Bush touts are nothing more than word candy; the funding for 'revolutionary solar and wind' technologies is cut back every year, and 'clean and safe nuclear' is no closer to being a reality then it was when the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents happened (especially not with Enron management!).

The support for sustainable ethanol production is also non-existent, as is the support for biodiesel production - in fact, Republicans try to kill off all of these technologies each and every year at the behest of the ExxonMob lobby and their international cohort of oil investment funds. They're very happy that certain left-wing 'environmental' groups have become water carriers for their policies, as well - all of which are based on stimulating demand for petroleum while keeping any alternatives off the market.

What is really pathetic is how the corporate media parrots these lies to the American people - when Bush's real agenda is to drive up the price of oil and the value of oil corporation stock in order to enrich his small circle of cronies. His war in Iraq was for the same reason - grab the oil and keep it off the market to keep prices high and the market under control.

He only gives lip service to renewables and energy independence because his pollsters tell him that's what people want to hear - nothing but blatant lies on all fronts.

Previous SOTU quotes:
2002: "Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil."

2003: "Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles."

2004: "Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run. So I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy."

2005: "I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy."

2006: "So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush, the broken record: Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Bush, the broken record: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Bush, the broken record: Posted by: channing
» RE: Bush, the broken record: Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Bush, the broken record: Posted by: channing
» RE: Bush, the broken record: Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Bush, the broken record: Posted by: channing
» RE: solar desert Posted by: channing
» RE: solar desert Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Bush, the broken record: Posted by: deejayvee
on the bright side
Posted by: jeffindoha on Jan 24, 2007 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But on the bright side, he didn't say anything this year about the danger of human-animal hybrids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I didn't listen to it...
Posted by: Farmertim on Jan 24, 2007 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've never been able to listen to the man, and can only tolerate reading his opinions...
Not that I disagree with his policies, if there ever was one...I saw him once on TV and found him to be the most un-sincere person I have ever seen, and since that viewing have heard it in his voice ever since.
Why anyone would give the man the credit or attention the office deserves is beyond me..and expecting more than what he is goes beyond the optimism this country is known for..and in my opinion breaches sanity.
FarmerTim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's Kinda My Point... Posted by: grumble-bum
» That's Kinda My Point... Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: I didn't listen to it... Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: I didn't listen to it... Posted by: mountainmama
It's the wolf!!!
Posted by: greentime on Jan 24, 2007 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the wolf!!!
It's the wolf!!!
It's the evil, evil, wolf!!!!

Oh please!

It is about OIL. It is about greed. It is about dynasty.
Bush cares not one fig about us.

Meanwhile, the planet is in peril.

It is time for us to step up, WITH the people of the earth to whom we are all related and with whom we will make a new path. We can start by getting off the old path. We must. It is a dead end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's the wolf!!! Posted by: PopRox80
Bush presidency has been successful
Posted by: Moonray on Jan 24, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the Wall Street robber barons, that is.

The Bushies have successfully transferred many hundreds of billions of tax dollars from the U.S. treasury to their corporations and foundations, plus gouged countless billions more out of consumers during the same six-year period.

In addition, they have enlisted the U.S. government's help in wresting some of the best oil fields in the world away from a dictator and into their de facto ownership.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney can be proud. Mission accomplished.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush presidency has been successful Posted by: texshelters.com
Excellent summary, Josh
Posted by: wobblies on Jan 24, 2007 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi~
You did a fine job of summarizing the SOTU address. Do you have any idea what he was talking about regarding Hezbollah when he talked about the number of American dead at their hands?

God Speed,
David

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Beirut marine baracks in 1983? Posted by: Joshua Holland
One more SOTU address from him is too many
Posted by: packofwolves on Jan 24, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeach Bush and let's get on with saving as much of this country as we can. This idiot and his cronies CAN do more damage. He needs to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Third Reich redux
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 24, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't even bother listening to the SOTU address anymore. The only tv I watch is PBS. While watching a PBS program last night, I flipped through the channels and caught the speech just as the Repubs were rising to cheer Bush. Watched it for a while (you can just see the applauses coming on cue). Suddenly I had the wierdest feeling of having seen it all before. Then it occurred to me: its exactly the same as in the old newsreels of Hitler addressing the Reichstag.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Propping up the house of cards
Posted by: fifthworld on Jan 24, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I listened online - and was impressed. Impressed with the, what, dozen or so Republicans whooping it up at every other banal comment of the Fuhrer, like they were at some god damned hockey game. What losers, and they do know it.

