Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag The Blog Update: Readers' SOTU Advice

In the hours leading up to President Bush's State of the Union speech, Fix readers offered a wide variety of answers to our Wag the Blog question, which asked readers to weigh in on what the line of the night should and would be.

You can find some of the most thoughtful answers below. And now that we've heard the speech, what line or lines most struck you? Feel free to pick a line that had you nodding your head in agreement or yelling at the TV to voice your disapproval.

The line that made The Fix sit up and take notice? "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in."

And now for the most interesting and downright entertaining comments from earlier in the day. In some cases we've taken snippets from longer comments to keep this post a manageable length:

* "Ending our addiction to foreign oil will require every American to rethink what she or he considers necessities, vs. what she or he considers luxuries."

Posted by: Golgi

* "Friends, I stand before you apologizing for the mistakes that my andministration and especially I made during the Iraq war. While we did make many mistakes we need to win this war because our children deserve a safer world. I understand the troop surge is unpopular but it is the last resort. It is the only policy that our generals and I think can work. I appreciate your support."

Posted by: George

* "My fellow Americans, there comes a time when even an old west Texas oilman can see that there is something to this global warming thing...."

Posted by: PDoggie

* "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to!"

Posted by: Tomcat

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 23, 2007; 10:29 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What Should Be Bush's Line of the Night
Next: Parsing the Polls: Inside the '08 numbers

Comments


Posted by: gong{ | February 16, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: gong{ | February 16, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

kzsxl icombvw fpqjsx jifnotzd olxm prbtwfxa kupydts [URL]http://www.paqlj.tepfl.com[/URL] wnije ndsvc

Posted by: tpixzq lzjsfi | February 5, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

iawk vceiqngs fqbvokn wbuhoe pbkxerc tkryosud tsexp ynmwvlhgx ehmgtb

Posted by: prwk galfbw | February 5, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

vezi hsrkv yxum hfmuelwpy ntwxdp gbaidn dsyxrz

Posted by: wimoa xvliefcwk | February 5, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Health care ; family values; American profligacy- Chinese take over- Eastern cultural hegemony ; Muslim apeasment
or maybe a justification for ''Mission acomplished''

Posted by: Anonymous | January 30, 2007 7:04 AM | Report abuse

The classsical idea of a just war demands that aim is moral;
Classical scholars defined war as an ethically appropriate use of mass political violence. Many credit Augustine with the founding of just war theory but this is incomplete. As Johnson notes, in its origins just war theory is a synthesis of classical thought .Many would accredit to Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine this refined and redefined validation of war - The Just War Tradition- Many of the rules developed by the just war tradition have since been codified into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict, such as The United Nations Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions. The tradition has thus been doubly influential, dominating both moral and legal discourse surrounding war. It sets the tone, and the parameters, for the great debate.
Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in Latin. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.
That the likelyhood of success is positive, that the means are proportionate towards that end.

The invasion of Iraq fails on each of these tenets. An outraged US President desperately seeking a perpetrator for the attacks on the Twin Towers declared it. When an obvious target in the form of an obvious aggressor could not be found, the State of Terror was invented, and later Iraq was dressed up to be the manifestation of that State. The US invaded without the mandate of the UN.
The Shock and awe strategy to bomb a city into submission prior to the land invasion was brutal, barbarous and yes murderous. It was indiscriminate and slaughtered thousands of civilians. It was on a scale of carnage and in equal ignominy to the bombing of Dresden in WW2 .
The leadership was topppled and the regeimen changed .The Americans used a con man (Chabli) to usurp / install a favourable leader. They succeed in installing a leadership as crass and fundamentalist as the one they deposed. The despot was tried in a courtroom where his protestations could be switched off and his remonstrations be screened off at the touch of a button by an unconcealed vengeful judge. He could have pleaded that the Anthrax which he used against the Kurds was supplied by the US, he might have referred to his former relations with Rumsfield, and the US support in his was against Iran but the charges against him were selective in that they had no material basis for US or UK collusion. These were Saddams own killings in revenge for the attempt on his life.
And so after a hearing which appeared at times like some slapstick judicial romp; a farce of truly theatrical proportions he was not surprisingly sentenced to die. He pleaded to be shot as a soldier (which he was not); this was denied
And so he was hanged by a taunting jeering mob as he prayed for the deliverance of Iraq from the Persians and their allies. And this was filmed on cell phone to give us the grisly reminder of the macabre horrorof an18 centaury execution. I have watched this with some sense of, loathing revulsion and disgust.
If in his last moments Saddam showed contrition, or remorse or asked forgiveness we can never know ;only a knowing God can know and adjudicate. But what can one say of his executioners - if they believed in a hell need they have taunted and goaded him - he was in their urgings going there anyway but and if they believed in deliverance through a Devine mercy by any deity ; Allah ; God - any supreme being - how could they torment him even as the trapdoor opened.


