State of the Union Open Thread

For those of you following President Bush's State of the Union address tonight, here's a CBS article with some excerpts and an open thread to discuss it.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the cabinet member who will sit out in case of a terrorist attack during the speech.

Update: Attytood: Bush to New Orleans, Drop Dead.

< The Scooter Libby Headline for Day One | TalkLeft Goes to Washington >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Full text (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:11:45 PM EST
    Here's the full text. Here are my comments on the immigration parts of the speech. Pretty much everything he said in that regard was a lie, misleading, BS, or simple blackmail. It's too bad the Democrats agree with him rather than call him on his lies.

    *eyes widen* (none / 0) (#5)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    LoneWacko's off the reservation?

    I got my handcuffs! (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:06:10 PM EST

    sotu smackdown (none / 0) (#2)
    by drdrew on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:55:21 PM EST
    an hour after the democratic response, you can search within the audio of the SOTU and response through pluggd's SOTU smackdown!


    He's getting away! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:11:25 PM EST

    SOTU (none / 0) (#6)
    by k ols on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 11:12:35 PM EST
    How crafty to construct that one sentence about Iraq with an ending about supporting the troops.  That pretty much forced everyone to stand up and applaud.

    Someone needs to give Pelosi some constructive criticism on controlling all those mouth movements she was making.  It was distracting and not very flattering.  At one point I thought she was chewing on a jawbreaker or maybe about to blow a bubble.

    I have to say though, she sure looks better than the evil, grumpy old bastard sitting to her right.

    This was sounding like a campaign speech instead of a SOTU.

    k ols (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    If the Demos had been 100% honest they wouldn't have stood when the sentence ended on "supporting the troops."

    Your definition of "support" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by roy on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    "Support the troops" means "support the war" to you.  It's just a way of conflating the two issues, and maybe guilting some people into backing off of criticising the war.

    You've previously advocated imprisoning soldiers who sign petitions.  That strips you of any credibility your own service ever gave you on the subject of supporting the troops.

    Waving the flag and drowning out dovish pundits are supremely cheap forms of support.  Looking for solutions that don't put the troops in harms way seems like a bit more substantial way of supporting them.


    Service (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:32:20 AM EST
    Obviously your service was the same as Bush's and you believe that the troops are fodder to be used for political gain, personal vengence, and profit.

    Well most of us here, and evidentially most of those Dems that rose in their seats applauding the notion of supporting our troops, believe that sendinf troops to their death for the stroke the ego of a wacko executives is bogus.

    Obvioulsy, you have not been reading the papers, Dems want the troops home now. That is what supporting the troops mean in the context of a scam war. And that is why they applauded.

    Must be that both your service (Naval Avaition) and the Chimp's (Naval Avaition) taught you that Americans blood is cheap and expendible.


    Please (none / 0) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    With a whole bunch of Iraq vets running as Dems in 2006, with more Democratic vets in congress than Republican vets, with REPUBLICAN vets such as Hagel and Powell opposing the president's non-plan, and with a Bush foreign policy of grinding the lives of these ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS to dust, that dead horse has been putrifying for five years now and no amount of your beating it is going to make it get up and walk.


    Move on and start looking for a live horse to beat.


    ppj's Service (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 04:11:33 PM EST

    "I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.... There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives."

    From Hagel's speech this morning. He supports the troops, he is a combat veteran.

    You on the other hand, as far as we know served burgers and want to play political ping-pong with our troops. Not my idea of support.


    link (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    Here is the link:



    If Bush was even 1% honest (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    he would have resigned in disgrace by now, and run away with his tail between his legs.

    Stephen Pizzo (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:38:30 AM EST
    writing at The Smirking Chimp came up with the best response the Democrats could have given to Bush last night. They didn't unfortunately, and lost the chance to make a profound statement, IMO:

    The Sound of No Hand Clapping

    So, Democrats - and straight-thinking Republicans - why not spare us the trained-seal act this year? Stand in respect for the office, but keep your flippers folded politely in your laps. Don't clap. And most certainly don't cheer.

    And when he reaches the podium, and is introduced by Speaker Pelosi, remain seated and busy your hands by checking your Blackberry for messages, straightening your tie or scratching that itch. But please, no clapping.

    Doing so would provide those us watching on TV two important services. First, we would not have witness those we voted for because they promised to "do the right thing," applauding the man who has done more wrong than any President in our nation's history. Second it would allow us to identify those serving in Congress who are either truly stupid or incurably corrupt, because who else - at this point, after all that's happened - who else would applaud and cheer such a man?