It is an understatement that Americans have lost confidence in the leadership. We are headed towards nuclear conflagration -- and many who have "lost confidence" don't even know it. Still there is a widespread semi-conscious dismayal at many other realities, especially the ecological and the ECONOMIC. Only a fool -- okay, your average Homer -- doesn't feel an international collap$e coming on. The dollar is history and we're in for a long, dark time. And, given sloth, lethargy and inordinate self-interest, to quote a favorite old prof. of mine, I wonder if we'll make it.

There are many who might read something like this and say "oh you're all doom and gloom." That is peculiarly prevalent among progressives, who can't FULLY face reality, the way Congress and the rest of the country won't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A DRAWER FULL OF DIAMONDS ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 24, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tony, we weren't listenting to Mark Twain or Abraham Lincoln. That was GW Bush. The good news was that he didn't smirk or holler at us. He said nothing of any consequence. Our guy from the NYC subway was the high point. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Jan 24, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't stand stupid Bush, so I watched a Spanish language soap opera. By the way, I don't speak Spanish, but I much prefer it to banal Bush English!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: frank67 Posted by: Joshua Holland
The Dying Soul of the Nation
Posted by: Saitia on Jan 24, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THESE ANNUAL VISITATIONS with Bush's speechwriters have to rank as the most demoralizing experiences of our democracy. When one finds the mind noting how accomplished George has become with the teleprompter, you know not a word of significance is being spoken. "War criminal reads speech, monkeys jump up and down and applaud." Do any of our elected representatives have the spine to impeach these scumbags? or shall we just shoulder this massive injustice and slog through the next two years dodging the fallout from these criminal, lying pieces of human animal excrement?

The soul of this nation is so very, very ill. May God help us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's...
Posted by: jack alexander on Jan 24, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
only 727 days left that we have to endure this moron.

That is, unless our Congress does what is right and impeach this mentally deficient and ill person and return this country to some level of respect in the world...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush's last SOTU and Al Capone
Posted by: channing on Jan 24, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hopefully this was his last, though I've been hoping that for 5 consecutive years now... I would even go so far as to say his next public testimony ought to be in front of a Grand Jury, but I jump the gun.

Though I've been first in line to sign Impeachment petitions, etc., it is vital that people understand that Congress MUST INVESTIGATE, and that, like Al Capone, it would not be necessary to convict him of every law he's broken, but just one, however negligible it might seem, as long as it's QUICK, and as long as we stop him from advancing PNAC/ Iran, etc.,.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Emperor struts his stuff on the bored...er...boards.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 24, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched the speech and the post-game commentary of the SOTU fru-fru, and was sorely tempted to down the rest of my box-'o'-wine. Commentators were falling all over each other talking about how PrezBush appeared confident and how magnanimous he was toward Speaker Pelosi. But, of course! Along with his speech, he practiced both of those things for hours and hours and hours before the address on a White House rehearsal stage. Hell, if given enough time, a chimpanzee could learn to play Othello.

(WHAT?! Appeared? Put on a presentation? I thought we were supposed to receive a report on the state of the union, not a report on the state of Bush's acting chops.)

Many in what is laughingly called the "news" media have been in show business too long. They simply cannot distinguish between what is glossy surface, an acting job, and what is real – and for what was real in that SOTU address there was nearly nothing. I felt like someone had just handed me a big swirl of cotton candy: all pretty and sweet on the outside, but filled with stale air. That so many commentators could not – or, were ordered not – to recognize the emptiness of what they were presented by our president is very depressing, and leads me to believe that there is no truth to be found anywhere in the public arena any longer.

But – weren't the Emperor's New Clothes beautiful last night?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xceptionally important point... Posted by: Conservasaurus
The State of the Unions be Good!
Posted by: texshelters.com on Jan 24, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The State of the Unions is Good!

So there you have it, the State of the Unions is Good! The Pres'dent said it, and so it's true. And it's not because he's Pres'dent, it's because he's a Bush and not a Clinton. All you liberals who love lyin' go ahead and vote for Hillarity Clinton.

She's gonna lose to Jeb anyway. Just look at the names: Hillarity Clinton, or Jeb Bush. Jeb is a manly name, so he gets my vote.

Now some people say that Pres'dent Bush said nuthin', but he's the Pres'dent, and sayin' nuthin' is what's he's good at.

Besides, if he actually said sumthin', you liberals would have used his words against him just like Michael Moore did in Fahrenheit 9/11. The Pres'dent knows that the economy is on the move, and more people are poor cause they're all lazy.

Bush's friends are doing better, so everyone is, right? He stayed the course on private health care and said it's the only way to go, cause health care be workin' in the U.S. He promised to fight for tax cuts cause the rich aren't rich enough.

