but failed to mention the degree to which Kennedy has since distanced himself from that bill and the added flaws he never agreed to.
If Kennedy refused to sign on to the changes thats a good sign that they where improvements not flaws.
He failed to mention the soaring deficits these tax cuts have caused
Nonsense. So far the tax cuts have been minimal. The deficits have been caused by the economic slowdown and by spending increases.
his new tax cut, aimed at stock dividends, which will once again benefit the wealthiest Americans.
Because they pay the most taxes.
He proposed the development of cleaner energy technology while increasing energy reliance at home, but failed to explain that this was code for the despoiling of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
Mainly because it is not.
Bush spoke of liberating Afghanistan, but failed to mention that this was done with the overwhelming approval and support of the international community.
No need to mention that. The important fact was that it was liberated. The support of others is nice but doesn't change what was done or the importance of it having been done.
He failed to describe the premises upon which those 3,000 were detained
The premise of being terrorists and being our enemies in the war on terror. As for specifics that is too detailed for a state of the union address.
and likewise failed to mention that in the process of rendering those others 'non-problematic,' his war in Afghanistan sent more civilians to death than were lost on September 11th.
I don't think that is firmly established but even if it is true it is also true that in the course of rendering the Axis military machine "non-problematic" we killed a lot more Japanese and German civilians then the number of people killed in Pearl Harbor or even the total number of Americans killed in WWII.
He leveled a damning finger at Saddam Hussein, accusing him of hiding anthrax, VX, botulinin toxin and other terrible weapons. He failed to provide an iota of evidence to back up these assertions
He didn't give the raw data but he did list known weapons or weapon related items which we have inteligence info about or which inspectors have discovered or which Saddam had earlier listed, which have not been properly accounted for. A "smoking gun" will probably only be found after Saddam is kicked out, Iraq is about as big as CA and it is ruthlessly controled by Saddam (by such means as threats to kill the whole family of anyone who informs on the WMD program). We could have inspectors there for decades and not root out the WMD. But the evidence that Saddam has been trying to get WMD is overwhelming and the idea that he has been unable to produce any or even to presever any from his previous stockpile is silly.
Bush failed to mention how the American economy could handle the billions of dollars needed to support the war, the inevitable oil shock that would come as a result of the war, the billions more needed for his missile shield, the billions needed to push his new tax cut through, the billions needed to make his old tax cut permanent, and the billions needed to pay for the new programs he proposed.
Not true. The oil shock has mostly already happened, prices will probably go up more but they will go down after Saddam is defeated. As for all these billions they are comming from a $10tril economy. Bush did say that his plan was to keep the growth of government to 4% or less. If he slows the growth of government spending in other areas that will more then provide the billions for the items Pitt mentions. Of course he might not, perhaps might not be able to, slow the growth of other areas of the government but Pitt's complaint was that Bush "failed to mention how...", not that he "mentioned a plan that I don't think he will (or can) follow through on".
He failed to mention the inevitable blowback of terrorism that America would suffer should this war
take place
We are going to suffer terrorist attacks in any case. Taking out Iraq will take out a major sponsor of terrorism and give others reasons to reflect carefully on their sponsorship of terror.
especially if it takes place with a 'coalition of the willing' that does not include a UN sanction.
Quick show of hands. Who thinks that terrorists care about UN approval?
At no time, and in no way, did George W. Bush mention the name Osama bin Laden.
The threat is not one man, it is the Al Qaida and other terrorists groups.
Tim |
