This Week's Attitude
State Of Union Heckuva Lot Better Than State Of Bush Presidency
By Neil S. Friedman

If you watched the State of the Union speech last week, you probably deduced that the union is - on the whole - doing okay. On the other hand, it was easy to conclude that the state of the presidency, as a consequence of George W. Bush's blind ambition in Iraq, is in disarray.

It's hard to imagine a more obstinate, pigheaded American leader in the last 50 years than the current chief executive. And, due to those character traits, it has left this country bogged down in a Middle East quagmire, severely damaged America's image abroad, while, here at home, Inauguration Day 2009 can't come soon enough for most Americans. Hopefully, it won't be too difficult or take too long to deal with the mismanaged remnants left in the wake of the Bush administration.

As the president gave his penultimate State of the Union, it was obvious that much of the swagger and bluster he displayed for a few years after 9/11, when his presidency was on a roll, is conspicuously absent. That visible change in demeanor is undoubtedly due to the strain brought on by the sustained lack of support for the Iraq war, particularly from the increasing opposition from his own political party, in addition to the change in Congressional leadership that is expected to challenge his every choice.

Bush persistently refuses to admit that his war - and it is undeniably HIS since he provoked and prolonged it - is going down in proverbial flames. But instead of changing course by formulating a viable strategy for withdrawal or seeking some sort of diplomatic agenda, he opted for a "surge" of 21,000 troops - during the Vietnam War that type of decision was called "escalation" - that several former and active military leaders have called a mistake. (In fact, the only surge in Bush's world of late is diminishing poll numbers that show approval for him at a miserable 28 percent, which is almost the low point for President Nixon one month before he resigned in August, 1974.)

In the speech, Bush called for a bipartisan advisory council of Congressional leaders to formulate a plan to combat terrorism. The only bipartisanship he should expect from a Democrat-controlled Congress is continued opposition to his failed agendas.

One ranking Congressional Republican bluntly told columnist Robert Novak: "The president and his aides are irrelevant…" noting they refuse to acknowledge they are out of touch following last November's election, which, essentially, was an anti-Bush mandate.

Nevertheless, Bush once more tried to convince a nation that has essentially turned its back on his foreign policy that if we stay the course in Iraq, we can exit as winners. It's as if, in the end, his only goal is to fulfill the words on that huge banner - Mission Accomplished - he prematurely endorsed one month after the Iraq invasion.

Bush practically begged Congress and the country to give the war another chance in the speech. The president had his chance - several chances, in fact - and he blew whatever opportunity he had to get the nation behind him. So his indirect plea to let the latest plan work fell on deaf ears, though no one expected anything different.

Late last week an angry Bush told those who oppose his new Iraq strategy that he's "the decision-maker." It's exactly that sort of arrogance, which ignores the Constitution's fixed structure of checks and balances to prevent a domineering chief executive, that has caused his ratings to plummet. His decisions have been costly flops, failures and fiascos. Financially costly and costly in terms of the 3,000 American lives that have been lost in Iraq. Consequently, his authority has eroded and there's no one to blame but himself.

If only he would have remained on track in the war on terror and directed his strategy to seek and confront those who sent and supported the men who attacked America on 9/11. Instead, the president - with Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and others bending his ears - pursued a careless agenda that seemed more like a personal vendetta.

The vice president blames opposition to the war on the media, which he has claimed over and over is not reporting the good that we are doing in Iraq. But that argument carries little weight with steady reports of the growing civil strife and the obvious ineffectiveness of our presence. The media was the administration's tool when the war began three years ago and embedded journalists reported on our initial triumphs, but as the scenario dragged on in vain, it began covering the reality of the situation, which was not what the administration was telling the public or what it wanted to hear.

Furthermore, allies who were eager to support us at the outset have since withdrawn most or all of their troops and refuse to bolster whatever forces remain.

Domestically, the state of the union is fine with the economy doing well and the unemployment rate comparatively low. However, energy independence and alternatives, health care and other issues need to be addressed and taken care of sooner than later.

In view of the fact that the president has failed miserably to manage America's foreign policy and ignored countless warnings about his poor tactics, it is up to the Democrats and Republicans who have renounced Bush's strategy to take the lead and begin rectifying the mistakes of the last several years. The first step is to enact a practical policy for the redeployment of troops in Iraq by getting them out of harm's way as safely as possible and progressively sever our ties to that bungled maelstrom.

The president's penultimate State of the Union speech was quite uninspired, particularly since its key elements were leaked to the media days earlier. It did, nonetheless, reflect George Bush's years in office that might have left a praiseworthy legacy if not for his brazen overconfidence and reckless, narrow-minded vision.