All in all, he told us the truth. So shut up you liberals!

Tex Shelters
texshelters.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it just me, or.....
Posted by: churchofone on Jan 24, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....did anyone else think that Nancy Pelosi looked like she was in pain during the speech??

What irked me the most was the call to reduce our gas consumption; if he had made that a priority of his first term agenda (pre 9/11, of course), who know how many more people would still be alive today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it just me, or..... Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Is it just me, or..... Posted by: Ellie1
Bush Speech Terror Claim Debunked A Year Ago by Paul Joseph Watson
Posted by: rwa on Jan 24, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last night, that an attack on an L.A. skyscraper had been averted, was universally debunked as a hoax by Mayors, CIA, FBI and NSA personnel and counter-terror experts nearly a year ago when it first surfaced. By regurgitating this fraud, Bush has committed an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people.

Bush's address was punctuated with deception, horse hockey and propagandistic drivel throughout, again reinforcing a characteristic that was born in 2003 when Bush told the nation that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger, a claim the CIA had informed the administration was based on falsified documents ten months before it was included in the speech.

Amidst the cacophony of bullshit came this belter.

"We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast."

According to numerous public officials, terror experts and intelligence personnel, this is simply not true.

Bush's is referring to an announcement made on February 9th last year in which he made the claim that an Al-Qaeda plan to fly a plane into the LA Library Tower was thwarted in 2002. The release of the news that the plot had been prevented by means of tapping terrorist suspect's phones was politically timed to coincide with the start of legal hearings on the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

Fox "News," the White House's PR mouthpiece, immediately began showing footage from the movie Independence Day, in which the famous tower is destroyed.



Hours after the announcement, the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, went public with comments of his absolute bewilderment concerning the alleged plot.

"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president — but somebody."

The day after the announcement, twenty three separate intelligence experts, all with either CIA, FBI, NSA or military credentials, both in and out of service, angrily disputed Bush's remarks about the alleged L.A. plot, with one going as far as saying that the President was "full of shit."

Another described the claims as “worthless intel that was discarded long ago.”

A New York Times story cited "several counter-terrorism officials" as saying that "the plot never progressed past the planning stages.... 'To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,' said one senior FBI official."

The New York Daily News cited another senior counterterrorism official who said: "There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage."

The Washington Post also dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted.

The LA attack plot arose from the same discredited informant who said that Washington and New York financial institutions were being targeted, which led the White House to raise the terror alert right as the 2004 election campaign was beginning...

Bush has again committed the impeachable offense of knowingly lying to the American people in regurgitating the debunked plot in last night's State of the Union address.

prisonplanet.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good speech in tough times!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jan 24, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mmmm …””he would have looked into those cameras with those beady little eyes and said, simply, "Folks, I got nothing. G'night!"”” … beady eyes????... is that to mean that Pelosi’s hilarious facial expressions as she sat behind him were not the real joke????...or you must have missed that!

Well, it was actual a good speech as far as SOTU goes. Strong on his efforts in Iraq, some ideas regarding healthcare.. best he has done and he definitely put a hand out to the dems… which was then slapped by Webb.. Too bad because I agreed with Webb on Iraq (except for his confusing point about withdrawing troops ASAP but staying to get the job done???..) Webb doesn need to start demonstrating some respect for the institution in this country..starting with the office of the Presidency especially when asked to give a major speech! The dems will hang themselves before '08..

Like many speeches of the past..lots of nice thoughts, but will they come to fruition? .. I took a look at some of Clintons speeches.. I didnt realize but there was strong opposition to him even giving his state of the union speech in 1999 because of his impeachment hearings.. ( he was considered an embarrassment on Capitol Hill) but despite that, nothing ever came of any of his points either.. seems the norm!

As far as the healthcare measures..at least it's a step.. no one else has been able to come up with anything that made sense.. but this will go no where.. seems too much opposition..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good speech in tough times! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Good speech in tough times! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Right Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: ight Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: ight Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Good speech in tough times! Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Good speech in tough times! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Good speech in tough times! Posted by: mountainmama
» RE: Good speech in tough times! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Did anyone notice Cheney? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Did anyone notice Cheney? Posted by: Conservasaurus
getting away with murder
Posted by: bohdan on Jan 24, 2007 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in." (Bush)

How dare the Media not hold Pres. Bush accountable for that statement because this IS the fight that we had brought about!

