Wednesday, January 24, 2007

After-thoughts

It was a good performance. Bush is much more at ease speaking to actual people versus tele-prompters. His surge speech was absolutely horrible in comparison.

Scanning around the crowd there seemed to be a lot of folks paying close attention, more so than in past SOTUs. Perhaps that was due to his present precarious position, I don't know. The exceptions were the presidential candidates, who appeared to be taking notes, bored, or half asleep. Posturing, no doubt.

Overall and under the circumstances, it was as good as he could muster.

He was a bit weak in laying out the domestic agenda, but let's face it--none of it will come to pass anyway. He's a domestic lame duck. As to border security, more bla bla, but I've always been in agreement that we need a guest worker program. My border beef is the chaotic breakdown of the rule of law, so any program that tackles that issue is good.

But that's where Bush and I part ways because we've already done the amnesty thing and it didn't work. The illegals here now need to be made to recross the border and come in via the new system. If they can't, then they risk deportation. Perhaps some of their employers could help with that transportation, wink, nod. They must also be on a timer, with requirements to leave and reapply every few years. If they want to become citizens that's great, but go to the end of the line. Either we live via a rule of law society or we don't.

The foreign policy part was really the only part that mattered, because as the constitution dictates, he's got the ball. The opening points he made about America's good deeds, such as fighting AIDS in Africa, were necessary and designed to counter recent stories about how Bush has destroyed our world image, which is utter garbage. Our image has always been about the same. It's only perceived as bad now because in the process of eradicating Saddam's murderous regime we've suffered some bad hiccups. That doesn't change the fact we're still the most benevolent society in the history of man.

Matter if fact, Bush's entire "problem" is Iraq, partly due to his own miscalculations but mainly due to the actual enemy--those Islamic insurgentterrathugs who don't want to see us win by succeeding in their world. Unfortunately (and largely not by choice) they have been joined by the Democrat Party and the mainstream media, who both believe Republicans are actually the world's true evil.

It's pretty clear these folks must not believe that our losing would cause long-term consequences or else they would never be advocating retreat, and would have stood in applause when Bush made the point about coming together to get 'er done. I guess it's easier to leave the blinders on and blame everything on the insensitive oil stooges, but such shortsightedness doesn't belong in positions of power.

The anti-war folks who actually do believe in long-term repercussions must be looking at it politically, ie, such a thing would be the gift that keeps on giving. That's much worse. By the way, the Veep's daughter was wondering the same thing yesterday.

It's clear that Iraq is not the only country with some serious societal divisions. Interestingly enough, A'jad was saying yesterday (wrapped in with his daily death to America, death to Israel shtick) that Dubya is purposely trying to divide the Middle East, yet that's exactly what his ilk are trying to do to America. And it seems to be working.

Most conservative pundits agreed the best line was, "you didn't vote for failure", a not too subtle reminder of how many Congresspeoples voted not only for the Iraq Regime-Change resolution in 1998, but for the use of force resolution in 2002. This was designed as a pre-emptive strike against upcoming resolutions next week.

While I agreed with the Gateway Pundit we might see some disturbances in the balcony, and also thought we'd hear more boos and hisses from the port side floor, it was good to see that people behaved. Perhaps the left figured such a move might backfire. The Mutumbo segment was nice, but for me the best moment was the fleeting shot of the wounded Iraq vet hugging the gentleman who saved the people on the subway tracks. That to me represents must-see TV.

Some notes on the aftermath. Webb's response was better than average as such things go, but I noticed a definite mean streak in this man. His comparison of Iraq to Ike and Korea was ridiculous--Ike didn't pull our troops out and South Korea has yet to fall to the commies. The force is still there. Stupid. And his final sentence was uncalled for.

As to McCain's criticism of Cheney today...is it coincidence that Cheney is becoming a pinata now for some on the right? How will this affect his testimony in the Libby trial? It would certainly seem like the walls are cracking within the house of Bush, but chances are this is a strategy.

Finally, as to a US defeat and complete withdrawal from Iraq--if we're to believe Bush and others that our defeat will lead to future horribleness complete with an eventual toppling of the moderate regimes into the hands of Jihadis, then why isn't the rest of the free world not coming to this fight? A worse case would certainly mean bad things not only for Israel, but also for western Europe, China, East Asia and Russia. A radical takeover of the Middle East hurts more than just America.

No comments: