STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
As Prepared For Delivery
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Thank you very much. Tonight, I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own – as the first President to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker.
In his day, the late Congressman Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum. But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Congratulations.
Two members of the House and Senate are not with us tonight – and we pray for the recovery and speedy return of Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman Charlie Norwood.
Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:
This rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour – when decisions are hard and courage is tested. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies – and the wisdom to face them together.
Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate – and I congratulate the Democratic majority. Congress has changed, but our responsibilities have not. Each of us is guided by our own convictions – and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation’s prosperity ? to spend the people’s money wisely ? to solve problems, not leave them to future generations ? to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.
We are not the first to come here with government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don’t much care which side of the aisle we sit on – as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity – and this is the business before us tonight.
A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy – and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth – in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs ? so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move – and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise.
Next week, I will deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.
First, we must balance the Federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 – and met that goal 3 years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the Federal deficit within the next 5 years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the Federal Government, and balance the Federal budget.
Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour – when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate – they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process ? expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress ? and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.
Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience – and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that
duty – and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this Chamber knows this to be true – yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and good will, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid – and save Social Security.
Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act – preserving local control, raising standards in public schools, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.
Now the task is to build on this success, without watering down standards ? without taking control from local communities ? and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools ? and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose something better. We must increase funds for students who struggle – and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America’s children – and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law.
A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. We will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.
Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.
At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, my proposal would mean a substantial tax savings – $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.
My second proposal is to help the States that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive Federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing Federal funds and use them to create “Affordable Choices” grants. These grants would give our Nation’s Governo
rs more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts ? help small businesses through Association Health Plans ? reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology ? encourage price transparency ? and protect good doctors from junk lawsuits by passing medical liability reform. And in all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.
Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America – with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol – and funding new infrastructure and technology.
Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border – and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won’t have to try to sneak in – and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists. We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers – so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country – without animosity and without amnesty.
Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate – so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.
Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America’s economy running and America’s environment clean. For too long our Nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists – who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments ? raise the price of oil ? and do great harm to our economy.
It is in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply – and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power – by even greater use of clean coal technology ? solar and wind energy ? and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol – using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.
We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years – thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of 3/4 of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.
To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 – this is nearly 5 times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks – and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.
Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.
A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our Federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the Federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the Federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well – to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that terrorists can cause. We have had time to take stock of our situation. We have added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us – unless we stop them.
With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled – that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.
From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free-flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.
Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented – but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean . For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.
Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a Nation at war.
In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before September 11, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past 5 years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats ?. instruct with bullets and bombs ? and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.
Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi:
“We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse.” And Osama bin Laden declared: “Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.”These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah – a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.
The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans ? kill democracy in the Middle East ? and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.
In the 6th year since our Nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this Government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.
This war is more than a clash of arms – it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom – societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies – and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security ? we must.
In the last 2 years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East – and we have been sobered by the enemy’s fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ? drove out the Syrian occupiers ? and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections – choosing a transitional government ? adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world ? and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.
A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia – and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. 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. Ladies and gentlemen: 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.
We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq – a plan that demands more from Iraq’s elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads. And in Anbar province – where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them – we are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.
The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now is the time for their government to act. Iraq’s leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad – and they must do so. They have pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. They need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq’s leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation – to share oil revenues among all of Iraq’s citizens ? to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq ? to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s civic life ? to hold local elections ? and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.
My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this Chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq – because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.
If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by
Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country – and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.
For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens ? new recruits ? new resources ? and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11 and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ? to succeed in Iraq ? and to spare the American people from this danger.
This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and no
w. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way.The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.
One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military – so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next 5 years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.
Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle – because we are not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations – and we are working with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq’s government. The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. With the other members of the Quartet – the U.N., the European Union, and Russia – we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive – the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia , and South Korea, we are pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. And we will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma – and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur.
American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger, poverty, and disease – and that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa – and because you funded our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in 3 short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over 5 years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries. I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty.
When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self-sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look – and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.
Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine – but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth – or the duty to share his blessings with others. He has built a brand new hospital in his hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: “Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things.” And we are proud to call this son of the Congo our fellow American.
After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children’s videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born – and in just 5 years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others – producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: “I believe it’s the most important thing that I’ve ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe.” We are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur – Julie Aigner-Clark.
Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks ? pulled the man into a space between the rails ? and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he’s not a hero. Wesley says: “We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We got to show each other some love.” There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.
Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sergeant Rieman returned fire – and used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs – yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy’s position. For his exceptional courage, Sergeant Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and gratitude of our whole country.
In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America – and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country – and resilient, too. We have been through a lot together. We have met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence – because the State of our Union is strong ? our cause in the world is right ? and tonight that cause goes on.
Thank you.
Why watch the SOTU, when you can read it now?
Please share widely!
peter-porcupine says
….or people.
<
p>
I’ve released embargoed documents – so have most others in government. And an endemic lack of trust is what comes from broken promises.
<
p>
I’m surprised to see you participating in this, David.
raj says
…if the Bushies didn’t want the advanced copy of the speech to be released by the recipients before the “embargo time,” they shouldn’t have released it to the recipients before the “embargo time.”
<
p>
If they really didn’t want it to be released by the recipients before the “embargo time,” they could have done something like Kevin White did the the day before he announced that he wasn’t going to be running for–what was it?–a fifth term. Tell his journalistic enemy (I believe it was at the Herald) that he was going to run the day before he was to make the announcement. That got published in the Herald of the course, and the reporter had more than a bit of egg on his face.
<
p>
Let’s understand something. If politicians want to control the flow of information, they have more than a few ways of doing so. The Bushies have certainly shown us that.
geo999 says
because of your childish use of disparaging labels. It did nothing to advance the debate, and further, it was wholly unimaginative.
Who do you think you are, Maureen Dowd?
mojoman says
or maybe just some warm milk?
geo999 says
..and accept the double standard.
<
p>
I know where I am.
mojoman says
you huff & puff about disparaging labels, wring your hands over proper discourse, and then conclude with a lame insult. It’s so weak, that I’m now thinking you might doing a parody of a troll. If that’s the case, well done.
<
p>
BTW, speaking of disparaging labels & double standards; in Bush’s speech opening last night, he changed
Democratic' into
Democrat’ (6th paragraph), once again demonstrating that he’s a shallow, petulant “leader”.As for the rest of Bush’s speech? It was OK for him, but not much new. Fuzzy math, empty slogans. Only 727 days left!
geo999 says
seem to be used interchangebly in political discourse. Neither being “disparaging” of the individual or of the party.
<
p>
Democrats are in the majority, are they not?
<
p>
Seems like grammatical nit-pickery to me. And certainly not the same as referring to administration supporters as “bushies”.
<
p>
And no, I am not a “troll”.
I am a right-leaning Independent who gets just as irritated when some wingnut can’t make a political point without poking fun at, say, Obama’s ears.
<
p>
The bile rises, and the point is lost.
raj says
The terms ‘Democrat’ and ‘Democratic’ seem to be used interchangebly in political discourse.
<
p>
Let’s understand something. Aside from the fact that the only people who I have seen who use Democrat as a substitute for Democratic are–how shall I put it?–media (blogs, broadcast, print, whatever) who are syncophants of the Bush-league oriented media, what they usually want emphasized is the RAT part of DemocRAT, which obviously would not be the case if they had used DemoCRATic. No Rat. No fowl. Or foul.
<
p>
To give Geo. III a break, I’ll suggest that he apparently now has, and in recent years has had, a problem enunciating. The interesting issue is that he had not seemed to exhibit that a number of years ago. So, I would not fault him now for swallowing the “ic” at the end of “Democratic.” What I might be interested in is why he might now be unable to enunciate, whereas a number of years ago he apparently did not.
