By
TheSequitur.com Senior Editor
Feb. 1, 2006 [Photo - FoxNews.com]
WEST PALM BEACH -- A year ago, a confident and emboldened President Bush, fresh off an
impressive – although not a landslide – electoral victory, declared,
“I’ve earned political capital, and I intend to use it.” Then came
Sheehan, Katrina, Libby and Abramoff, the escalating anti-war movement,
racial animosities, gas prices and questions of integrity. Come Tuesday
night, at his fifth State of the Union address, Bush looked more like a
man whose political capital had run out and whose presidency had run
its course.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Bush’s past policy speeches (this author takes no position either way), there was one unmistakable, fundamental constant: boldness. He boldly declared after Sept. 11 that in this new war on terrorism, “you are either with us or against us.” He boldly labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea members of an Axis of Evil, which the world must confront. He boldly asserted the United States’ right to launch preemptive and unprovoked strikes against “rogue” nations in the run up to the Iraq war. Then, Bush boldly pushed for peace - particularly in the Middle East – through the advance of democracy and freedom - fusing the traditionally opposed worldviews of realism and idealism.
Bush’s latest State of the Union address was at worst flaccid and at best conciliatory, an uncharacteristic display for this administration and, hence, a sign of political weakness. Along with a limp-wristed offer of reconciliation with the Democrats, Bush briefly hit a smorgasbord of kitchen table issues and programs Tuesday affecting healthcare, education and social security.
But, Bush must face the fact that it is too late to remake his presidency. History, for better or worse, will recognize him for his foreign, not domestic, policy. His speech and his approach to his presidency for the next three years should have reflected that. By taking a stronger stance against Iran and its uranium enrichment program, the president could have fortified his base, rejuvenated national vigor and laid a clear path for American foreign policy in the next three years.
Where was the tough talk to Russia and China, declaring they are either “with us or against us” in preventing a nuclear Iran? Where were any references to Iran’s membership in the Axis of Evil? Why after Bush declared “America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats” did he not, as he did in the lead up to the Iraqi conflict, avow that if the world did not act, America and its allies would?
By shifting the national debate to Iran – and away from domestic and Iraq policies that are only bogging down his poll numbers and agenda – the president could operate in a venue where he has better footing: foreign policy. Then, Bush could simply wrap his domestic priorities in the blanket of national security. Drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and approving more oil refineries and nuclear plants, for instance, would cut the flow of American dollars to terrorists and the regimes that protect them. Border security would be not about stopping an onslaught of illegal immigrants but rather stopping Al-Qaeda. Lastly, how can America afford to maintain its first-class military and national defenses when record deficits set in thanks to exponential increases in entitlements and Social Security expenditures?
Tuesday’s address was one of the last opportunities for the president to tie together the many iterations of the Bush Doctrine, secure his place in history and, perhaps, accomplish some of his domestic goals. Unfortunately, he tried to be too many things for too many people. Maybe he only needs to be one thing for the American people: bold. , a TheSequitur.com senior editor, is a staff writer for the Palm Beach Post. His analysis does not represent that of the Post or Cox Communications.
Nation 