Now consider the paradox that would surely have been if the British had captured Saddam and he immediately sought asylum in the UK because of his perceived fears of a trial culminating in the death sentence - a system which is not countenanced in the UK, I believe in these circumstances Saddam would have argued for such protection and have succeeded as did Pinochet.
The problem is that now are exposed the fault lines between the allies in the ethics of warfare and its sequellae. There is already an evidential wish for the British to distance themselves from what was a dark, brutal, gruesome and unseeingly hasty execution.
A new hatred between Arab cultures has been fomented by the invasion of Iraq - that between Sunni and Sheite ; it has been exacerbated by this trial and execution to an untold degree.
As the Bush administration seek to justify a new surge of troops in a country already in a state of civil war, where the Houses on record at least should oppose such a venture Bush seems destined to sink to depths of unpopularity not even known to Nixon.

_________________________________________________________

Posted by: ireland | January 30, 2007 7:01 AM | Report abuse

D Mac Namara
29 Cois Cuain
0872474492/091589354

The classsical idea of a just war demands that aim is moral;
Classical scholars defined war as an ethically appropriate use of mass political violence. Many credit Augustine with the founding of just war theory but this is incomplete. As Johnson notes, in its origins just war theory is a synthesis of classical thought .Many would accredit to Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine this refined and redefined validation of war - The Just War Tradition- Many of the rules developed by the just war tradition have since been codified into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict, such as The United Nations Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions. The tradition has thus been doubly influential, dominating both moral and legal discourse surrounding war. It sets the tone, and the parameters, for the great debate.
Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in Latin. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.
That the likelyhood of success is positive, that the means are proportionate towards that end.

The invasion of Iraq fails on each of these tenets. An outraged US President desperately seeking a perpetrator for the attacks on the Twin Towers declared it. When an obvious target in the form of an obvious aggressor could not be found, the State of Terror was invented, and later Iraq was dressed up to be the manifestation of that State. The US invaded without the mandate of the UN.
The Shock and awe strategy to bomb a city into submission prior to the land invasion was brutal, barbarous and yes murderous. It was indiscriminate and slaughtered thousands of civilians. It was on a scale of carnage and in equal ignominy to the bombing of Dresden in WW2 .
The leadership was topppled and the regeimen changed .The Americans used a con man (Chabli) to usurp / install a favourable leader. They succeed in installing a leadership as crass and fundamentalist as the one they deposed. The despot was tried in a courtroom where his protestations could be switched off and his remonstrations be screened off at the touch of a button by an unconcealed vengeful judge. He could have pleaded that the Anthrax which he used against the Kurds was supplied by the US, he might have referred to his former relations with Rumsfield, and the US support in his was against Iran but the charges against him were selective in that they had no material basis for US or UK collusion. These were Saddams own killings in revenge for the attempt on his life.
And so after a hearing which appeared at times like some slapstick judicial romp; a farce of truly theatrical proportions he was not surprisingly sentenced to die. He pleaded to be shot as a soldier (which he was not); this was denied
And so he was hanged by a taunting jeering mob as he prayed for the deliverance of Iraq from the Persians and their allies. And this was filmed on cell phone to give us the grisly reminder of the macabre horrorof an18 centaury execution. I have watched this with some sense of, loathing revulsion and disgust.
These last recorded moments of Saddams life as recorded on this cell phone are chilling and one feels a voyeur for looking at it.

