Daryl Baginski
Published: February 4 2004
President Bush touched on many topics Jan. 20 during his State of the Union Address.
The main topic was the “War on Terror” and Iraq. His argument for why the Patriot Act should be updated is that law enforcement officials use “similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers.”
But the goals of terrorists and drug traffickers are significantly different. If the new provisions allow the state to label anyone as an “enemy combatant,” which denies said combatant access to counsel or family, detaining him or her with no formal charges, then the provisions are much different from catching drug traffickers, who receive less than “enemy combatant” status.
The issue of weapons in Iraq was also discussed. In the 2003 State of the Union Address we were told Saddam’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and Iraq posed an “eminent threat.” Secretary Powell told the UN, “We know he has seven of these mobile biological agent factories.” If Pentagon officials knew of these weapons why did they send in ground troops with faulty or no protective gear?
Is it logical that an entire division of Army troops would march into a country that possesses biological weapons? A more reasonable explanation is that forces did invade on the ground because they knew there were no such weapons and it would be a quick march to Bagdad.
If Saddam did or did not have weapons of mass destruction and U.S. commanders ordered soldiers to move into range of them, why is Bush now stating, “We’re seeking all the facts?” Shouldn’t they have done that before invading? Nevertheless, no weapons have been found, and that was used as a pretense to war. No speech can get around that, and Mr. Bush didn’t attempt to explain the alleged information.
The clever speechwriters in Washington threw in a few red herrings to give the speech a fresh appeal: less than 90 words on steroid use in U.S. athletic.