State of the Union Begins 'National Security' Campaign of 2006
Kevin Zeese
February 03, 2006
Bush drew the lines for the 2006 mid-term elections in the State of the Union. The Republicans will be making the campaign about national security. Throughout the speech, the Democrats being the loyal opposition, with an emphasis on loyal, obediently stood for repeated standing ovations.
While proclaiming to seek to create a “civil tone” in Washington, where politicians “act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another. And I will do my part,” Bush defined those who oppose his vision of “security” as defeatists, negativists, losers, retreaters, who don’t care about protecting the prosperity of the American way of life. Two examples:
We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom—or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy—or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting—yet it ends in danger and decline.”
There is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.”
A 'national security' campaign bores in on the fissures within the Democratic Party. It will play on the divisions between the DLC Democrats urging the Party to run “National Security Democrats” and those challenging the Iraq War who are more in line with the base of the Party.
While Bush may be right that hindsight alone is not wisdom, certainly ignoring hindsight is not wise. He spent 35 minutes defending the illegal occupation of Iraq (while only making passing reference to the problems of Katrina) but seemed to have learned nothing from the experience in Iraq. He ignored the failure in Iraq where killings continue daily, where ethnic and sectarian divisions are expanding and where the new government is having difficulty forming. He also ignores the views of Iraqis. The University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes released a poll of Iraqis the day of the State of the Union that found 80 percent want a timetable for withdrawal and 47 percent of all Iraqis, and 88 percent of Sunnis, approve of “attacks on U.S.-led forces.”
He also has ignored reports showing that the Iraq War is actually making the United States less secure and the Middle East less stable. The reality is that U.S. presence is adding to instability and ethnic conflict as well as providing a unifying value for the insurgents. U.S. presence is drawing mainstream Iraq into the insurgency and is, as CIA director Porter Goss testified and reports of the CIA and State Department have found turning Iraq into a training ground for terrorists.
Indeed, the President raised the specter of a new major front in his world war on “extremist Islam” – Iran. But even here the mistakes of his administration have made Iran more dangerous. Bush rejected diplomatic outreach to former President Mohammad Khatami and the reform elements in Iran, rejected outreach from the Iranian mullahs for assistance in dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, miscalculated the increased influence of Iran as a result of the Iraq War and then helped elect a more extreme president by denouncing Ahmadinejad on the eve of the Iranian election boosting his support. But, no hindsight lessons learned from this President – he keeps blundering forward toward war.
The dangerous impact of his economic policy on US security was also not discussed. No mention of poverty rising and median income falling for five years in a row. No mention of the record trade deficits and slowest job creation since 1939, with government creating more jobs than business over the last five years. As Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of Treasury for President Reagan, notes “Without the new jobs waiting tables and serving drinks, the US economy in the past five years would have eked out a measly 64,000 jobs. In other words, there is a job depression in the US.”
Further, the economic security of the United States is being destroyed by the Bush (and Clinton) administration's so-called “free” trade policies – which have really been laws that empower international corporations, send jobs overseas and create a gigantic trade deficit. The US has amassed $2.85 trillion in trade deficits in the five years . As Paul Craig Roberts highlights: “The US ‘superpower’ is dependent on China for advanced technology products and is dependent on Asia to finance its massive deficits and foreign wars. In view of the rapid collapse of US economic potential, my prediction in January 2004 that the US would be a third world economy in 20 years was optimistic.” How does that protect US security?
The national security tests for politicians in 2006 are going to be coming quickly. Will they seriously investigate the NSA eavesdropping program or will they allow the President to avoid obeying the law due to 'fear' of terrorism? Will they cave in and approve the Patriot Act? A Patriot Act that not only includes the old erosions of the Constitution – secret searches of people homes, monitoring of financial and medical records, searches of library records – but new provisions that make it a crime to hold an unauthorized sign when the President or Vice President speaks. And, will they challenge the Iraq War by requiring the President to develop an exit strategy or 'stay the course'? And, of course, there may be the challenge of Iran.
Indeed, the President bogged down in an Iraq quagmire announced a broadening of his military goals saying, “Abroad, our nation is committed to a historic long-term goal. We seek the end of tyranny in our world.” And he put this goal in terms of security saying “the future security of America depends on it.” But is picking fights, starting wars and killing those in countries we disagree with really in the self-interest of the United States? Will it really make America safer? Or, in reality will the creation of more enemies make us less safe?
And what is this going to do to economic problems the US is already facing. We are spending $6 billion each month on the Iraq War. What will it cost to rid the world of tyranny? Bush juxtaposed his expensive foreign policy plans with the need to examine the impact of the baby boom reaching retirement on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. He says he values life but prefers to spend tax dollars on war rather than caring for the elderly and ill. Once again Bush is trading economic security for military conflict.
A clue of what the great American value of Freedom of Speech will look like in the 'national security state' was provided by the treatment of Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union. They arrested her in the Congress for wearing a shirt – a shirt that listed the number of soldiers killed in Iraq. Shortly after her arrest Bush said: “Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom's cause.” The irony of an arrest for wearing a shirt and Bush's call for freedom defined the evening.
We don't need this vision of a 'national security state.' The United States needs real security not the false rhetorical security of perpetual war. The US needs real patriotism that stands for traditional American values including rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. We need, as the President said “to act boldly in freedom's cause.”
