Speech had tenuous connection to reality by Sarah Littman

published February 7, 2006

I was flying back from Miami a week ago during the president's State of the Illusion -- oops, I mean the Union -- address, so I was able to read between the lines instead of hearing the usual rhetoric.

It was classic George W. Bush: portraying those who disagree with him as any number of bad "ists" (isolationist, protectionist and defeatist, to name a few) and making statements that would be ironic if they weren't so outrageous.

For example: "In a system of two parties, two chambers and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate." True enough. In fact, I suspect the framers of the Constitution set it up that way, so that power could not be seized by any one branch of government.

Here comes the funny part: "But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone. ... To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another."

What, you mean like the respect the president showed for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed by Congress in 1978, requiring a warrant from a secret court when engaging in electronic surveillance of American citizens on the grounds of national security?

Speaking of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, the president said that two of the 9/11 hijackers had placed telephone calls to al-Qaida, implying that if his "terrorist surveillance program" (it's all about semantics, no?) had been in place, the 9/11 attacks might have been prevented.

Unfortunately, the facts don't support the president. Prior to 9/11 attacks, the FBI had leads on two of the 9/11 hijackers without the use of warrantless eavesdropping. A U.S. military intelligence program known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and two other 9/11 hijackers by September 2000, but military lawyers prevented this information from reaching the FBI. Those were two examples of fatal communication breakdowns.

Moving to the economy, the president spoke of the need to keep America competitive. His solution for doing so: making the tax cuts permanent. "In the last five years," the president stated, "the tax relief [Congress] passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American(s)... and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth."

But economists aren't quite as sanguine about the cause-and-effect relationships; although they recognize the contribution of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 in turning around a stagnant economy, they now worry that the resulting deficits, not to mention the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rebuilding costs from Hurricane Katrina, will be a drag on future growth. And ironically, in an increasingly technological global economy, this government has cut student loans and funding for higher education.

Spending cuts passed by the House last week amount to less than one-half of 1 percent from the estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years; meanwhile, the Senate was debating a $56 billion tax cut previously passed by the House. The net result of the two bills would add $16 billion to the federal deficit. It's the "Robbin' the Hood" school of economics. Didn't Hurricane Katrina teach President Bush a lesson about poverty in this country?

Then there's the revelation that we're "addicted to oil." Well, duh! So, where's the legislation requiring automakers to increase gas mileage on new vehicles?

Perhaps the most ironic words in Bush's speech were these: "Those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor."

As Jon Stewart would say: "Hmmmmmmm."

Sarah Littman, who lives in Greenwich, is author of "Confessions of a Closet Catholic," published by Dutton Children's Books and winner of the 2006 Sydney Taylor Book Award for Older Readers.