State of the "Homeland" shudder

I had a hard time getting to sleep, so I flipped on the TV and caught a bit of the recorded State of the Union address. (That's where the President talks about the current state of Apath -- er, America).

I didn't listen to all of it, but several things caught my attention and interest. I pulled up the transcript on the Whitehouse website..

"They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends, but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins." - George W Bush

Surely no American citizens are intimidated by their own government's alphabet agencies (the IRS comes to mind).

Surely Randy Weaver wasn't intimidated by the FBI siege of his home at Ruby Ridge - resulting in the killing of Randy's wife, son, and dog.

Surely the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas weren't intimidated when their country's own military attacked and killed them.

Thugs and assassins, Eh?

"For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America." - George W Bush

Actually large portions of the world do doubt our word now. It's a sick joke, around the world. It was a sick joke even before our most recent military action, when large portions of the "evidence" cited was easily discredited.

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." - George W Bush

Ohh, and where was the threat from Iraq, again? After all, clearly this implies the most recent war in Iraq was to defend the security of our country. So where was it??

"Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. (Applause.) We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people." - George W Bush

Yes, because Americans are too stupid to possibly save for their own retirement. But we'll appease them a bit by saying "well you can save some of it in your own retirement account." You want to make Social Security a system owned by the American people? ABOLISH IT. It's socialism and against everything embodied by the US Constitution - remember that little document you swore to uphold and defend from enemies both domestic and foreign?

"In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland..." - George W Bush

There were three mentions of the "homeland", aside from mentions of the Department of Homeland Security. That's three to many. "Homeland" smacks of nationalism, which I despise - and any self-respecting American citizen should, too. I'm surprised it wasn't renamed the "State of the Homeland" - maybe next year.

❦

View responses or leave your own response

published January 21, 2004

Responses

BlackWolf – January 21, 2004
Not that I want to start an argument, but according to not only our intel, but the intel of the brits, the franks, the germs, the ruskis, the jews, and whole slew of other nations recognized governmental spy agencys, Iraq was not only an immediate threat to her neighbors, and thus through the unrest us the US, but also was in violation of multiple UN resulotions. Including many humanitarian reasons.

If only on humanitarian reasons alone we should have went in with the added threat to out security we did.

This was after over a deacade of peaceful negotiations. Now while no WMD have as yet been found, all the equipment needed to build and use them has been.

The only real thing of decency and intelligence that you wrote up was on Social Security, and the need of not needing it.

Of all the stupid things that you can complain about GW, you could quaduple them if it were Al Gore. If it were him you wouldn't have room for open decent.

At least with GW we get "Let your yes be yes and your no be no." A very different pace then that of the past.

BlackWolf – January 21, 2004
And just because of that last line, nearly everyone of your issues existed before Bush came to office, and he has done his part to end most of them.

What would you have done in his place?

the mid finger of the midwest – January 21, 2004
take out your eyes so that when people say that you blindly follow someone there would be no misunderstanding.

gOL – January 21, 2004
1) Show me intel that proved Iraq was an imminent threat. Imminent threat means "aiming weapons at you, threatening to start action". It's very clear when there is an "imminent threat" versus a "potential threat". Iraq was only a potential threat.

The United States of America was under NO IMMINENT THREAT from Iraq.

2) I know Iraq violated UN resolutions. Israel is also in violation of a variety of UN resolutions. Do you think we should invade them? No? Why not? Because they're friendly to us? I hope you don't use UN resolutino violations as justification for the war, because it is probably the most flimsy argument out there, honestly.

3) We violated Iraq's national sovereignty by invading. The only times any nation can do that is if they have already been attacked, or if an attack is imminent.

4) "All the equipment to build and use them has been found" ?? Sources, please. I won't deny this, but sources, please. "A decade of peaceful negotiations": Uh huh, America-enforced NFZs - which were not authorized by *any* UN resolution - does not fall under "peaceful negotiations".

