America: Where Lies Are Truth And The Truth Is A Smear

I didn’t watch the State of The Union the other night. I thought about blogging it, but I decided that I didn’t want to be enraged for the balance of the evening, so my plan was to read about it the next day to get a fix of second-hand rage. I thought that would be easier to deal with and I think I was right. Reading about it was a lot easier than watching it; I’m convinced.

Nevertheless, the reviews have left me in a state of rage, as well as bafflement. Here are some items from President Bush’s speech that piqued my interest.

“And second guessing is not a strategy” – perhaps that’s true, but it’s better than the current strategy, which appears to be non-existent. Bush says that our strategy is clear, but why is it that no one can figure it out? Let alone that the reasons for being there continue to be discredited as we learned this week that the CIA informed Vice President Dick Cheney that the Niger uranium claims were not credible in July 2003. With information like that, how can any responsible citizen not second-guess this government?

“Stand behind the American military in its vital mission” – translation: stand behind me while I wield my increasingly unchecked power as the Executive. Of course, Bush invokes the name of the military instead because he knows that politicians in opposition are hesitant to say anything that could be interpreted as not supporting the troops. That makes it dangerous to say you are not on board with the mission, but it’s not really the military’s mission, is it? It’s the President’s mission. And let me be perfectly clear, I don’t stand behind this mission and I don’t stand behind you, President Bush.

“Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies; it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need.” – I’m not an isolationist, and in today’s global society, it’s not realistic to be an isolationist. However, the President’s vision of international involvement is one of unilateral intervention, not of international cooperation. That is what is objectionable about this administration’s approach to world affairs. Imagine living in a neighborhood where the rich guy with the biggest house decided to pave over your lawn and paint your house black. Wouldn’t that bother you? That rich guy in your neighborhood is the equivalent of the United States in the world today. “Don’t tell us what to do; we’ll do whatever we want and if you don’t like it, tough luck.”

“Terrorist surveillance program” - this is a beauty; you have to love how spying on anti-war groups has morphed into terrorist surveillance program. This part of the President’s speech was particularly misleading. He implied that if the domestic surveillance had been in place prior to September 11, two of the terrorists would have been stopped. The 9/11 Commission’s Report disputes this claim.

The President claims that his authority to institute such a program is Constitutional and by statute, however, this is hotly debated and by no means a certainty. This is also an attempt to obscure the real issue with the NSA surveillance, which of course has to do with obtaining warrants, not the actual spying. The President also stated that previous Presidents had used the same authority to order this type of surveillance, but again, this is false. In fact, during President Clinton’s tenure, the FISA law did not cover electronic surveillance and that is why Clinton didn’t get a warrant to obtain the authority. The Clinton administration had the law changed because it was concerned that evidence obtained under this surveillance may not be admissible in court.

The President also stated that appropriate members of Congress were kept informed about the program. Anyone who can read a newspaper knows this isn’t true.

As I write this and read the President’s speech at the same time, I realize I could go on for quite a while, however, I want to address the Democratic response to the speech. Calling it a response might be somewhat generous as it was the kind of weak-kneed speech that Democrats didn’t need. Governor Kaine of Virginia decided to go the soft route in his speech and talk about a “better way” to do things. Ugh! Bush’s speech was full of rhetoric and needed to be blasted. Instead, we got more rhetoric, just from the other side, that demonstrated that the Democratic Party has no idea what it’s doing.

A couple of weeks ago, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton made strong speeches against the President and the war in Iraq, as well as domestic spying. These are the kinds of speeches that need to be made every day by leaders of the Democratic Party. The airwaves must be saturated with the message that the very foundation of this country is under attack from within. Americans must constantly be reminded that this President has lied us in to war, threatened civil liberties and quite possibly broken the law. The mainstream media cannot be counted on to provide a balanced message any longer. Its views are becoming more and more pro-administration. Therefore, liberals need to get out there and bring the message to the people. Blogging can only get through to so many.

The lies of the Bush Administration must be constantly combated and discredited, else they become the de facto truth. America has become a land where lies are truth, and the truth is a smear. We need to change that for the sake of our country.

Rep. John Murtha is the man who should have been asked to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union. The fact that he wasn’t shows that the Democrats are lost in how to deal with the Bush Administration and quite possibly, are not the party for Progressives to support.