We do not consider it necessary to analyze President Bush’s State of the Union Address, or the preposterous behaviour of the Moonbat Mom Cindy Sheehan (soon to be a senatorial candidate if things go the way one wishes them).
Nor is it necessary to analyze the reactions to it – much as one would have predicted: those who suffer from “Bush derangement syndrome” hated it, sensible Dems liked some but disliked other aspects, Republicans and those on the right mostly liked it. Well, what do you expect?
Most of the speech was devoted to the international situation and the developments in Iraq (after three successful elections and talks on a coalition government, the President can afford a certain amount of pride). It is, we think, worth quoting a couple of paragraphs to remind our readers that being a strong power or wanting to be a strong power carries certain responsibilities:
“In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline.
The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership.
So the United States of America will continue to lead.
Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom's cause.
Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time.
In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today there are 122.
And we are writing a new chapter in the story of self-government, with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom.
At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran -- because the demands of justice and the peace of this world require their freedom as well.”
Obviously, I do not know who wrote the speech, who edited it and how much input the President had. But at its lowest one can say that he recognized resounding words when he saw them. We hear a great deal about the man’s stupidity, tongue-tiedness and about Blair’s superior understanding of the language and its use. I, for one, would like to hear words of this kind from Tony Blair or his self-appointed successor, the Boy-King of the Conservative Party.