If in his last moments Saddam showed contrition, or remorse or asked forgiveness we can never know ;only a knowing God can know and adjudicate. But what can one say of his executioners - if they believed in a hell need they have taunted and goaded him - he was in their urgings going there anyway but and if they believed in deliverance through a Devine mercy by any deity ; Allah ; God - any supreme being - how could they torment him even as the trapdoor opened.


Now consider the paradox that would surely have been if the British had captured Saddam and he immediately sought asylum in the UK because of his perceived fears of a trial culminating in the death sentence - a system which is not countenanced in the UK, I believe in these circumstances Saddam would have argued for such protection and have succeeded as did Pinochet.
The problem is that now are exposed the fault lines between the allies in the ethics of warfare and its sequellae. There is already an evidential wish for the British to distance themselves from what was a dark, brutal, gruesome and unseeingly hasty execution.
A new hatred between Arab cultures has been fomented by the invasion of Iraq - that between Sunni and Sheite ; it has been exacerbated by this trial and execution to an untold degree.
As the Bush administration seek to justify a new surge of troops in a country already in a state of civil war, where the Houses on record at least should oppose such a venture Bush seems destined to sink to depths of unpopularity not even known to Nixon.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 30, 2007 6:57 AM | Report abuse

Methinks Tina is a closeted lesbian who channels the energy of her crush on Condi into the Never-Neverland idea of her running for and becoming president.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | January 26, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

JRL -- and then candy canes will fall from the sky. What ever you're on, I hope you have a prescription for it.

Posted by: Colin | January 24, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"The day the new initiative in Iraq begins to look successful...April....May....June... will find the tide of public opinion turning in America."

The reality is, this is not a new intitiative. There have been other moderate increases in troop strenth in Iraq, and as soon as the enemy adjusts tactics the violence continues. Despite the pretense of Dick Cheney, Bush, and a handful of others, most people don't lack the "stomach" for the fight. Many patriotic and intelligent people lack faith an administration that's told us over and over again we're "turning a corner" or the enemy is in the "last throes" or "democracy in the ME is on the march." Lies. All lies.

Posted by: Alan | January 24, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Various have said...

Tina, no offense, but what is your obsession with Condi Rice?

She was a terrible national security advisor, a terrible secretary of state, and would make an awful president.

She practically symbolizes the Iraq war disaster, as one of it's main architects.

She is so strongly associated with the discredited and disgraced Bush administration that she is unelectable.

Furthermore, she couldn't even win the GOP primary, because she is associated so strongly with the Bush administration, and because she is black.
_____________________________________

The day the new initiative in Iraq begins to look successful...April....May....June... will find the tide of public opinion turning in America. The Dems are breaking their necks trying to have this new approach not go into action because there are a lot of quality people that think it has a good chance of working. If it works, all of a sudden troops coming home is over the horizon....stable civilian life is beginning to be the norm....and Bush will not look the way he does today.

Reagan was not appreciated until the hindsight of history shown upon his actions.

Posted by: JRL | January 24, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Racist Alert! He's back.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

meuphys, so you don't like Reagan? Why not, exactly?

Who do you like? Karter, maybe? If he had won a second term, the USSR would still exist, and the Cold War would still be going on.

Colin, George Allen is one of my favorite politicians, and I hoped he would run for president, so Webb's defeat of Allen still sort of rankles.

But even as a conservative Republican I understand and respect Webb. He became a Democrat because he was upset about the Bush administration's treasonous shredding of the Constitution, the War to "spread democracy" in Iraq, and the continued erosion and outsourcing of US manufacturing and jobs.

