POTUS's SOTU etc...

Last night's state of the Union speech evoked an unexpected reaction from me. Complete relief. I didn't really even pay that close attention to it. I just let it wash over me knowing it would be over in good time and the rest of my evening would progress unabated. In the past, I have watched these speeches, especially over the last eight years, paying great attention to the language, invective and detail of their delivery. This attention was mostly followed by some manifestation of anger. But not last night.

Simply put, the end is in sight. This final Bush state of the Union, with all of its flaccidity and ineloquence was the last we'll have to deal with. His executive abuse of power, plutocratic plunder/fortifying, national image damaging, amoral malfeasance and war mongering aside, what was most objectionable about Bush the man was that he is the antithesis of inspiring to me. A true leader leads in two chief ways; inspirational in words, ideas and example; and by the actions he takes with the power granted to him by the people and its government. It is surely no surprise that the Bourgeois Deviant take is he's been a colossal failure on both counts.

In water cooler discussions this a.m., what came out is that most of us just missed good, head-of-state oratory. Bush's plain spoken-ness simply hasn't inspired me. Given the station the the office of President holds in American government and general zeitgeist, rousing the electorate to aim high, etc... just hasn't been happening. In effect, as President and especially in this regard, Bush has epitomized the soft bigotry of low expectations. This American knows irony when he sees it.

The only genuinely vexing element of the entire experience, thankfully momentary, was seeing Vice President Cheney over President Bush's right shoulder. Sitting in his chair with a smile like he was a winner. It was irksome, but thankfully not for much longer. I just hope that Bush and Cheney take a little trip to Vermont in the near future. Call it reaping what they have sewn.

Kathleen Sebelius gave the Democratic response. It was pretty good in content, but the sense of relief from the prior speech overwhelmed whatever adamance I may have had to agree with her.

Must read

Yesterday in the Washington Post, George McGovern had an OpEd entitled Why I Believe Bush Must Go. Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse. It is a piece on the need for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. It is realistic and argued with the full knowledge of its unlikelihood. However, he calls impeachment's persuit "the rightful course for an American patriot." It will come as no surprise that I agree as evidenced by these entries.

McGovern was before my time and I don't know a great deal about him. My perception has nearly always been that he was a sort of sacred cow of the Democratic Party. When he speaks out on an issue, which appears to be rarely, people do, or should, listen. Hopefully this will be the case and affect action of American patriots.

The Paks Are In The Lead

From Friday's (9/15/06) press conference w/ President Bush.

QUESTION: ... Mr. President.Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: Now recently, you've also...

BUSH: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.

QUESTION: Well, recently, you've also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain, why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden wherever he is.

BUSH: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about -- somebody report -- well, you know, your special forces here. Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, which this person thought he might be who was asking me the question -- Pakistan's a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan. Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that. And then when you find him, you bring him to justice. And, you know, there is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn't stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It's convenient throw-away lines, you know, when people say that. We have been on the hunt, and we'll stay on the hunt until we bring him to justice. And we're doing it in a smart fashion, Richard, we are. And I'll look forward to talking to President Musharraf. Look, he doesn't like Al Qaida. They tried to kill him. And we've had a good record of bringing people to justice inside of Pakistan, because the Paks are in the lead. They know the stakes about dealing with a, you know, a violent form of ideological extremists. So we will continue on the hunt, and we've been effective about bringing to justice most of those who planned and plotted the 9/11 attacks, and we still got a lot of pressure on them. The best way to protect the homeland is to stay on the offense and keep pressure on them.

How is an answer like this acceptable from a sitting President of the United States? The only urban myths in Washington are President Bush's competency, that his administration sees actual reality as the rest of us do and that America is actually on the offensive in the war on terror.