5) You "dont want to start an argument", yet you make ad hominem attacks of indecency and lack of intelligence? Come on now, Casey.

6) Al Gore isn't the President. Why does it always come down to this - why do people presume that those who aren't full supporters of Bush are therefore "libersls" or "Gore supporters" ?? I think this is called a "red herring" argument. I complain about Bush, and you throw something totally different out there. "Oh, well he's better than Gore would be." Then on top of that you have to speculate (as if gospel truth) and say that I wouldn't be able to dissent like this under Gore. You don't know that, nor do I.

7) I wasn't blaming Bush for the IRS being full of thugs (and violating the Constitution). Nor was I blaming Bush for Ruby Ridge. Nor was I blaming Bush for foisting Socialist Security on us. You're right. I was pointing out inconsistencies. He speaks as if America is immune from such things as "thugs and assassins", when we have had them in our own government in the past.

8) If I were in Bush's place I would respect the Constitution. This means I wouldn't work at "cutting back" unconstitutional programs like Social Security "a bit", I would work at eliminating them entirely. This means I would go after enemies that have attacked us, and not begin a global war on an ambiguous concept ("terror") that it has been admitted *we may never know when it's over*. I would work on increasing our national defense and tightening up our borders. I would only go to war if Congress declared war. I can go on..

But really, haven't we already been over this, the last time I posted about this sort of stuff?

BlackWolf – January 21, 2004
As I commented to gRegor on AIM that the insulting comments are unappropate for a debating type of forum, I off no other excuse for that except my lazyness.

Point one, at the time of begining this third phase of the gulf war, it was supposed that Iraq had weapons capable of reaching its neighbors. If he had been alowed to do this it would have cause a lot more havic then us going in and doing what should have been done in the first place.

It was a dircet threat to the stability of the middle east, and had we had no intrests in the area there would not have been any threat, but alas, our over dependence on forign oil makes unrest in this area an imminate threat.

Point two, the UN resolutions were Phase two of the gulf war, this was the "Let your yes be yes and your no be no" trail to see if Saddum would come to his senses and become a nation that is not threating to its neighbors. He did not, so we had to implement phase three. Or the word of the US would be more worthless then it already is. While the UN was a factor it was not the main factor.

Point three, I already stated the why of the imminent threat.

Point four, the NFZ were authorized by the UN, if only indirectly. And Iraq could have had them taken off by complying with the demands of the UN and proving he was not going to kill more of his own people. The NFZ were the only way that the US could protect,(mind you it wasn't all that effective), the peoples of Iraq from Iraq. You can go to my site at http://www.xanga.com/black_... and scroll to february 21, 2003 for the leagal evidnce and proof of this. I can not at this time point to the scorces for the the finding of the equipment to make WMD's, again because of my lazyness and lack of time, for which I appologize again. Do an internet serch, you should be able to find something.

Point 5 this was addressed at the beginning of the post.

Point 6 The reason I brought up Al Gore, is to point out that things could be worse. A lot worse. He has admitted to what he would have done in this situation and it is not cool. You may have been able to speak out against him but you would have considerable backlash. Look at what happened to Newt Gingrich back during his decent of the Clinton politics. Compare it to Tom Dashel of today.

Point 7&8, I am glad to see that you wern't blaming everything on Bush. And as a President who came into his Power without overwehlming support, he only has so much power he can weild. I belive he is trying(in most place's not all) to do his best to limit the influence of Governent on socity.

If he were to go all rabid and constitioal someone would have locked him up in a loony bin, just as they would if you were in his position.

Extra points point. We seem to mostly agree to how this government should run. Small goverment and personal responsablity. You just want it now, and I am willing to take my time a let it grow on people. You can't force these things on people, you have to take it slowly, work out the kinks as you go.

BlackWolf

– January 23, 2004
1) So let me get this straight - since it was *supposed* Iraq might have WMDs which could be used to attack their immediate neighbors - the potential unrest in the Middle East would become an imminent threat to America due to our dependence on oil?