Concern about all these things HAS resulted inthe GOP bleeding voters, who vote for populist conservative Dems like Webb, Sweitzer and Tester. I fear that the GOP will lose even more voters to the Dems if the shredding of the Constitution continues, and Bush's amnesty goes through.

So I think that someone like Webb, or Sweitzer, or Tester would make a strong presidential candidate at some point in the future. Webb is strong on national defense, pro-gun, anti-amnesty, pro-death penalty, but liberal enough on issues like abortion and the environment and the economy to appeal to the liberal base.

Of course, he needs more time in the Senate before making a presidential run. But if he is reelected in 2012, perhaps he may run in 2016 or 2020.

Sweitzer, meanwhile, would make a strong VP candidate for Hillary or another Dem. (Aside from Obama, whom I still think is DOA.)

Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Tina, no offense, but what is your obsession with Condi Rice?

She was a terrible national security advisor, a terrible secretary of state, and would make an awful president.

She practically symbolizes the Iraq war disaster, as one of it's main architects.

She is so strongly associated with the discredited and disgraced Bush administration that she is unelectable.

Furthermore, she couldn't even win the GOP primary, because she is associated so strongly with the Bush administration, and because she is black.

The GOP's main strongholds of strength are in the South and out West, and those areas will NOT vote for a black woman.

If Mark Warner or Evan Bayh had been the Dem nominee and run against Condi, he would probably take every single state except maybe Alaska.

Southern and Western voters would even choose Hillary over a black woman.

And what's more, the GOP will receive no tangible benefit from putting a black anywhere on the ticket. 90% of blacks don't vote for us anyway. Remember Michael Steele? And he was a really liberal Republican, unlike Condi. By putting a black on the ticket, we will not gain many, if any, black voters, but we will turn off a LOT of whites.

The Dems have a lock on the black vote because they are willing to give the blacks free stuff through government largesse, at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by: William | January 24, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Tina, I continue to be baffled by your unswerving support for Condoleeza. what precisely has she done to make you think she would be a good national leader? her supposedly enormous experience and wisdom in foreign policy has gotten us where? and SHE'S the solution to a situation she had a hand in creating? come on.
and Webb was good, but Webb was also in the Reagan administration, which i do not remember fondly. let's give him a chance to legislate and see how he does with it before anointing him VP candidate for '08.

Posted by: meuphys | January 24, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse


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."

could you puke?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

"Libby's lawyers contend the White House wanted to blame Libby in order to save Karl Rove."

You coulda got odds in Vegas that this was coming. Cornered rats tend to bite each other...

DK, your list is interesting, I wonder how many it will add up to as the money starts pouring in. But this time around, a new phenomenon, these pols will be spending their FIRST campaign dollars not on TV advertising, but on "webtising", as the internet becomes more and more of an indispensible campaign tool and less of an appendage or an afterthought.

In terms of early money, campaign networking and manpower managment, the internet has become the virtual HQ and thelaunching point, for the smartest campaigns. The term "web-savvy" hasbeen mentioned on this blog more than any candidate. If there is already something historic in this election, it is in this change to hi-tech, web-based campaigning.

The MSM doesn't particularly like it, and except for the ones that started their own blogs and webcasts, they are losing their holy graille of market-share to this upstart medium.

Its a great cultural transition, meaning less wasted paper, more on-the-spot accountability, and instant access to the truth, whenever a wave of it hits the blogs.

Because of the internet, we have a new world of electronic politics, and the blogosphere is posturing to become both its medium and its watchdog.

Scrutiny is intense when millions of citizen/voters are watching, reading and blogging.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Jim Webb made Bush look even worse than normal. I'd LOVE to see Webb on the ticket in 2008.

Posted by: Colin | January 24, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Dana Milbank sure takes every opportunity to take cheap potshots at Hillary. Today he says she was 'staring vacatly' -- she didn't look that way to me.

