In reviewing Bush State of the Union speech last night, the old joke about "how do you know so-and-so is lying; his lips are moving" comes to mind. In today's Washington Post, Glenn Kessler gives us a few doozies:*"Bush also claimed that "we have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism." But Monday, a poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries was released that showed that global opinion of U.S. foreign policy has sharply deteriorated in the past two years."
Can anyone come up with a recent example of the world joining us in the fight against extremism?
*"On domestic policy, Bush at one point said that "the recovery" has added more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003. But the net number of jobs created since Bush became president in January 2001, is much lower -- just 3.6 million."
As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. In this case, Bush is using statistics to mislead, forgetting about all the layoffs, outsourcing, and other job losses that have occurred on his watch.
*"Bush claimed credit for cutting the budget deficit ahead of schedule and proposed to eliminate it over the next five years. He did not mention that he inherited a huge budget surplus -- $236 billion in 2000 -- compared with a $296 billion deficit in the 2006 fiscal year, largely as a result of Bush's tax cuts and spending increases."
This one makes me particularly angry, because the Clinton Administration worked hard to undue the mess left to them by Reagan and Bush 41. Then, in just a year or two, Bush 43 undid all that good work. Heckuva job!
*"Bush claimed that the No Child Left Behind Act has helped students to "perform better at reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap." But states made stronger average annual gains in reading during the decade before the law took effect, education researchers have found..."
Minor details. By the way, can we say "unfunded federal mandate?"
*Bush said "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat."
In reality, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites are not part of a monolithic bloc, let alone a monolithic "enemy." Who IS "the enemy," anyway? Is it Saudi Arabia, the country which gave the world Osama bin Laden, not to mention 15 of 19 hijackers on 9/11? How about Pakistan, which is almost certainly where Bin Laden plus other top Al Qaeda and Taliban figures are living.
*Speaking of Pakistan, what on earth does Bush mean when he says, "We didn't drive Al Qaida out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq?"
Last time I checked, Al Qaeda left its "safe haven" in Afghanistan for Pakistan and many other countries around the world. Before we invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda wasn't there. Is Bush saying that our invasion of Iraq drew Al Qaeda fighters to that country instead of to other countries? And if true (I strongly doubt it, by the way), what is this accomplishing?
*Talking about the Middle East, Bush says that "we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers and brave voices for democracy."
In other words, Bush lumps all those groups together. Yet, "moderates" like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are certainly not reforming. In Egypt, for instance, the government has cracked down on pro-reform and democratic elements, and we have done nothing about it. The point is, the Bush Administration can't have it both ways, supporting the "moderates" (I suppose, defined as not violently and overtly anti-Western?) while also pushing democracy and reform. And, despite the Bush Administration's rhetoric on the subject, it is obvious that when push comes to shove, they choose "moderate" (albeit authoritarian or even totalitarian) over democratic/reformist pretty much every time.
I'm sure there are a lot more distortions in Bush's speech. Go through it carefully, and see how many you can find. Fun for the whole family! :)
btw, that Bushoccio pic is priceless! did you make that?