Or perhaps I can just put it more simply, in terms the pro-war fans out there have denied again and again: We have an interest in the oil. That's what it seems you're saying, Casey.

I don't care how dependent we are on whatever resource from wherever on Earth - that is not an "imminent threat" to the sovereignty of the United States. Our nation's sovereignty doesn't extend to those we trade with, meaning we can boss them around if we're worried about something changing.

Again, there was NO IMMINENT THREAT. You practically admitted this yourself by saying there were "supposed" WMDs, and they were a threat to their neighbors. They were not a threat to the United States. Ever.

2) You didn't really defend your use of the UN resolutions in support of the war, or answer my question about other nations violations of UN resolutions. We had to act or our word would be tarnished? HOW SO? We didn't pass UN Security Resolutions. The UN Security Council did. It is solely at their discretion how they enforce those resolutions, and what punishment is authorized. Take for example in the first Gulf War - there was a clear resolution authorizing the use of force by UN member states against Iraq. There was never anything remotely close to this for Gulf War II.

3) Covered in point one that there wasn't an imminent threat.

4) No, the NFZs weren't authorized by the UN, indirectly or directly or any other way. As I pointed out, on that specific xanga post you referenced, Iraq never ceded their airspace to the US, UK, or UN. We were no longer at war, and since NFZs were not a part of the cease fire agreement, they violated Iraq's sovereignty and were illegal. Laws (including international ones and resolutions) are very specific in their allowances and scope. If it is not explicitly listed, it is not permitted.

6) All we can do is speculate about how things would have been under Gore's leadership, so it's not really pertinent to this topic. You say there would have been "considerable backlash". There WAS considerable backlash, and dozens of instances of unwarranted violence. For example, peaceful protests being dispersed - people were walking AWAY from the police calmsly and quietly, yet they got shot with rubber bullets and wooden pellets - often from far too close of a range. Bush has designated "Free Speech Zones" far enough away from where he is so that his protesters won't be evident, or even seen by the press (or anyone else).

Additionally, consider GW's *own words* "You're either with us or the terrorists". The backlash from the neoconservatives has been quite high, my friend, going right along with Bush's statement by questioning the patriotism of such dissenters. I didn't support the Iraq war, therefore I guess I must be with the terrorists, huh? I'm sorry, but I highly doubt there is a neoconservative in America (or the world) who truly knows what "patriotism" is.

7 & 8) Yeah, I'm sure he'd get locked in a loony bin for vetoing unconstitutional bills. Uh huh. Ron Paul, House representative from Texas has been known as "Dr. No" for quite some time now, because he doesn't vote for bills that aren't supported by the Constitution. He's not in the loony bin. In fact, I think he's running unopposed in the upcoming elections. I'm sorry, but your line of reasoning seems weak here. It's like you defend Bush acting "moderate", saying he's only doing that so as to not cause too much ruckus, but really his intentions are good and we'll get to the objective.

Extra points) Well I guess if you TRULY believe in small government and personal responsibility, we share that in common, but that is about all I think. You probably believe GW shares these ideals, when I see hardly any examples of it. Republicans used to be for "smaller government", but you just watch. Compare the size of the federal government when Bush leaves office to when he came into office. It WILL be bigger. It will be MONSTROUSLY bigger. It really doesn't matter whether you have a Democrat or Republican in there - government always grows at a consistent (ridiculous) rate. Don't try to say that it's out of GW's hands, either, because he's signed the bills for the PATRIOT Act, Dept of Homeland Security, and a slew of other things which take responsibility from the people and put it in the beuraucrats' hands.

"But what about his tax cuts", you might ask. That's fine and dandy, but tax cuts do not equate to a smaller government. What government agency/program doesn't already operate at a defecit, anyway?

State of the "Homeland" *shudder*

Responses

State of the "Homeland" shudder