The DO on the SOTU

Who's ready for another fisking? I know I am! The Daily Orange has a great editorial today about Bush's State of the Union address, and I feel it's my duty as a Syracuse student to point out where it goes wrong. Even though nobody at this school reads my blog...yet.

There's also a regular article that gives some student reactions, and I'll briefly cover that first. Check out this claim from the article:

Meeting head-on the charges that the United States embarked on the war and subsequent rebuilding in Iraq without international support, Bush named the 17 countries that back the effort to reshape Iraq.

Who spotted the mistake? That's right; Bush OMITTED 17 countries from the list he read, but the author apparently thinks that there are only 17 total. Way to check the facts.

Now, let's look at some student reactions:

"He was basically just kissing everyone's ass in that room," said Mike Beilinson, a sophomore television, radio and film major. "It was kind of disgusting, actually."

"I don't agree with a lot of what [Bush] says," [another student] said. "Overall, I think there is a lot of work to be done."

Criticism from left-of-center students was rivaled by the enthusiasm of at least one GOP supporter on campus. Ryan Colombo, president of SU's College Republicans, had high praises for the speech.

"It was the best State of the Union address I have ever seen or read a transcript of," Colombo said.

I might just be a little paranoid, but it seems odd that they interviewed two regular students for negative reactions, but the only positive one came from the president of the College Republicans. Seems like they're trying to enforce the "sheeple" stereotype.

Okay, I will now continue into the extened entry and fisk the editorial.

Bush lies keep on coming

Last night's long-winded State of the Union address was typical of George W. Bush - full of lies, half-truths and disinformation. The 54-minute speech was littered with examples of Bush's selectivity in telling the whole story.

Can you say "projection?"

First, Bush claimed there had been remnants of weapons of mass destruction programs found in Iraq and that "the world without Saddam is a better and safer place."

And your problem with those statements is...what?

He later said, "As long as the Middle East is full of oppression and despair it will produce terrorists." Bush didn't make the connection between the U.S. occupancy of Iraq and the Middle East's state of "despair."

Well, if he had made the connection, it would've been a lie. You libs seem to be quite fond of going after liars, so why does the truth upset you? Anyone who thinks the U.S. occupation of Iraq is to blame for the problems in the Middle East really needs to study the last 5,000 years of history.

The president urged Congress to renew the PATRIOT Act in the upcoming year, explaining that "similar tactics are used against criminals and drug traffickers" and that therefore they should be employed against terrorists. He unfortunately did not add that it also is a clear erosion of the civil liberties of all Americans.

Are you saying that all Americans are terrorists?

While certain measures must of course be taken to apprehend terrorists, the PATRIOT act cannot become a permanent fixture in U.S. policy.

I think what he means is that certain measures must be taken to apprehend terrorists, as long as Bush doesn't propose those measures.

The most offensive of Bush's half-points last night was the insinuation that marriage is to be enjoyed only by heterosexual couples.

Did it ever occur to you that the thought of gay marriage is pretty offensive to some people? No, of course it didn't.

Referring to the decisions of a Massachusetts court as "arbitrary" and claiming that the "will of certain judges" doesn't reflect the will of the public, Bush was perfectly clear that he would pursue a constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage from gays.

Let's see here...the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but the Massachusetts court decided to pursue their own agenda. Sounds rather arbitrary to me. Last time I checked, "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" meant that the will of the people should dictate the actions of government.

He seems to have forgotten that the nation was founded on the principle of equality and that any legal rights enjoyed by one person are to be enjoyed by the next regardless of who that person is.

I know I've said this a lot, but all Americans already have the equal right to marry. If you don't want to marry the person you're allowed to marry, don't go whining to the government and trying to redefine marriage.

Bush also had the audacity to suggest that his "economic stimulus" in the form of tax cuts benefited every American, and that he "doubled the child tax credit."

I honestly don't know about the child tax credit, but I'm pretty sure Bush's tax cuts were responsible for the change in the economy. How do you liberals get out the door in the morning? I imagine it must be pretty hard with your eyes closed.

What Bush cleverly omitted was that the tax cuts were aimed overwhelmingly at the highest tax brackets and that the child tax credit was completely erased for the lowest income bracket - the very people who need it the most.

Two points. #1: Isn't it great how some people will keep repeating the same myth over and over again, even if it's been proven false?

-"War for oil!"
-"Tax cuts for the rich!"
-"Bush knew!"

#2: If reducing the "child tax credit" makes people think twice before having children they can't care for, that's a good thing. However, I'll have to do more research on that before I believe that Bush purposely took something away from the lower class.

The speech that Bush delivered last night was exemplary of his ability to tell half the story, to shed light only on the side he'd like you to hear.

Considering the fact that you want to hear a bunch of lies that will make you feel superior to all us stupid conservatives, I'd say that Bush told plenty.

The conscious deceit spun by his administration is an embarrassment to the American political process.

There it is again! That far-fetched idea that the Bush administration is purposely lying to us in order to further their radical agenda. Have you heard of this thing called the Internet? You can use it to check facts and such, and it's very helpful if you think you've been lied to.

The whole truth is that Bush's administration is bigoted along sexual lines...

You could say the same thing about the left, in my opinion.

...determined to expand the American empire through ruthless imperialism...

Allow me to respond with a quote directly from Dubya's address:

"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."

So, who to believe? The president of the United States, or a misinformed college student who thinks that tax cuts are bad and will only acknowledge true statements when they support liberal ideals?

...and committed to shaping a future for the economic and political elite without concern for those who weren't born into Bush's privileged lifestyle.

I still don't understand this claim. What's stopping anyone from reaching the same level as those "elites?" Tax cuts, education reform, and job training are meant to help people help themselves.

I believe there's a rather famous quote about teaching a man to fish. Seems to apply here.

Posted by CD on January 21, 2004 11:17 AM
Category: