Bush should focus on the state of America’s union, not Iraq’s

By on February 9, 2005

On Wednesday night, President George W. Bush spoke to the nation in his annual State of the Union address. But why did this year’s speech seem more like an outline for Iraq and not our own country? Sure he outlined how he will butcher Social Security (this time saying it will be bankrupt by 2040, but in the late 1970s when running for State Representative in Texas he said it will be bankrupt by 1986) and how his wife from the country will help stop urban gangs, but the majority of the speech involved Iraq and the recent events that have happened over there.

Last time I checked, we live in the United States of America, not Iraq. So why do so many people in this country pretend like they give two hoots about the situation over there? Our president proudly explained how finally Iraq can hold an election and elect their own people and how their army is slowly growing and will be able to govern themselves but we still have no time table for leaving.

Well, Mr. President, it has been two years and it is about time you start giving the American people a time table on when we are going to leave the country and you start putting some attention into this country. Keeping us safe is only a small piece of the pie that comes with the job of being president.

As Bush peddles into his second term, we as Americans have to start questioning him about what his intentions are for OUR country. Why are we spending money to open up fire houses in Iraq but closing them here because of not enough funds? Why can we figure out how to run a successful election in Iraq with people showing identification at the polls and inking their fingers so they do not vote twice but yet for the second election in a row in this country, we have voting problems? And most importantly, why are we spending money to answer questions that are so obvious like Bush’s new proposal on gangs?

Laura Bush, we were told, will be in charge of a nationwide program to try and keep kids out of gangs. Why does this administration need to take the time to figure this out?

Maybe it is because they do not want to admit that their No Child Left Behind Act is part of the problem.

A school loses its government funding if the school does not keep a certain test average. Well, the chain reaction we are starting to see is that the schools in urban areas are losing their government funding and therefore have to start cutting back on teachers, supplies and programs that will educate the students. With nothing to motivate these kids, they drop out of school and enter gangs, and now the same government will try to decrease the amount of gangs in this country.

But the answer is not that simple to Bush and his cronies. They are too pre-occupied sending our soldiers overseas to Iraq so they can “have the same freedoms that we do here in America.” If the country continues to stay on the path that we are on now then very soon we will end up no better than how Iraq is; a country that is a mess, has no direction and split down the middle on every issue which could result in a civil war.

But don’t listen to me. Listen to Janet and Bill Norwood, who during the State of the Union were the guests of honor because their son, Byron, a Marine, “died for our freedom.” After being introduced to Congress, Janet embraced Safia Taleb al-Suhail, an Iraqi woman who got to vote for the first time, which symbolized all the good that this country is doing.

This display was one of the most set-up and repulsive pieces of propaganda this country has ever done. It tried to prove to Americans who have had second thoughts about the war that by somehow letting these people vote, we are making our country safer. Well, those smart people who can see through all the murky garble of the Bush administration already know that America will be safer when we have a president that cares about the state of America’s union, not Iraq’s.


About Rob Ettman