State Of The Union Vapidness

On Monday, I listed my fears about President Bush's State of the Union speech.

I feared pretty much correctly that President Bush would announce troop cuts in Iraq. He said cuts were likely, but would be the military's decision, not his. Cuts seem inevitably in the offing, and I think it's wrong. We should increase troop strength and blast through a short-term, aggressive military assault on jihadist insurgents.

I feared needlessly (for now) that President Bush would announce defense spending cuts. Nothing this specific was mentioned, but I still fear that we are not going to move the defense budget up until it represents five percent of the budget.

I feared rightly that President Bush would talk about temporary worker programs without enough emphasis on border control. He went on about guest workers (which I support) but did not give one whit of detail about toughening up the border. A temporary worker program will not work if illegals can continue to cross the border easily.

I feared that President Bush will say something nice to John Murtha. I didn't hear anything, but I was listening, not watching, so I couldn't see if there was eye contact.

So once again, I made that same old mistake: I expected specifics in the State of the Union speech. There's no constitutional mandate for a State of the Union speech. If I were president, (1) duck and cover because I'd really mess things up, and (2) expect a nice solid written report on the state of the union, and none of this joint session nonsense.