Kevin Zeese is Director of Democracy Rising (www.DemocracyRising.US) and a candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland (www.KevinZeese.com).
While proclaiming to seek to create a “civil tone” in Washington, where politicians “act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another. And I will do my part,” Bush defined those who oppose his vision of “security” as defeatists, negativists, losers, retreaters, who don’t care about protecting the prosperity of the American way of life. Two examples:
We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom—or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy—or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting—yet it ends in danger and decline.”
There is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.”
A 'national security' campaign bores in on the fissures within the Democratic Party. It will play on the divisions between the DLC Democrats urging the Party to run “National Security Democrats” and those challenging the Iraq War who are more in line with the base of the Party.
While Bush may be right that hindsight alone is not wisdom, certainly ignoring hindsight is not wise. He spent 35 minutes defending the illegal occupation of Iraq (while only making passing reference to the problems of Katrina) but seemed to have learned nothing from the experience in Iraq. He ignored the failure in Iraq where killings continue daily, where ethnic and sectarian divisions are expanding and where the new government is having difficulty forming. He also ignores the views of Iraqis. The University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes released a poll of Iraqis the day of the State of the Union that found 80 percent want a timetable for withdrawal and 47 percent of all Iraqis, and 88 percent of Sunnis, approve of “attacks on U.S.-led forces.”
He also has ignored reports showing that the Iraq War is actually making the United States less secure and the Middle East less stable. The reality is that U.S. presence is adding to instability and ethnic conflict as well as providing a unifying value for the insurgents. U.S. presence is drawing mainstream Iraq into the insurgency and is, as CIA director Porter Goss testified and reports of the CIA and State Department have found turning Iraq into a training ground for terrorists.
Indeed, the President raised the specter of a new major front in his world war on “extremist Islam” – Iran. But even here the mistakes of his administration have made Iran more dangerous. Bush rejected diplomatic outreach to former President Mohammad Khatami and the reform elements in Iran, rejected outreach from the Iranian mullahs for assistance in dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, miscalculated the increased influence of Iran as a result of the Iraq War and then helped elect a more extreme president by denouncing Ahmadinejad on the eve of the Iranian election boosting his support. But, no hindsight lessons learned from this President – he keeps blundering forward toward war.
The dangerous impact of his economic policy on US security was also not discussed. No mention of poverty rising and median income falling for five years in a row. No mention of the record trade deficits and slowest job creation since 1939, with government creating more jobs than business over the last five years. As Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of Treasury for President Reagan, notes “Without the new jobs waiting tables and serving drinks, the US economy in the past five years would have eked out a measly 64,000 jobs. In other words, there is a job depression in the US.”
Further, the economic security of the United States is being destroyed by the Bush (and Clinton) administration's so-called “free” trade policies – which have really been laws that empower international corporations, send jobs overseas and create a gigantic trade deficit. The US has amassed $2.85 trillion in trade deficits in the five years . As Paul Craig Roberts highlights: “The US ‘superpower’ is dependent on China for advanced technology products and is dependent on Asia to finance its massive deficits and foreign wars. In view of the rapid collapse of US economic potential, my prediction in January 2004 that the US would be a third world economy in 20 years was optimistic.” How does that protect US security?
The national security tests for politicians in 2006 are going to be coming quickly. Will they seriously investigate the NSA eavesdropping program or will they allow the President to avoid obeying the law due to 'fear' of terrorism? Will they cave in and approve the Patriot Act? A Patriot Act that not only includes the old erosions of the Constitution – secret searches of people homes, monitoring of financial and medical records, searches of library records – but new provisions that make it a crime to hold an unauthorized sign when the President or Vice President speaks. And, will they challenge the Iraq War by requiring the President to develop an exit strategy or 'stay the course'? And, of course, there may be the challenge of Iran.
Indeed, the President bogged down in an Iraq quagmire announced a broadening of his military goals saying, “Abroad, our nation is committed to a historic long-term goal. We seek the end of tyranny in our world.” And he put this goal in terms of security saying “the future security of America depends on it.” But is picking fights, starting wars and killing those in countries we disagree with really in the self-interest of the United States? Will it really make America safer? Or, in reality will the creation of more enemies make us less safe?
And what is this going to do to economic problems the US is already facing. We are spending $6 billion each month on the Iraq War. What will it cost to rid the world of tyranny? Bush juxtaposed his expensive foreign policy plans with the need to examine the impact of the baby boom reaching retirement on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. He says he values life but prefers to spend tax dollars on war rather than caring for the elderly and ill. Once again Bush is trading economic security for military conflict.
A clue of what the great American value of Freedom of Speech will look like in the 'national security state' was provided by the treatment of Cindy Sheehan at the State of the Union. They arrested her in the Congress for wearing a shirt – a shirt that listed the number of soldiers killed in Iraq. Shortly after her arrest Bush said: “Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom's cause.” The irony of an arrest for wearing a shirt and Bush's call for freedom defined the evening.
We don't need this vision of a 'national security state.' The United States needs real security not the false rhetorical security of perpetual war. The US needs real patriotism that stands for traditional American values including rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. We need, as the President said “to act boldly in freedom's cause.”
Kevin Zeese is Director of Democracy Rising (www.DemocracyRising.US) and a candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland (www.KevinZeese.com).
Print
Email
