Saturday, February 11, 2012 3:50 pm
Montgomery Blair High School's Online Student Newspaper
Tags: print
Jan. 29, 2003

Bush delivers State of the Union address

by Nora Toiv, Page Editor
President Bush made his case for the war in Iraq, emphasized AIDS in Africa, and reviewed his domestic policies in his annual State of the Union address.

The speech was made on January 28 to all of the cabinet and many other guests. Bush spent the first part of his speech discussing his domestic plans and the second half he focused on terrorism and international relations. He proposed new tax cuts and other policies to boost the failing U.S. economy. "I am proposing that all the income tax reductions set for 2004 and 2006 be made permanent and effective this year," he said. Bush lobbied to congress certain parts of his tax cut plan. "To boost investor confidence, and to help the nearly 10 million seniors who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double taxation of dividends."

Bush pushed other programs that he rarely talks about such as drug abuse, child mentoring, and AIDS in Africa. He discussed giving money to drug addicts to help them become free of their addictions. "Too many Americans in search of treatment cannot get it. So tonight I propose a new $600 million program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive treatment over the next three years." He also emphasized the need for the mentoring and guidance of children whose parents are in jail and other disadvantaged students. Bush proposed $15 billion for people suffering from AIDS in Africa. He called the situation in Africa a “severe and urgent crisis abroad." Bush claims the plan will "prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS and for children orphaned by AIDS."

Health care was another important aspect of the speech. There was a proposal of $400 billion over the next decade to strengthen Medicare. "We must renew that commitment by giving seniors access to the preventive medicine and new drugs that are transforming health care in America." Bush endorsed prescription drug coverage for seniors and emphasized the need to provide health care to the thousands in the U.S without who cannot afford their health care or do not have it at all.

Bush was very vocal about terrorism and the war in Iraq as his speech progressed. He told about the intelligence that he knows about the threat against the U.S from terrorist groups and said that even though the people of the U.S do not hear about the war on terrorism that, "The war goes on, and we are winning." He listed the wrongs of Saddam Hussein and why there will be a need for action against him if the inspections are not successful. "It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened." Bush was showing a strong case against Iraq and trying to emphasize the need for a possible war.

After the speech there was a Democratic response by Gary Locke, the governor of Washington. Locke was giving the Democrats' opinion against the tax plan and against unreasonable action against Iraq. He emphasized some of the Democrats' priorities like education and the war on terror.

To see the full State of the Union go to http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.1/

Discuss this Article

  • another freshi on January 29, 2003
    "It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed." ...what is bush talking about? its like trying to squeeze information out of somebody that has none....if they have no weapons, then we should just lay off...besides, peace is better.....NO WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Proud American, Proud of Bush on January 30, 2003
    "Another Freshi"... what are YOU talking about? I doubt you even watched the State of the Union, considering your quote and your lack of understanding about the rest of the speech. So how can you even begin to pass judgment? If you had listened to it (of just clicked the link above and read it), you would see that that was only a small excerpt of the President's speech, and your claims are close to utter nonsense. First of all, your claim that Saddam has no weapons has no factual backing... if you had listened to the President, you would see that Bush is well on his way to showing the case against Saddam (read below for excerpts that show this). Furthermore, Secretary of State Colin Powell will be meeting next week with the UN to give more details. Saddam Hussein is already in material breach of the UN Resolution, so really the subject of Hussein's noncompliance is unquestionable. Yet still, since when has it been the US's job to parent Iraq? There is concrete evidence that Saddam had these weapons before, and he has not shown any evidence of them being destroyed (see excerpts again). THIS MEANS THAT SADDAM STILL HAS THEM. It has been made fully clear to Saddam (by the UN) that he needs to show proof that he has disarmed, and as of yet, he has not done so. It is Iraq's responsibility to show that he has destroyed his weapons. I thought Bush summed up the threat and evil of the Iraqi regime pretty well in these two quotes: "Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." "And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country." I thought that the President gave a great speech... one of the best he has given. It was smooth, to the point, and forceful. He balanced the social and foreign problems and policies equally with compassion. "Another Freshi", I suggest that you actually listen to the State of the Union before passing any judgments. Also, do your homework next time... know what you're talking about before you spit out factless SGR / liberal propaganda. ---------------EXCERPTS------------------ " The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."
  • peace and love on January 31, 2003
    no war man!! no blood for oil!!
  • Phil on February 4, 2003
    Proud guy- I salute for defending the prez in the hostile and liberal school I (do you?) go to. NO ONE will stand up for the prez or conservative ideals. The only we are exposed to as you said, "SGR and liberal propaganda." More truthful words have never before been spoken.
  • Bush sucks on February 4, 2003
    Even if Saddam did have all that stuff, how would he get it over here? He has no ICBMs or any other means to use them in the United States. We are not in danger. And what makes you think another war will make him get rid of his weapons? Realistically, wouldn't Hussein try to use as many of the weapons you claim he has on whoever he can before a war? And what problems would a war solve? If your answer is to overthrow the regime, how long do you think the United States is really going to spend in hostile territory defending a new and weak government. These people have never had democracy; it is ridiculous to assume that one will work in the near future. Furthermore, you don't even know these people or the conditions they face, so you wouldn't know how to run a government in their country. U.S. sanctions are killing people in Iraq now, and a war would just kill more civilians. Why would they have any reason to believe Bush that we are not their enemy when we end up bombing their homes and childre? I agree that something has to be done about Saddam Hussein. But until you have a real answer to these problems, don't rush into war to cover your own ignorance.
  • Proud American, Proud of Bush on February 6, 2003
    Phil... I do go to Blair (and I'm a gal, not a guy). And I agree with you... this school is very hostile. One cannot say what he thinks without being called "war hawk", or "murderer", etc. In our school, SGR is considered cool (why, I don't know). Unfortunately, this turns much of our student body into a bunch of zombies who will do whatever SGR says.