<
p>
But, unlike former Republican Senate head Bill Frist, I am not wont to diagnose from afar. Or to kill cats for my own private enjoyment, either.
geo999 says
<
p>
Waaay too much of a stretch for me, pal.
<
p>
LOL, I withdraw.
raj says
…and visit a few right-wing/Republican blogs. You might learn a few things.
<
p>
DemocRAT? Oh, yes.
raj says
…how you rated my comment. It’s quite telling that you were unable or unwilling to address the substance of it.
<
p>
Let’s understand something: If they (whoever the “they” are) don’t want the document released before the so-called “embargo time,” there is one way to ensure that: by not releasing the document before the so-called “embargo time.”
<
p>
That should be obvious, even to you.
geo999 says
I didn’t rate your comment based on it’s substance, because I don’t give a tinker’s damn about the embargo, one way or the other.
I rated it because you were unable or unwilling to make your point without resorting to a sophmoric, verbal sneer.
<
p>
It was your tone, sir.
raj says
…sarcasm.
<
p>
Please, give me a break. You were obviously turned off by my sarcastic use of the term “Bushies,” instead of addressing the point in the comment. Give it up. Some of us weren’t born yesterday.
peter-porcupine says
…and maybe THEN do so.
<
p>
An ’embargoed’ document is one which is typically the subject of a major speech or press release, given to media so they can comment intelligently on an immediate basis – the most obvious use being that they don’t mishear or misquote what is said in the press release/speech and make bigger fools of themselves than is usual.
<
p>
To HOLD such a document until ’embargo time’ defeats the purpose of the embargo.
<
p>
More locally, you may remember when David served on the Civic Enagement panel – he told us all that he would post public comments as they came into his possession (how we doin’ with Dartmouth?) but that the conclusions and recommendations of the panel would be EMBARGOED – even thoguh as a participant, he would know what they were – until Gov. Patrick signalled the public release.
<
p>
That is why I am surprised by his post, because unlike Raj, he knew what he was doing.
raj says
n/t
john-howard says
Don’t bloggers need to comment intelligently immediately after the speech? If it goes to “media” early, it should include bloggers too. Maybe that was your point already. I can see why David would not want to reveal the rough drafts and inner workings of a public panel he serves on until the document is ready for release. But once it’s released, it should be released to everyone at the same time.
peter-porcupine says
john-howard says
so it doesn’t swaure with you being upset at David down below. They shouldn’t email a press release to a few outlets, even if some are bloggers. They should just put it on their white house site for everyone at the same time, including me and David and Brit Hume, to do what we want with it.
john-howard says
Has anyone used the term “MSB” for Mainstream Bloggers yet? They’d be the ones that get press releases emailed to them and respect embargos, to keep the SOTU off the screens of regular people. The MSB are really part of the MSM, they even get ad revenue and worry about ratings.
peter-porcupine says
By and large, I think BMG would QUALIFY to be a MSB – that is, a major outlet read by many. Kos and Townhall, along with Pajamas Media come to mind as well. Bloggers are NOT necessarily irresponsible and unreliable, but function as independent voices. Which is why they should respect traditions like embargos, if they wish to gain credibility.
<
p>
I mean, can you IMAGINE what a blog by Raj would look like if he wrote one?
raj says
…Ms. Pumpernickel.
<
p>
Kos and Townhall, along with Pajamas Media come to mind as well.
<
p>
Pajamas Media? It has embarrassed itself no end. Apparently, you don’t read much.
<
p>
Aside from the fact that PJM (a/k/a PissPoorMedia–honest appellation, James Wolcott)) was founded by a failed mystery writer and Hollywood screen writer (it must be really easy to get right wingers to part from their money), I’m sorry to have to relay to you the sad news that PPM’s scoop based on PPM’s Michael Ledeen’s reportage that the head of Iran (Kahmenei–however it’s spelled) is dead, is sadly untrue.