    Nothing would speak louder, to this President, to the nation and to the world, than silence Tuesday night. Stand, but stand as you do when the casket is rolled down the church aisle at a funeral mass. Stand in silence, in respect for the office of the Presidency and in mourning for the ways the current holder of that office has abused it, disgrace it and in so doing, disgraced us all.

    Democrats rose repeatedly in standing ovations (none / 0) (#13)
    by Andreas on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    A president who, as multiple polls released this week have underscored, is the most despised occupant of the White House since Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate crisis, was treated to repeated standing ovations led by the new "Madam Speaker" of the House of Representatives, Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. ...

    Led by Pelosi, Democrats rose repeatedly in standing ovations for the so-called war on terror and those who are waging it. They stood and applauded for Bush when he declared that Washington's mission was to "help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity." This despite the fact that US policy has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and turned their country into a nightmare of death and destruction, while American imperialism continues to base its regional power on a Zionist regime that oppresses the Palestinians and on Arab despots who suppress their own people.

    The perplexity of the Democrats found its consummate expression when they were brought to their feet with the following passage from Bush:

    "We went into this largely united--in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq--and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field--and those on the way."

    Here Bush's speechwriters earned their pay. The passage made clear that the Democrats in Congress were Bush's partners in crime, voting the White House a blank check to wage a war of aggression against Iraq. It also spelled out that Democrats and Republicans alike reflected the consensus position within America's ruling elite that military force must be used to assert the interests of US capitalism worldwide, most decisively by seizing control of world energy supplies.

    Bush's State of the Union speech highlights crisis of US ruling elite
    By Bill Van Auken, 24 January 2007

    Webb's Democratic response... (none / 0) (#19)
    by dutchfox on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:04:20 PM EST
    wasn't much, either. I'd have to agree with Dennis Perrin, whose piece was linked from Joshua Frank. My emphasis in bold:

    Reading some of the lib responses to James Webb's speech from last night has left me feeling angry and depressed. More than a few have employed the adolescent "awesome" to describe what was, in form and in fact, a pretty standard political spiel. What a sorry time we live in for Webb to be seen as a beacon of political hope and courage. Yes, he was against the Iraq invasion from the get-go, but so were a lot of people, Republicans and conservatives among them. That Webb, like many in the US elite, foresaw the horrors that awaited our entry again means little. Anyone with passing knowledge of the region and a hint of honesty predicted the exact same thing. Are we so far gone that a conservative Dem who faces reality is considered "impressive"? Apparently so.

    Note that Webb described the Iraq war as "mismanaged." Not criminal, not corrupt, not imperial, but "mismanaged."


    Note also that Webb completely buys into the War on Terror scenario, which he didn't really define last night, though he's doubtlessly referring to Afghanistan specifically and al-Qaeda generally. That's a serious topic that requires serious debate, but Webb wasn't interested in going beyond rhythm phrases like "war on terrorism," the mere sound of which supposedly defines itself and therefore nothing else need be said. And Webb is decidedly on board with an attack on Iran, as he is completely behind Israel's aggression in the region. When the cluster bombs begin falling on Iran, don't expect Webb, Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, or any senior Dem, to oppose it -- that is, unless the murder of Iranians is somehow bungled or "mismanaged." Then perhaps Webb might make some critical noises, and wave more family photos at the camera to prove his sincerity.

    There was an intersting comment from liquified viscera, too, on Frank's post/link about Perrin's piece:

    Webb's "mismanagement" accusation has the additional benefit -- additional to hiding the latent goals -- of reinforcing the assumption that there was good reason to conduct military operations in the Iraq "war". For if there can be proper "management" of the Iraq "war," that assumes the "war" itself was properly initiated.

    Perrin is correct in labelling as naive junior high schooler perspectives the voices who praise Webb as "awesome." These childish Democrats who fancy themselves "liberal" are nothing more than clones of the Daily Kos-styled DLC Dems who are in favor of any imperial venture that enriches big moneyed campaign donors and big corporate coffers. They dis-serve the notion of liberalism by recasting the label "liberal" in favor of conservative corporatocratic centrism, a perspective that is neither liberating nor itself full of freedom.

    All we are saying... (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 02:33:29 PM EST
    "Our country's pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work."

    is give war a chance.

    Cole (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 02:42:35 PM EST
    Wow, I not only could not bear to watch the Chimp in Chief, I could not even stomach reading the transcript.

    But intrepid historian Juan Cole does the responsible thing and refutes the countless lies one by one. So much for the WH belief that they are in charge reality and the creating of history.
    Well worth a read.