I have been perhaps a bit to hard on President Bush's State of the Union. Or at least that is the implication one could assume by reading my posts. The truth is his section on foreign policy was not as weak as I expected. Of course he failed to accept any reponsibility for the inaccurate statements in last years State of the Union. He also didn't openly suggest we would be attacking anybody else soon.
For the most part, however, I'd say his state of the Union did exactly what it was supposed to do. It set up the differences between his vision for America and those of his opponents. And based on that, yeah, I'd choose Howard Dean over him, rebel yell and all (That's not an endorsement, just so you know).
No comments:
Post a Comment