TUESDAY night, the United States took one more step closer to the precipice of armed conflict as President Bush's projected his rhetoric past the gathered Congress and instead focused on preparing the American people for war. The State of the Union Address, like many American traditions, is a vestigial requirement mandated by the founders in order to serve a purpose that no longer comports with the needs of the modern presidency. Tuesday's address had the potential to be a watershed moment for Bush's administration. The dual fears of economic struggle and armed conflict loomed large in the media as the night of the annual address approached. However, Bush squandered the evening and instead offered an anticlimactic speech that only furthered the familiar rhetoric of the Bush administration, and the GOP, in general.
The address began as expected, focusing on domestic issues. This is appropriate, considering the continued duress on the American people from a malnourished economy. Bush conspicuously avoided dwelling on the details of his newly-unveiled tax cut plan. Following a recent embarrassing public appearance where the President came off as quite inarticulate when pressed with questions concerning the specifics, this comes as little surprise. The Republicans responded with the appropriate ovations, and the speaker quickly moved on.
Bush then transitioned into speaking on health care, at which point the speech sounded less like an executive proposing a legislative initiative to Congress, and more like a campaigning politician trying to woo a swing constituency. However, the pitch of the speech remained somber and unenthusiastic. This would soon change.
After spending approximately half the speech on domestic issues, the President moved on to what would be the meat of his address: foreign policy concerns. Here, as was the case when addressing the economy, Bush wasted another opportunity.
The American people have been inundated with rhetoric from various constituencies addressing concerns over conflict in the Middle East or even in North Korea. Tuesday night, Bush again cashed his own blank check for a war on terrorism, written out of the ruins of the World Trade Center, by painting Iraq as a naturally belligerent nation that cannot be dealt with according to the traditional paradigms of enforcement of international law. He proffered the failure of economic sanctions and the continuing inefficacy of U.N. inspections. These seem valid and thoughtful reasons to reexamine international sanctions against Iraq's continuing lack of cooperation.
However, Bush departed from credible deliberation and took steps to attach Hussein to al Qaeda and terrorist biological strikes on U.S. soil. The President went from describing Iraq as a regional instigator of conflict in the Middle East to attempting to establish Iraq's weapons potential -- and subsequent failure to cooperate with U.N. inspections -- as a clear and present danger to the United States. This obvious prelude to war offered little concrete evidence to the American people, yet promised to present appropriate justification to the international community in an attempt for multilateral intervention.
This "trust me, they're dangerous" approach is insufficient. If Iraq is as dangerous as the President would make it seem -- and it may well be such -- then Bush should work to make the case at home before assuming he has a domestic mandate sufficient to imply collaboration with the international community.
Rumors that Secretary of State Powell himself had become more hawkish in the past week only demonstrate a more complete administrative commitment to war with Iraq. Yet the decisive threat posed to the United States has not been established. This case must be presented to the American people. What are the designs of the conflict?What is the end-game scenario? Will there be a regime change or an American-led reconstruction? What are the costs involved? These are all questions that would be important to address in the State of the Union. Bush instead painted his foreign policy views in broad brushstrokes, giving little valuable information to legislators or the American people, other than the clear intention to go to war.
Beyond his lackluster articulation of his economic recovery plan, Bush squandered a once-in-a-presidency chance to unite the American people in a common enterprise. The case was not well made for armed conflict. No new evidence was presented. The precedent implied in preemptive defense is frightening,and cannot be sought as a policy object without credible evidence of a direct and imminent threat to the United States of America. Should this be the case, then war is the obvious recourse. However, Bush still has much to show the American people. He should note the mistakes of his father, who neglected domestic problems during Desert Storm toward the end of his term. Time will tell how his son's legacy addresses the same problems.
Preston Lloyd's column appears Thursdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 6 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | May 1, 2025As people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | May 1, 2025We hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