<
p>
It wouldn’t matter one twit whether or not M. Ledeen’s reportage was accurate, were it not for the fact that M. Ledeen was one of the Republikaner-naehe idiots who got the US to enter WWIraq.
john-howard says
then they set themselves apart from the blogging ethic, if you ask me, and become MSB, the “B” being merely a technical description of their medium which might give them a hipness factor, but it is no longer reflecting their status as a “blogger”. Bloggers are supposed to be “one of the people”, not privileged with exclusive access to stuff that the “media” gets, and I think derive their credibility from their non-association with the MSM.
<
p>
So I think Think Progress and David are being quite heroic and blogger-spirited in sharing the stuff they get emailed to them as if they were MSM. I wouldn’t trust a blog that didn’t copy everything they get to their blog as soon as they get it.
<
p>
Does everyone agree that the MSM and the bloggers and the people without blogs should all get access to the SOTU at the same time, from the same place? They could stop pre-empting perfectly good television shows if they just released the damn text instead of making a big showy speech.
raj says
…they (the powers that be) release the documents pending “embargo time” not with the expectation that they will actually be kept embargoed until the “embargo time,” but with the expectation that at least someone will release them before the “embargo time.” They (the powers that be” obviously release them that way for their own purposes.
<
p>
So, it strikes me as a bit silly to criticize someone who gets the supposedly “embargoed” documents for not releasing them as soon as he–or she–gets them.
<
p>
BTW, if the “powers that be” were to wait until the start of the speech to release the text of the speech, there are more than a few ways for the “powers that be” to enable the news and blog media to easily critique the speech. Any decent speech is divided into sections, each dealing with a particular subject. The speech could very well identify the various subjects of the speech, after the text has been released the news media could very easily divide the text among various analysts, and the analysts usw could thereafter have rendered their opinions on the contents of the speech.
<
p>
It really isn’t that complicated.
peter-porcupine says
<
p>
Reverse what raj says, and you’ll never go wrong!
<
p>
They DO expect the embargo to be kept, which is why they are CALLED embargoed.
<
p>
Talk about needing to get out more!
david says
I don’t get press releases of any sort from the White House, and on the rare occasions that I’ve gotten something from someone that’s been “embargoed,” I’ve respected it. I copied the SOTU speech from Think Progress — they’re the ones who decided to disregard the “embargo.” If they want to do that, that’s their business — obviously, the White House is more than capable of removing an obviously left-leaning blog from the distribution list if they don’t want to risk seeing busted embargoes. And, once the speech is on the internets, I don’t see why I shouldn’t copy it.
<
p>
I trust you’ll have similarly harsh words for Drudge, who did the same with Webb’s speech!
peter-porcupine says
Drudge was wrong, as was Think Progress. As was your participation! If all your friends jumped off a bridge….
<
p>
David – would you REALLY want embargoed material distributed on a partisan basis? Think that through.
<
p>
Think Progress may be stricken in the future based on proven untrustworthiness, but I would NOT want to see liberal/progressive sites stricken for their views, any more than conserative ones.
david says
I personally have never violated an embargo. But once TP did so, it’s out! If the NY Times publishes confidential documents that were leaked to it, should other news outlets refuse to report on the story that the release generates?
peter-porcupine says
raj says
…isn’t that what business companies do when their entrusted disclose their “confidential information” without their permission.
<
p>
Let’s understand something. You and yours have two options. Don’t give the “confidential information” out to those who they might not “trust.” Or give the “confidential information” out freely, knowing that it will be divulged.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, your people gave the “confidential information” out freely, knowing that it was likely to be divulged. Unless they believed that it would not have been, they would have had to have been idiots.
<
p>
So, what you prefer? That they be deemed to have been idiots? Or that they divulged the information with foreknowlegde that it was likely to have been divulged.
