State of the Union speech tonight!

[NcDeuce]

Bush set to make case for second term

Aides say he will defend war in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday evening is to deliver an election-year State of the Union speech that aides say is designed to rebut attacks from the Democratic candidates for president while defending his decision to invade Iraq.

Aides said he will lay out his presidential legislative priorities and his international priorities.

They say Bush will address the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq and that U.S. troops continue to be killed there. (U.S. death toll in Iraq tops 500)

Bush will make the case that the United States faces a real threat of another terrorist attack, aides said.

The president will focus on domestic issues and the economy, crediting his tax cuts for bringing the economy out of recession, and arguing that they should be made permanent. (CNN/Money: The state of the Bush economy)

Another senior administration official said the 50-minute speech will mention a bill that will focus on job training and retraining for the unemployed.

The president's political advisers are hoping an upbeat, uninterrupted address to the nation one night after Monday's Iowa caucuses will provide a contrast to Democrats competing for the chance to challenge Bush. (On to New Hampshire, after Iowa caucuses, Democrats to make a Spanish-language response)

Bush also will urge Congress to change the law so that a portion of Social Security payroll taxes can be invested in the stock market and other private investments accounts. (Full story.)

He will reiterate his recent call for a temporary guest worker program under which millions of illegal immigrants could get temporary legal status in the United States. (Full story.)

And he will support proposals to reduce health-care costs.

Iraqi Governing Council President Adnan Pachachi will be one of Bush's guests at the State of the Union. Pachachi was in the United States for Monday's meetings at the United Nations. (Full story.)

Pachachi will help Bush illustrate how Iraq is changing into a democracy, several administration sources said.

Budget priorities drive content
With a $500 billion budget deficit that angers Democrats and alarms a number of fiscal conservatives in his own party, Bush will be limited in how much he can offer in new, election-year initiatives.

The contents of the speech have been decided, in large part, by the administration's budget priorities, because the president faces a February 1 deadline to propose a spending blueprint for the fiscal year that begins in October.

Bush continued to practice his address Monday, running through it twice in front of his advisers with the help of a TelePrompTer, a senior administration official said.

Sunday, after returning to the White House from Camp David, Bush spent the afternoon practicing the speech in the White House theater.

Longtime adviser Karen Hughes, Chief of Staff Andy Card, chief speechwriter Michael Gerson and Communications Director Dan Bartlett were present for both days of practice.

CNN's Dana Bash and John King contributed to this story.

Don't forget to tune in tonight.

[NcDeuce]

WASHINGTON — In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Bush is expected to propose new job-training grants for community colleges, discuss improving the health care system and
defend the war in Iraq.

Sandwiched between Monday's Democratic caucuses in Iowa and a Thursday debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, Bush's speech also is seen as a way for the Republican president to lay out an election-year agenda to frame his campaign for a second term.

Former Bush political adviser Karen Hughes, who spent the weekend with Bush at Camp David as he fine-tuned his speech, said the president would discuss ways to improve the health care system without giving the government a bigger role in it. Congress has already approved a 10-year, $400 billion prescription drug addition to Medicare, the health care entitlement to seniors.

"I think what you'll hear is a very different vision of what health care should be than what you've been hearing from the Democratic candidates. They're touting a government-run system, which I always remind people, well, you kind of think about the income tax system or the post office. If that's what you want your health care system to be like, I think most Americans don't," said Hughes.

Hughes, who helped the president prepare for his delivery and is expected to be in attendance at the annual address to Congress and the nation on Tuesday night at 9:00 p.m. EST, said Bush will also defend the war in Iraq by saying that without the war, Saddam Hussein would still be in power instead of in prison.

The president's defense of the war comes in the wake of reports that foreign policy experts in both the Republican and Democratic parties are saying that the failure to find chemical and biological weapons has damaged U.S. credibility abroad.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said Bush ought to use the address to admit that the intelligence on Saddam's chemical and biological weapons was wrong. White House officials say the president almost certainly will not. The administration had earlier stated that it is withholding its judgment about whether Saddam had an active weapons program until the weapons inspections team has finished its search and reviewed the thousands of documents it has found.