I'm tired of it already... it's tacky.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

My guess was nitro, paddia.

I'm all for alpha women Tina, but condi is forever tainted with smoking guns and mushroom clouds and deception.

Her former speechwriters assert she knows nothing about the Middle East -- her background was entirely about Russia, and she hasn't done very well there, either.

What has she actually accomplished?

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post has mentioned Giuliani and McCain on The Fix numerous times, and gladly, they updated readers about the strong poll support for Secretary of State Condi Rice. (do a google search and you can find information from the main news and the blog about her)

Condi entered Congress last night, looking very presidential. Any time the President mentioned foreign policy, the camera went to her. It was very interesting to see so many ALPHA women in Congress, on both sides.

The people will vote for a qualified woman for president, the polls confirm this.
So now we can hope Secretary Rice decides to upgrade her profile. 70% of the Republicans polled agreed with that statement and that is favorable for Condi.

Posted by: Tina | January 24, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

What entranced me was those things Cheney kept putting in his mouth on camera during the president's speech. The first one was soon after the beginning of the speech. Were those TicTacs, meds or what? Can't he go 45 minutes without putting things into his mouth? Harmless if it was Chiclets or Lifesavers, but given the VP's health, age and influence, I found it alarming to imagine that he might possibly require medication at such frequent intervals.

Posted by: paddia | January 24, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

'As for bipartisanship, Bush couldn't resist the "Democrat Party" pronunciation, even though his script said Democratic.'

Mean-spirited little troll...

Posted by: lark | January 24, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

John McCain has a banner ad up on the UPI [moonie-owned] website. The tag line is 'commonsense conservative'...

..as opposed to the other kind.

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse


'Bush to push voucher proposal over objection of Democrats'

Posted by: got your bipartisanship right here | January 24, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse


'The NYT fronts a dispatch out of Baghdad that amounts to a progress report on the Iraq parliament, where lawmakers are still finding it difficult to convene because, most of the time, there is no quorum. The paper reports that "nearly every session since November has been adjourned" because most lawmakers don't show up for work even though they receive salaries and benefits worth about $120,000, which seems like a ridiculously large sum for Iraq.'

Posted by: your taxpayer dollars at work | January 24, 2007 7:48 AM | Report abuse

' Libby's lawyers contend the White House wanted to blame Libby in order to save Karl Rove, who was viewed as essential for the Republicans.'

Posted by: who done it? | January 24, 2007 7:45 AM | Report abuse

JIM WEBB! JIM WEBB!

he was great.

Posted by: drindl | January 24, 2007 7:42 AM | Report abuse

DK: Nice list and idea. What about the Republicans?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | January 24, 2007 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Glad to see commenters getting some attention in the posts. Would like to see more of that.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | January 24, 2007 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Neglected to mention the time range for my previous post was since 1/1/06.

Posted by: DKinUT | January 24, 2007 5:36 AM | Report abuse

I know this isn't the best place for this to be posted but it's the best place for action to occur. So, on with the post.

_________________________

The numbers:

Clinton-21
Edwards-10
Obama-10
Gore-8
Kerry-7
Vilsack-7
Dodd-4
Biden-1
Clark-1
Richardson-1

What they represent:

The number of times each name has appeared in the title heading here on the fix. The numbers are taken from the "Eye On 2008" archive listings and is only inclusive of Democrats still known to be running or considering a run(plus Gore who nobody seems to believe is truly out).

What I find interesting is the range: from 21 times for Clinton to 1 time for several others. Moreover, there appears to be some inconsistency in terms of tiering. Vilsack certainly doesn't deserve 7 mentions on a par with Gore and Kerry in the 2nd tier. I'd also think that Richardson might more properly be in the second tier and especially if Vilsack is there. You'd also think that Clark might get more mentions. I realize that it's not an "equality in mention" board and I also realize that some articles here don't mention specific names in the title but those names might be prominent within the article. Still, how about a little more parity? I've seen a number of "case for ___" and "case against ___" articles. How about some of those for each candidate?

