United States President George Bush's annual State of the Union Address has, quite interestingly, laid open the extent to which the Iraq war has divided the country, as Bush appealed for more time to resolve the conflict.
Even as support for him among the public and Congress – even the Republicans – is waning, Bush argued that whatever the motivations of the members of Congress at the time of the war, there was a consensus in the US that the war had to be won.
"This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in," Bush said. In contrast with previous years, when his pronouncements on Iraq were cheered by Congressmen, his passage on Iraq was listened to largely in silence. The divide was clearest when Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Administration's `hawk' – sitting behind the President – rose to applaud Bush while Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House and a critic of the Iraq war, remained seated.
Elsewhere in the chamber, some Republicans also stood to applaud, but many Congressmen refused to rise.
Bush, in his 53-minute speech, the sixth of his presidency, attempted to regain some of the authority that has ebbed away from him in recent months, especially in the last fortnight over his unpopular decision to send additional US troops to Iraq.
Bush devoted about half of his speech to foreign policy, mainly Iraq, and half to domestic issues.
The other notable point from the foreign policy passage was his repeated jibes at Iran, particularly allegations that it was heavily involved in Iraq.
The most eye-catching of the domestic initiatives was a proposal to try to tackle America's "addiction to oil" by setting an ambitious target to reduce petrol consumption within 10 years by 20%. He set out a plan to achieve this through increased use of ethanol and other bio-fuel alternatives and through car manufacturers making their products more fuel-efficient.
Other domestic initiatives included a proposal to offer temporary status to immigrant workers, which he has proposed before and failed to get through Congress, and health care reform.
However, Bush's address was dominated by Iraq. He said: "Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned and our own security at risk. On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory."
State of the Union Addresses are notable for the odd ritual in which members of Congress from both parties jump regularly to their feet to applaud the President, but Bush only got that applause towards the end of the passage on the war when he called for support for the troops going to Iraq.
The mood on Capitol Hill and the country in general is now so predominantly anti-war, and Bush clearly failed to change minds. Though he has two years to run and still has the power to embark on another war – though that is unlikely – the speech may mark the point at which his presidency was effectively over, at least in terms of getting his programme through and being listened to on Iraq.
Members of both Senate and House of Representatives will, on Wednesday, continue with preparations for a resolution condemning the troop increase, backed by Democrats and dissident Republicans. The White House, for the first time, acknowledged on Tuesday that it was going to lose the resolution.
Meanwhile, President Bush's nominee to be the next commander in Iraq, Army Lieutenant-General David H Petraeus, told Congress on Tuesday that the situation in the war-torn Iraq was dire and posed "tough days" ahead, but he pleaded for time to begin executing a new strategy.
Petraeus, 54, who developed the Army's counterinsurgency warfare manual, is expected to win Senate approval this week, despite being an architect of Bush's unpopular new strategy. But, as Petraeus fielded questions from Senators of both parties about the deepening dilemma facing US forces, he was forthcoming and occasionally blunt in his assessment of American odds in Iraq.Labels: International Politics |