The president worked Monday on the speech's delivery, though he has been rewriting the language since last Friday and developing the broad themes over the past couple of weeks.

Attending a luncheon at the White House on Monday to honor the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, Bush would not discuss what version of the speech he was on, but that it was moving right along.

"It's almost finished, in case you're interested," he said.

Democrats acknowledged that Bush is likely to have difficulty getting what he wants in a year when he's working to win his own re-election to office.

"We want to work with him where we can and where he's wrong, he's gonna run into a big fight," Sen. Byron Dorgan (search) of North Dakota, the chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, told Fox News on Tuesday.

The president is expected to announce that he wants the Labor Department to administer $120 million in grants for community colleges to help workers pick up new job skills.

"Of course, on the national scheme, it's not a great amount, but it's certainly enough to help some of our colleges develop capacity for these programs, so we would be very supportive of this proposal," said George R. Boggs, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Community Colleges (search), which represents 1,200 schools. Boggs added that the grants would be targeted to workforce training programs in high-demand occupations, such as health care.

With an estimated 2.32 million jobs lost since the president took office, observers say the president's failure to entice industries to create more jobs appears to be his biggest political weakness this election year. Unemployment in December 2003 was 5.7 percent.

"They are not putting the money into the Department of Education; they're putting it in the Department of Labor — the signal there is to focus on workforce training activities," said Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education (search), a trade association of 1,800 two- and four-year colleges and universities.

"I guess they think that training and retraining remains essential as we continue to see the erosion of American jobs, especially manufacturing jobs," Hartle said.

The president is expected to expand on the plan in a speech Wednesday at Owens Community College in Toledo, Ohio, a re-election battleground state that Bush has already visited more than a dozen times. Ohio, along with Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois, has suffered the largest number of manufacturing job losses. Ohio state Sen. Randy Gardner, a Republican, said he was told that the economy and job training would be the topic of Bush's visit to the community college in Toledo. "Community colleges in Ohio are very much job training and retraining oriented and Owens is considered a leader," he said.

But with a budget deficit expected to approach $500 billion in the 2005 fiscal year, more expensive programs, including an ambitious new effort to capture the nation's imagination by returning U.S. astronauts to the moon, may be impossible to implement.

Treasury Secretary John Snow said that despite a multitude of budget demands, the administration will cut the annual deficit in half within five years. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Congress will show spending restraint even as it attempts to meet the many demands.

"What I think is important, and I say this as the majority leader of the United States Senate, is that we continue to fight unnecessary increases in spending on the floor of the United States Senate," Frist told Fox News. "We need to make sure that what we propose that we demonstrate that fiscal responsibility. That coupled with the pro-economic, pro-jobs, pro-growth package of the president, that would grow in our economy and would make that a reality of having that budget over the next five years."

Frist was also quick to echo the point the president's speech is expected to emphasize — staying the course.

"When the people step away and look at President Bush's agenda for the future, but also the demonstrated solutions whether it is economic or health care or education over the last three years, people, I am confident, are going to say let's go with demonstrated leadership that has a clear cut vision for this country, and we'll be behind George W. Bush."

Fox News' Peter Brownfeld and Wendell Goler and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


http://www.foxnews.com/images/113814/0_21_011904_souprep_bushcu.jpg

[Seoulstriker]

please, please, please, PLEASE suggest tax deductions on health care costs.

:D :D :D :D :D


this is possibly the greatest idea i have ever heard/thought of. i'm sitting here just in amazement of how perfect it would be. instead of going through the beauracracy of a socialist health care system, what people need from the health care system they can get for free or for discount. sweeeeeeet. :D :D :D

[Nizark]

So what does everyone think the next 'target' will be? Iran, health care, the budget, etc. ?

[Vance]

So what does everyone think the next 'target' will be? Iran, health care, the budget, etc. ?
The Dixie Chicks.

[Tengu]

So what does everyone think the next 'target' will be? Iran, health care, the budget, etc. ?
The Dixie Chicks.goodness no, a new M&M color woot

[Whistler]

About that speech pic:

Man, its amazing what 4 years as President will do to speed up the ageing process :cantbeli:

[NcDeuce]

About that speech pic:

Man, its amazing what 4 years as President will do to speed up the ageing process :cantbeli:

It's one of the most stressful jobs one can undertake.