Posted by: DKinUT | January 24, 2007 5:35 AM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Observations on Washington-style democracy

By Barry Grey in Washington, D.C.
24 January 2007

Political life in the US capital is increasingly an exercise in deceit and self-delusion. It does not take long for an objective observer to discern that behind the traditional forms of parliamentary democracy--congressional debates, floor votes, hearings, etc.--the machinery of a presidential dictatorship is being consolidated and already operating in key areas of policy, both foreign and domestic.

The Bush administration has successfully asserted, due largely to the compliance of a complicit and cowardly Democratic Party and a corrupt media, a degree of unchecked and unaccountable power that is unprecedented in US history. On the basis of the pseudo-constitutional theory of the "unitary executive" and the supposed war-time powers of the commander-in-chief (in the undeclared, unlimited and phony "war on terror"), the right-wing clique around the White House routinely violates constitutional norms and legal statues, snubs Congress and takes actions that flagrantly violate the democratic rights of the American people.

All those involved--administration officials, judges, congressmen, the Washington press corps--are well aware of the advanced state of decay of traditional democratic procedures and the buildup of police-state forms of rule. Yet the outer trappings of parliamentary process for the most part continue, by mutual consent of all involved, in what amounts to a democratic Potemkin Village, maintained in part to keep the people in the dark about the imperiled state of their democratic rights.

There are internal debates and conflicts, which can become heated at times, about the wisdom, legality and propriety of the administration's more brazen assertions of absolute power, but such disputes are never allowed to resonate in any significant way beyond the narrow confines of the Washington establishment.

Among themselves, in their offices, clubs and watering holes, the denizens of the capital engage in gallows humor about latest administration outrage against democratic norms and the constitutional principle of "checks and balances" between coequal branches of government. But since they all have a stake in maintaining the existing two-party political monopoly, through which the financial-corporate elite asserts its basic interests, and they all share an allegiance to American capitalism and its imperialist aims around the world, they continue to play the game as though nothing much had changed.

Last Thursday's appearance by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee provided the latest example of administration stonewalling and contempt for Congress and the impotence of the legislators.

The day before the hearing, Gonzales notified the committee that the administration had obtained authorization from one anonymous member of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court to continue its National Security Agency program of electronic surveillance of Americans' phone calls and e-mails. It was patently obvious that this was a maneuver to provide a judicial fig leaf for an illegal and unconstitutional invasion of privacy, close down court challenges to the program, and provide Bush and other administration officials with legal cover in the event of future criminal action against them.

At the Senate hearing, Gonzales flatly refused to answer questions from committee members about the content of the authorization granted by the unnamed FISA judge or any aspect of the ongoing domestic spying program.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/wash-j24.shtml

Posted by: che | January 24, 2007 3:19 AM | Report abuse

Well, ok, he didn't completely ignore Watergate, giving it some play at the end of the speech - maybe about the same amount that Bush gives to Iraq in his own SOTU

Posted by: sergio | January 24, 2007 2:56 AM | Report abuse

Much of the SOTU coverage notes Bush delivered the speech at the lowest approval rating of any pres since Nixon in 74. Nixon spent much of that speech bragging about how Vietnam was over and, obviously, ignoring the Watergate scandal. But a couple of quotes from that SOTU Past seem very familiar:

1) -- Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving.

-- and 2) Turning now to the rest of the agenda for 1974, the time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American. I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses. ... And it will not require additional taxes.

Ah, Howard Hunt, where are you when we need you most?

Posted by: sergio | January 24, 2007 2:48 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | January 24, 2007 2:31 AM | Report abuse

I'm asking this question because I don't believe it's been addressed yet. Assuming we rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil, than nations like Iran will go broke. Why does the president feel we will be safer with a broke Iran than a rich one? After all, North Korea is broke, and they hate us.

Posted by: Michael Camiolo | January 24, 2007 1:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company