And how dare the Media not hold itself accountable for letting that statement go without addressing its absurdity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: getting away with murder Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: getting away with murder Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: getting away with murder Posted by: channing
» Be careful who's in your bed Posted by: Conservasaurus
The "Social Security WMD Story" Has Some Truth
Posted by: Jim Shaw on Jan 24, 2007 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike Bush's WMD fables, the Social Security problem is for real, I'm sorry to say. For some reason, Dean Baker keeps distorting the issue, although he's been called on it a number of times.

The folks that assert that the S.S. "trust fund" is a mirage are correct. They are absolutely right in pointing out that the bonds comprising it aren't real assets, merely IOUs from one part of the federal government to another, nothing more than a promise. People like Baker will retort that all bonds are IOUs, and if we buy and hold a bond, don't we consider than an asset? However, this is misleading, because in the case of the "trust fund", the bonds must be redeemed by the same entity holding them, i.e., the federal government. That is, it's not the same as if the "trust fund" held corporate bonds or foreign government bonds. Those could be considered real assets, to the extent we could expect those outside entities to make good on them. Sadly, however, the S.S. bonds merely represent internal government debt, which is as real and painful as external debt, just not as visible. The bottom line is that in order to make good on the S.S. bonds, the government will have to "rob Peter to pay Paul", that is, find the money from somewhere else. Given the popularity of S.S., we may be confident that the government will pony up the money, but at what cost? Will other programs vital to poor and middle class citizens - the same ones disproportionately paying into the "trust fund" because of the payroll tax's regressive nature - be cut in order to make good on the S.S. bonds? Given the locus of power in our system, I would bet on it. Of course, the government may fill the gap by borrowing more money, but it can't do that forever; or more likely, it may just print more money, causing all of us to pay for the S.S. bond redemption through increased inflation, another very regressive tax.

It would be nice if those who authored and promoted the idea of collecting extra payroll taxes in order to soften the transition from the baby boom to a smaller generation, would admit that they knew all along that the extra revenue collected wouldn't really be saved at all, but would help finance deficit spending, on the backs of the working class. It would be a public service if prominent economists such as Mr. Baker would acknowledge that, essentially, these excess payroll taxes and the chimeric "trust fund" represent an unfair shift in taxation from the wealthy to the working class, not some kind of "rainy day fund" brought forth by the wisdom of a benevolent government. Do you really think that the obscene tax cuts passed during the Reign of Bush would have passed had not their impact been disguised by the looting of the social security surplus?

Sorry, Mr. Baker, I don't buy your story. As soon as Social Security outlays surpass incoming payroll taxes (I believe this is currently projected to occur in 2018), the federal government is going to feel the pinch, and the American people will suffer. This is our payback for digging down a little extra all these years, in what we erroneously thought was an effort to provide for the long-term solvency of our treasured Social Security system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» SIMPLY NOT TRUE, ... Posted by: sofla100
» RE: SIMPLY NOT TRUE, ... Posted by: Jim Shaw
Corporate media continues in cheerleader role for Bush&Co.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 24, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New York Times:
Bush Seeks Vast, Mandatory Increase in Alternative Fuels and Greater Vehicle Efficiency Edmund L. Andrews and Felicity Barringer Published: January 24, 2007

No mention of the past six years of calls for 'energy independence' followed by funding cuts for renewables; no mention of the role that doubling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve plays in boosting the price of oil and corporate oil share value.

To be fair, there was some mention of the fact that 'clean coal' is impossible; that Bush will take no action on global warming; but the headline word, "VAST", should have been "MINISCULE". Editor's choice, right?

The Washington Post repeated Bush's comments on energy w/o much analysis:
But General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. have pledged to build two million flexible-fuel vehicles by 2010, so they too could benefit by an influx of ethanol and other renewable fuels. GM said it wanted to ensure, however, "that any fuel economy increases are technically achievable."

This is complete BS; fuel efficiency is completely feasible, and the Post provided no contrary opinion, just printed the auto-fossil conglomerate PR line with no questions asked....but at least they printed this:
But since Bush's troop announcement on Jan. 10, the stock prices of defense contractors like Hartford, Conn.-based United Technologies, Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp. and Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp., are up and the Pentagon's fiscal year 2008 budget request could reach more than $600 billion.

Translation: Bush's daddy at the Carlyle Group and his circle of international financiers will be pulling down even more cash in the coming year as they continue to loot the US Treasury with the full cooperation of Bush Jr. and Cheney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

State of Absurdity
Posted by: bohdan on Jan 24, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's also not forget Bush's request to "balance the budget without raising taxes" while "taxes" will help to pay for his healthcare reform.