[usa320]

hes underpaid as hell too.

Actors get paid about a hundred times more than he does, for doing jack ****.

:roll:

As for the speech i missed about the first 10 minutes, but from what i saw, i have one word.


HOOAH

The speech was GREAT.

[venture160]

well i havn't caught the speech yet because I have been in the library swamped with work, but ill be sure to read transcripts later. I wonder if its again filled with erroneous intelligence assertions like last time? Lets hope not

[NcDeuce]

That was a mighty good speech. woot

Did anyone catch Hillary's fake smile?

The camera moved towards her and she was obviously not interested in the speech and once she saw the camera, she let out a terrific smile. Two-faced biatch.

[Seoulstriker]

That was a mighty good speech. woot

Did anyone catch Hillary's fake smile?

The camera moved towards her and she was obviously not interested in the speech and once she saw the camera, she let out a terrific smile. Two-faced biatch.

that's why she won't be elected president: the majority of america knows what kind of person she is.

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,109032,00.html


Raw Data: State of the Union Address

Tuesday, January 20, 2004



WASHINGTON — Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

America this evening is a nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them.

As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure.

Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists; the men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America.

Americans are proving once again to be the hardest working people in the world. The American economy is growing stronger. The tax relief you passed is working.

Tonight, members of Congress can take pride in great works of compassion and reform that skeptics had thought impossible. You are raising the standards of our public schools; and you are giving our senior citizens prescription drug coverage under Medicare.

We have faced serious challenges together and now we face a choice. We can go forward with confidence and resolve or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth, and reforms in education and Medicare or we can turn back to the old policies and old divisions.

We have not come all this way through tragedy, and trial, and war only to falter and leave our work unfinished. Americans are rising to the tasks of history, and they expect the same of us. In their efforts, their enterprise, and their character, the American people are showing that the state of our union is confident and strong.

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 -- over two years without an attack on American soil -- and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting and false.

The killing has continued in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombassa, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Baghdad. The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world. And by our will and courage, this danger will be defeated.

Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets.

For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens you need to renew the Patriot Act.

America is on the offensive against the terrorists who started this war. Last March, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a mastermind of September 11th, awoke to find himself in the custody of U.S. and Pakistani authorities.

Last August 11th brought the capture of the terrorist Hambali, who was a key player in the attack in Indonesia that killed over 200 people. We are tracking Al Qaeda around the world and nearly two-thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed. Thousands of very skilled and determined military personnel are on a manhunt, going after the remaining killers who hide in cities and caves and, one by one, we will bring the terrorists to justice.

As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. The United States and our allies are determined: We refuse to live in the shadow of this ultimate danger.

The first to see our determination were the Taliban, who made Afghanistan the primary training base of Al Qaeda killers. As of this month, that country has a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free, and proud, and fighting terror and America is honored to be their friend.

Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland, and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq are free. Having broken the Baathist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. Men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows.

These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger. Yet we are making progress against them. The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids every week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.

The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right.

Last January, Iraq's only law was the whim of one brutal man. Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June.

As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom.

Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future. And tonight we are honored to welcome one of Iraq's most respected leaders: the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi. Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation.

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons.

Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America.

Different threats require different strategies. Along with nations in the region, we are insisting that North Korea eliminate its nuclear program. America and the international community are demanding that Iran meet its commitments and not develop nuclear weapons. America is committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes.

When I came to this rostrum on September 20th, 2001, I brought the police shield of a fallen officer, my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. I gave to you and to all Americans my complete commitment to securing our country and defeating our enemies. And this pledge, given by one, has been kept by many. You in the Congress have provided the resources for our defense, and cast the difficult votes of war and peace.

Our closest allies have been unwavering. America's intelligence personnel and diplomats have been skilled and tireless. And the men and women of the American military they have taken the hardest duty. We have seen their skill and courage in armored charges, and midnight raids, and lonely hours on faithful watch. We have seen the joy when they return, and felt the sorrow when one is lost. I have had the honor of meeting our servicemen and women at many posts, from the deck of a carrier in the Pacific, to a mess hall in Baghdad.

Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime, a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got.

Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives.

But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts

[usa320]

From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.


Best line of the whole god damned speech. The applause after that was thunderous.

[fred_engles]

The democratic response (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33481-2004Jan20?language=printer).

[cut]

*yawn*

[SeanAshi]

John Kerry is full of himself since Iowa, hopfully NH will knock him on his ass. Dean spends all his time talking **** about Bush, I'm sure he is asking himself why did I lose? Dean picking it up where Gore left off.

[NcDeuce]

I know who I'm voting for.

http://georgewbush.com/images/downloads/GWB_nsec_banner.jpg

http://georgewbush.com/images/downloads/GWB_econ_banner.jpg

[James]

Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq.

That's a nice spin from Shrub. Wasn't the war about WMD? Oh, wait... never mind.

I know quite a few people (myself included) who weren't keen on the war because of the bogus reasons laid out by GWB. Liberation was never a sticky point, though.

[Nizark]

I dont know if yall noticed, but whenever the joint chiefs were going to stand, it was either because Myers looked at them and they followed, or the Navy 4 star asked Myers and the rest followed. Also, what was the deal with the Army chief not being with the other chiefs, standing next to the Coast Guard head?

[Truthsayer]

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight. (Applause.)


As a guy who always works for freedom, and in the past (before the fascist-act...Patriot Act) often had held USA in high respect for it's (selfproclaim) freedom, I can't help but wonder:

- In an country where the elected [republicans] claim the goverment should stay out of the peoples biz with money and let them be FREE to down their own choice...in what respect does this grant them to do a 180-turn and claim the goverment knows best when it comes to marriges?

I'm happely married to a woman myself, so that is not the issues.

It's just that I see the "govement doesn't know what's best for the people"-card being played a lot, but when it comes to some cruical points, it's like it's all backwards...I just don't get it.

I'm asking this here since I believe we have a lot of true freedom-seekers here (no offence, but loving guns and loving freedom often goes hand in hand) and maybe you can explain it to me. So I understand.

(Please refrain from any ethnic slurs, as I _really_ wanna know.)

[Truthsayer]

No-one?

[Truthsayer]

Wow...I guess it's "freedom for some". Or are everybody so perplexed by the question? I don't get it...

[fisheyestudio]

Hey howdy hey!

Great question and not an easy one to tackle but here goes.

Protecting freedom is one of the main purposes of our Government. Individual freedom has to balanced with the governements duty to promote the common good. Homo****** marriage is seen as detrimental to the "family" and thereby hurts the common good...

As a Christian, I base what I believe about this issue on scripture. Truth is truth and God gave everyone the chose of seeking after it or not. What I see today in many cases though is this; individuals base there "theology" on their "morality" irregardless of scripture. Thats lets a person feel that whatever they want to do is just fine...but we all know that this is error...at least I hope we all know that...hehe.

Thanks for asking a tough one...
Jesus blessings!
chris holloman HOH

[Beowulf]

Wow...I guess it's "freedom for some". Or are everybody so perplexed by the question? I don't get it...




...Oh, btw, give it a few more hours, let some american new-york jews polish Bush golden rod with their lips and we have the USA invading too....


...Oh, btw, here is a big 'eat me' from Sweden.

Excerpts from your very first post here. As far I'm concerned you reap what you sow.

[California Joe]

Who is that polesmoker?

[Truthsayer]

Excerpts from your very first post here. As far I'm concerned you reap what you sow.

Having fun with editing and single out qoutes?

Let me ask this: If someone claims your country in any form are supporting terrorism, would you reply that person with "yes, I love those accusations, here are some flowers"?

Take a look around. Posts that in some context only narowing touch any subject that some states would NOT be the best, is attacked by hard flames - and you complain about the above written?

Wow, I guess some people really are blind when it comes to subjects close to home...


Btw:

As far I'm concerned you reap what you sow.
Some would say that about the terrorist-attacks aimed upon you too.

O-well.



Thanks to fisheyestudio for giving an good answer.