    By the way, what did SGR do when Clinton bombed Iraq... on the eve of his impeachment nonetheless. What about when we went into Kosovo, into Bosnia, and into Somalia? I don't recall SGR protesting those... Could it be that they are against this war because we have a Republican president now (and they are still bitter that he won the 2000 election)? Anyone who repeatedly calls Bush stupid, and uses this for every argument is simply using Liberal propaganda. Anyone who thinks Bush is an idiot is a fool. He is undoubtedly a shrew politician. There is absolutely no way that someone who is incompetent can become President. It is purely propaganda (once again... evidently still bitter about 2000 election).

    "Bush sucks"... have you heard about the "Food for oil" program? We give Iraq food and try to help their citizens. Secondly, the US isn't going to bomb civilians. Our country uses her advanced technology tries it hardest to make sure as little citizens are killed. However, some may be but that’s the price of war. And while war is ugly, it sometimes needs to be fought. Furthermore, the chances of the Iraqi civilians hating the US, as you claim, is fairly unlikely. The US sends down pamphlets in Arabic and in English (to civilians and the Iraqi military) telling them that the US is not killing them just to kill them -- that the US is trying to liberate them from their oppressive leader. We give Iraq food and supplies. In the Gulf War, these pamphlets were extremely affective.

    Hussein is already in material breach of the UN resolution. He has not accounted for the weapons (did you actually watch the State of the Union?) You don't need missiles to use some of the weapons.

    War with Iraq is necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from using (or giving to terrorists) weapons of mass destruction – which could endanger millions of American Lives.
  • Proud America, Proud of Bush on February 8, 2003
    Correction: He is undoubtedly a shrewd politician
  • freshi (the original) on March 5, 2003
    yeha, okay, bush is by far the dumbest president who ever graced this planet. he has not given us one good reason why we should go to war. why dont we focus on north korea where we are 100% sure that they have weapons (not that we should go to war with them either). o! i know y! its cos guess what : korea doesnt HAVE any oil. why cant bush at least have the decency and the respectfulness to tell the american ppl what this war is really about? whatever.
    he probably doesn't even know.
    but i bet his daddy does.
  • freshi (the original once agai on March 5, 2003
    well, yeah sgr is considered "cool" to all those preppy ppl who have no clu what's going on but think that being politically aware is sexy or something. but the fact is that sgr is a good group of ppl doing what they can where they can to make a difference in the world. and if ppl who dont know whats going on help sgrers, at least something's getting done. get over it. i dont even know why you brought that up, miss "proud of bush". gawd, i hate ignorant ppl.
Jump to first comment