On Tuesday night, January 23, 2007, President George W. Bush delivered for the first time not only his annual State of the Union speech to a Democratic-controlled Congress but to a female Speaker of the House, to boot.
An air of anticipation and anxiety preceded this speech, as observers couldn’t wait to see a bowed and bloodied Bush bleat mea culpas to the Congress.
I wondered if any of the legislators would even bother showing up or, if so, make any effort at eye contact with the man.
The stage was set for a very awkward, uncomfortable, and possibly highly contentious evening.
Call this the Y2K speech. Nothing happened. Bush was amazingly composed and controlled, Democratic members of Congress were responsibly gracious in their initial reception of the President, and, most important, no tomatoes were thrown at the podium.
Seriously, consider the setting. The President was to address the country and Congress and talk about why, among other things, after little or no success thus far in the War in Iraq, why he decided against his countrymen’s wishes and the sense of Congress to deploy more troops in Baghdad rather than reshuffle them to safer bases in the countryside in preparation for an imminent and subdued withdrawal from the theater.
Bush is alone, isolated, and trying desperately to convert newly-turned and ever-increasing numbers of unbelievers into a state of acceptance of what he believes is the next step necessary to ensure success and victory in Iraq.
Success. Victory. Things have been deteriorating so badly under President Bush’s administration that no one can seemingly define easily what a positive outcome in Iraq would look like. Sure, stopping sectarian violence would be enormously positive; however, that blood-letting is largely beyond our control.
Or is it? Some believe that U.S. presence in Babylon begs the violence. In fact, the waters are so muddied by the banks of the River Tigris that is nearly impossible to discern what are the true primary dynamics in this conflict. Partisan interests have their own beliefs (and perverse political desires), but when will reasoned, balanced historians be able to make fair assessments of how, where, and why Iraq jumped the tracks and crashed into our national psyche?
At some point – and this isn’t it – I’ll write my own uninformed post mortem of the War. For now, however, I’ll observe others as they struggle with delivering a desirable solution or choose to sit in the background and witness our moral and diplomatic destruction. One thing I’m sensing are very strong, pungent winds blowing around about a dozen Republican and Democratic insiders who are hoping to succeed Mr. Bush in January, 2009.
Where’s the energy to fix Iraq? It seems as though there’s more energy to ensure failure in that country and blame it on President Bush. That’s fair to some extent, as he’s clearly staked his historical destiny on this Mesopotamian battlefield. Yet, our young are being killed and injured on those battlefields. I expect our leaders to move quickly to seek those seemingly impossible steps to contain and resolve this national nightmare.
Mr. Bush mentioned a bipartisan advisory council to address the war on terrorism, which I interpreted to include the current conflict in Iraq. I hope this is a sincere overture to the Hill to get involved, roll up their sleeves, and solve what has developed into a situation where no totally pleasant short-term or long-term outcome appears likely. If our leaders could place their considerable abilities into working this crisis, perhaps this country could succeed in achieving George W. Bush’s vision of a democratic Middle East, or at least a geographic region that is moving in that direction and not away from it.
Rather, our luminaries are expending their highly-touted time and talents in angling themselves for a nomination for an election two years in the future, while many of our warfighters abroad are worrying about their safety over the next two hours, two days, or two weeks.
Yes, President Bush pulled off a speech more professional than pathetic, more measured than moribund, and he spoke about the strength of this country and its citizens; however, listening first on the radio and later watching on TV, I couldn’t help conclude that the current state of our union is stymied and that, unfortunately, serves none of us very well.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 720 words.
© January, 2007