Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil: Reading through the State of the Union Speech

I missed the State of the Union live, so I'm watching the webcast online. (Text and video can be found here .)

I'm going to agree with Balloon Juice, the best line of the night has to have been:

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.

A bit of a slap in the face to Wesley Clark, eh?:

And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we�ll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have.

UPDATE: My favorite partisan target, The Filibuster of Columbia University is amazed that the speech didn't appeal to their Democratic tendencies:

And does Bush really believe he can convince anybody of the WMD and budget BS he tossed out in last night's speech? Me thinks not, and I don't think that's the nakedly partisan part of me doing the thinking.

I'm attempting to determine just what part of the Filibuster is not nakedly partisan, but it's amusing to see them trying to distance themselves from it.

Comments

B/c we sit far away on the political spectrum (or I would guess) I thought that (along with the references to "weapons programs," or whatever they were---that was a telling shift in terminology) were the worst parts of the speech. What's bothersome to me is that the justification for the war is like one of those green slime toys you might have seen as a kid. It constantly shifts and changes and you can't hold it in your hand. When things aren't going well, the justification shifts to our defense and national security. Other times, we talk about human rights and all the good we are achieving for the people over there. There never really seems to be an honest confrontation of the rationale. To say that we weren't sure about WMD but we went ahead for a variety of reasons anyway would be so much more palatable than to pussyfoot around the issue. Like you a couple of days ago I'm up late nite. of course I procrastinated and procrastinated for something I have to finish for tomorrow AM (and here I am continuing to procrastinate).

Posted by: Balasubramani | January 21, 2004 3:02 AM

Wow, 12 Japanese troops get to be third on that list and when their friends arrive in a few months they'll be designated non-combatant... The only decent sized contingents there are UK, Australia, Holland and Poland. Meanwhile he didn't mention that his beloved governing council have just reintroduced sharia law for women (way to liberate them) and that caving in to Kurdish demands for federalism is building a balkanesque timebomb. 'Odd' also that there is no mention of Taliban moving around Afghanistan in company strength groups and making large areas of the country 'no go' for anyone but the US military. Afghanistan was and is winnable and reformable, but as the moment it's turning into another bloody mess for lack of troops and support. To pretend as W does that everything is going to plan is disingenious, and he still lied, disemmbled and obfuscated (in that order) about the WMD.

Posted by: Martin | January 21, 2004 4:08 AM

Martin, as I pointed out in your own blog, the Governing Council, as it doesn't have authority to unilaterally introduce sharia, has done no such thing. Or rather, while they may have voted to do so (in a highly controversial and rather underhanded secret vote), they don't have the authority to actually introduce it, unless the highly unexpected happens and the occupying forces don't veto. That's one of those fine legal points that we legal types like to call 'relevant.'

Posted by: A. Rickey | January 21, 2004 5:19 AM

A. Rickey, I'm not sure how relevant that detail is. (At the end of the day everyone just ends up calling the council an American puppet council and that doesn't really work for anyone. Additionally, regardless of what the "law" is, the reactions of actual Iraqis (right or wrong) can't be ignored.) What is all boiling around and what must be acknowledged is that it really could go either way as far as making the democracy thing happen. There's a call for the UN to get involved as far as evaluating possibility for elections (and acting as a neutral third party). As this article by Fareed Zakaria argues, the US is definitely dealing with tricky situations over there with Sistani. It could work and I hope it does, but it seems awfully dicey. And to top it all off, everyone's pretty much admitting that there's no WMD. The lack of candor is tough to work around and it's pretty apparent that there's a lack of candor (re rationale, difficulties, issues, etc. etc. etc.).

Posted by: Balasubramani | January 21, 2004 5:42 AM

"There's a call for the UN to get involved as far as evaluating possibility for elections (and acting as a neutral third party)." I'm sorry, I just had to laugh at that "neutral third party" part. What, exactly, makes you think that the UN is in any way neutral? Seems to me there's almost always an agenda with the UN depending on which countries are involved with the specific council in question. Then again, if by neutral you mean "anything but what the US wants to do" then you are, perhaps, correct. Besides, the UN is irrellevant--or haven't you been paying attention in The Last 10 Years 101.

Posted by: KillAllDash9 | January 21, 2004 8:43 AM

Balasubramani: You're moving to broader ground when I'm arguing over the precision of the statement. If the statement is, "[Bush's] beloved governing council have just reintroduced sharia law for women" then the fact that (at present) no decision made by the Council is law without the signature of Bremer is pretty relevant to the fact that they've reintroduced nothing at all. Their vote may have many other effects, but it does not have the specific one stated. If, further, that signature is unlikely to be forthcoming, then it's extremely significant to the truth of the statement given.

Posted by: A. Rickey | January 21, 2004 8:56 AM

Considering that Bush again repeated that certain WMD programs were found in his speech last night, I do not see how you get to the point of saying that "everyone admits" that there was no WMD. I am not yet convinced that Saddam did not secret them out of the country, nor can you prove that they aren't in Syria or some other rogue state.

Posted by: Avi Frisch | January 21, 2004 11:42 AM

I thought Bush's implied claim the armed forces in Iraq as fully internationalized was his least credible of the night. The BBC has a handy list of foreign troops in Iraq (although it is 2 months old). As you can see, the US has about 5 times more troops in Iraq than all other countries combined. The Army continues to expand its Stop Loss program because there aren't enough soliders to go around. I fail to see how more internationalization would be a bad thing.