<
p>
BTW, the idea that “oh, my goodness, they divulged the speech early without our consent” might play with a few people. But there are only a few people.
peter-porcupine says
<
p>
News professionals and government professionals have been able to use this process for years. Now, by using a well established means of distributing information, they are – in your unknowing little eyes – naive idiots.
<
p>
It ISN’T just conservatives who embargo, it’s liberals as well. Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid will use this too – should THEY restrict their use to special friend, those they can trust? Who would then believe that outlet, as it would have to be a captive to be included?
<
p>
You are demonstrating a frightening ignorance, not scoring your usual cheap points.
raj says
…regarding Mayor White and his enemy at the Herald. Put on your glasses.
<
p>
Irrespective of whether they are idiots, they have ways that they could deal with it, if they really wanted to. I gave you one–the Mayor White solution. I’ll give you another. Arrange the text of the speech by subject matter, and distribute it that way at the moment that the speech begins. The “news” operations can distribute the speech to their minions in sections and have them develop comments on their respective sections to feed to the on-screen talkers to allow them to recapitulate the pResident’s bloviations over TV and radio.
<
p>
On the other hand, of course, they could just let the pResidents’ bloviations stand for themselves, and cut away at the end of the speech without comment. That would have been fine with me, but then again, I haven’t bothered listening to a pResident’s bloviations since I can’t remember when.
<
p>
BTW, it really is interesting that you make use of the liberal/conservative dichtomy. As far as I can tell, it is a Republican/Democratic party dichotomy, and neither party is particularly conservative. Certainly not fiscally. Certainly your Republicans have not been fiscally conservative since the twelfth of never. We can quibble about socially, but, there really isn’t anything to quibble about, is there?
sabutai says
I’d prefer that information not be given out on a partisan basis. But if that came to pass, Tony Snow would be out of a job.
david says
about the NY Times.
peter-porcupine says
Your point about the Times.
<
p>
There are two classes of information being discussed here. I am speaking strictly of a courtesty media embargo, pending a formal announcement or speech, the code duello with which we are both familiar. Typically, they do NOT contain classifed matters, unless Sandy Berger is holding the press conference.
<
p>
That is a courtesy from the source, given to the media in an effort to help them understand a complex story which might need some explaination as soon as it is broken by that source. The souce is free to simply break the story, leaving the media in a humina-humina mode, but that is not necessary and would not be productive. That said, the source should get to tell the story first. Therefore, it is wrong to both break an embargo, and wrong to further the bad acts of others, with a finger-pointing – well, HE did it – as an explaination.
<
p>
This does NOT apply to more serious ‘confidential’ documents. I do not recall Deep Throat holding ANY press conferences!
stomv says
Does this also apply for works under copyright?
<
p>
Philosophically, if you know the document was released under “embargo” and you re-release it, aren’t you just as culpable?
<
p>
Personally, I think embargos are stupid all the way around, and don’t think that they should be respected — but that goes for both first hand and second hand documents. I don’t really understand the idea that there’s a nuance between the two.
peter-porcupine says
Exactly! Thank you, Stomv!
<
p>
(um…you undertand that I think this is a BAD thing, right?)
raj says
No, but documents produced by US government officials are not protected by US copyright. I’d cite you the section of 17 US Code, but I don’t want to look it up now.
<
p>
Generally speaking, no documents produced by US government officials within the scope of their employment are protected by US copyrights.
stomv says
but about philosophy. I understand the embargo issue isn’t about copyrights.
<
p>
If its wrong to provide “protected” information, it seems that it ought to be wrong to repeat that protected information that others have provided. That some other internet site had posted an item first seems irrelevant, much like whether or not someone else has posted the latest Shakira song online has to do with whether or not it’s OK that you did it.
david says
You just undid decades of reporting based on (possibly illegally) leaked confidential documents.
gary says
Breaking
embargoedstory?peter-porcupine says
…but I took it as an honest error. I wonder.