We are truly living in the State of Absurdity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You got it right
Posted by: fvjoanne on Jan 24, 2007 2:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He keeps dragging up the same prioties that he has had in past speeches. Why?because he does nothing about them and will do nothing about them. He talked about our addiction to oil, but in the years he has had a chance to do something or begin to something he has done absolutely NOTHING! His medicare prescription coverage helps only those who are only on a very few medications and does nothing to help those seniors who unfortunately take up to ten medications or more to stay alive. It doesn't take the long to fall into the doughnut hole.
What has he done? He has made the rich richer. He has allow his contractor friends to make a profit from this war while our servicemen and women put their lives on the line daily in a war that should never have been. It stands a very good chance of completely destablizing the whole middle east. In the end he will blame it all on the people who were against this war in the first place, because we didn't support a surge that the exerts all agree will do little to end the violent and may even increase the sectarian violence.
He has attack the middle class of this country. The middle class which is the backbone of this country.
He has given large corperations a free hand to grow even larger driving out smaller businesses.
Big media giants have been allowed to grow larger limiting what information the American public is allowed to get. Most people who want to know what really going on have gone to the Internet to get information on important issues. The big media giants even have tried to take over the news and ideas on the Internet, but thank God it is still what it was meant to be.
You can go on an on about what Mr. Bush has and has not done.
Most of all he has helped the terrorist to grow in numbers and impotantance. We now have an Iran and North Korea openingly mocking the United States. They thumb theire nose to our bullying treats knowing that because of this war we don't have the manpower to do anything that is really going to harm them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I needed that...
Posted by: mindcryme on Jan 24, 2007 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Earlier yesterday, when asked by reporters what the best part of the speech was going to be, White House Spokesman Tony Snow replied, "You know, it's difficult to say. It's like looking in a drawer full of diamonds."

HAHA! That is hilarious! >on the floor laughing<
The bushies are really self-delusional. >wipes tear

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Cares?
Posted by: Wildroots on Jan 24, 2007 6:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless the discussion is about impeachment, what difference does it make?

Wild Roots

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tony Snow: "like looking in a drawer of diamonds"...
Posted by: xbj on Jan 25, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...covered with a full metric ton of stinking, putrid rotting feces.

Which will be what will be lying in the drawer of Tony Snow's coffin when they bury him. And clenched between his perfect teeth, a feces-covered diamond!

Made of glass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The single-most horrific and frightening thing about his speech
Posted by: xbj on Jan 25, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He mentioned Iran ONLY ONCE, and only by Tehran, BY NAME.

With all the buildup by he and his fellow War Pigs have been mounting against Iran (exactly the same buildup they gave to Iraq), this silence by omission is ALARMING, precisely because it is just as deathly quiet a silence as his Adminstration's silence about Osama bin Laden and terrorism PERIOD in the months leading up to 9-11.

They obviously think the false flag Israeli-sourced attack on our troops and/or ships (masquerading as Iran) is going to take care of American sentiment toward Iran perfectly, and he doesn't have to say a word more about it.

Guilt by omission... just like before 9-11. Trying to cover up their tracks before the false attack and the resulting nuclear "retaliation" to Tehran, to try and not make it seem so obvious.

The LEAST mention of Iran in the past FIVE YEARS. Backing off, finally? Hardly.

On the contrary, they're absolutely going to do it, just as soon as all the sitting ducks are in a row in the Gulf, no matter what the consequences. And they will be dire, and fatal.

This Administration has been entirely predictable from BEFORE DAY ONE, except for 9-11. NO ONE could have ever even IMAGINED the level of evil and desperation these War Pigs had to try to turn the clock back to 1941. And that they would have the unmitigated gall to take whole pages (Reichstag Fire) out of Hitlers' playbook and Orwell's "1984". Goebbels redux.

I posted on the internet (more than once) in 1999 that Bush would have the US embroiled in a Mideast war within a year in office to prove he "weally, weally was the Pwesident"... I was wrong, it took the bastards a little longer to finalize and implement 9-11 and its eventual sick unAmerican bloody aftermath. And of course greed was the sole motivator, although it did serve the sick need I had stated, the very day he picked up that megaphone at Ground Zero and started cheerleading endless war.

If I'd known the scope of what they were attempting and the desperate lengths they'd go to, I would have revised my estimate back then. I've since known they were capable of ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, including suiciding the entire US around their stunned empty heads and greedy grasping clutching fingers.

Completely and utterly predictable, TO THE VERY END.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ECLECTICIST, S. JIM RODRIGUEZ
Posted by: SJR505 on Jan 25, 2007 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NOW ALL TOGETHER :...." IMPEACH, IMPEACH, AND, AGAIN, IMPEACH..."


S+JIM+RODRIGUEZ+++ECLECTICIST SPIRIT SEEKER+++

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]