Posted by: falconred | January 21, 2004 12:17 PM

Falconred: Simply put, the question isn't 'internationalization' but 'Europeanization.' And if you want to measure internationalization by troop commitment then I don't think anyone else's plan is likely to result in a more 'internationalized force: the European forces that are not already committed are certainly not going to be extensive enough to change your five-to-one ratio. The question is whether a more 'international' (i.e. European) force would be more likely to succeed in reconstruction, because the only purpose for having it is to provide either (a) better leadership or (b) greater 'legitimacy.' Either case can be made, though I'd disagree with either of them, but the idea that greater internationalization is likely to result in massively greater troop commitment and a much lesser relative role in ground forces overestimates what can be brought to the table.

Posted by: A. Rickey | January 21, 2004 1:46 PM

What about the worst part of the speech? - the steroid discussion? - the complete failure to offer any proposal to screen cargo coming in at ports or going on airlines as freight? Then again, the Dems' response was really pretty awful too.

Posted by: Tung Yin | January 21, 2004 2:00 PM

I think the high point was definitely when Bush came out against athletes using steroids. He's probably the first president to do so - at least, in a State of the Onion speech -, and it seemed hard for the cameras to find someone in the audience who didn't look, well, confused. What I am not sure about is how he can advocate putting so many resources into prisoner reentry programs, but come out against the WHO's statements (not in the SofU but earlier in the week) on obesity on the basis that it's people's personal responsibility whether they are fat or not - isn't it a person's "personal responsibility" whether they commit a crime, or not? Or are we supposed to have proactive (and federally funded) compassion for former prisoners, but not for recovering fat people? I am confused. Wait, let's send fat people to jail where they will be on a strict diet and then we can help them "reenter" society later on. Oh, and the Romanians sent five doctors to Iraq as their contribution. But we'll take what we can get, I guess.

Posted by: Maddie | January 21, 2004 5:00 PM

I'll make this point only because I haven't seen it elsewhere. What disappointed me about the SOU speech was simply the amount of time devoted to terrorism and Iraq. While both are certainly important issues, it is really unfortunate that they took up 50% of the speech. This epitomizes what the President has done to this country and emphasizes how successful the 9/11 bombers were. It only took 19 people (plus their planners) to change the US from a forward-looking country to one that is constantly looking behind it for bombs. I am disappointed in the President because I don't think it had to turn out this way.

Posted by: Rob | January 21, 2004 9:31 PM

Rob, What issue should he have stressed more than terrorism, a major war, and the safety of the American people? Do you really think the most important issue confronting America is whether or not we have school vouchers, prescription drugs in medicare, or more tax cuts? Isn't moving forward an attmept to continue spreading democracy around the world, or have we decided that the American way of life is no longer worthwhile?

Posted by: Avi Frisch | January 21, 2004 11:23 PM

Ah, having read your comments (I get so few) and turned through some other sources I find that... The GC announced it was making family law Sharia A different part of the GC said the vote hadn't passed The first bit said it had and was awaiting Bremners signiature Bremner hasn't commented yet... It might be that given the habit of GC members to not turn up to meetings that one meeting passed it but wasn't quorate or something. So its a mess, but a scary one. A while ago Doc Searls of all people ran a post headed something like 'Will a democratic Iraq be allowed to elect a theocracy and will it be allowed to hate Israel?' As far as I know neither Sistani nor the Iraqi people as a whole are that scary, but I wouldn't rule this out yet.

Posted by: martin | January 22, 2004 10:25 AM

That was one of my favorite parts of the SOTU as well. Bush nicely managed to imply that, in addition to Thailand, the Netherlands, and El Salvador there were 17 OTHER countries too small to make the list. I have no idea what the other 17 countries are, but if you are talking about El Salvador and the Netherlands (thank god! The DUTCH are in Irag! Do they even have an army?) you are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of military assistance.

Posted by: Tor | January 22, 2004 11:15 AM

Martin: I think the procedural issue is that the vote was held in secrecy, which may or may not violate the procedural rules of the GC. Nonetheless, nothing is instituted until Bremer signs it. My guess is that the ruling is 'awaiting' Bremer's signature in much the same way that an invitation to join the Democratic Party is awaiting mine. Tor: Just to ask, what mighty powers and great arsenals would you like to call to our aid? If you're going to disparage the Dutch army, you're going to have to point out who has the troops (and the power projection capability) to make a difference on the order of magnitude you're implying. I can think of the French (unlikely), the Russians, and the Chinese being able to commit US-style levels of troops, but otherwise these coalitions are primarily about legitimacy. I think you underestimate the difference between the military power at the command of the US, and that in the hands of most of the rest of the world. (If you've got the UK, you've got the bulk of what usefulness Europe has to offer...)

Posted by: A. Rickey | January 22, 2004 11:47 AM

Avi, You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't realize our two options are: "an attmept to continue spreading democracy around the world, or decide that the American way of life is no longer worthwhile." My point was not even that Iraq and terrorism are not the most important issues of the day. (I happen to think that they are not, but I concede this may be a point of debate.) My point was that it is a shame that, even if they are the most important issues of the day, they deserve 50% of our attention.

Posted by: Rob | January 22, 2004 2:21 PM