So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

ED. NOTE: On Tuesday evening, January 20, 2004, the President of the United States gave one of the most conservative State of the Union addresses in at least a generation. For a SOTU speech, it had a remarkably short spending wish list. Instead, it had passages such as those excerpted below — none of which would have been spoken by a Democrat or liberal (i.e., Leftist), or even a "RINO." Check it out:

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 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 a week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.

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.

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.

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 and tried and 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 the 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 critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands — (applause) — Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

From the beginning, America has sought international support for our 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 country.

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

In the last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.

You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.

Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years; new home construction, the highest in almost 20 years; home ownership rates, the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise.

These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have — and you were right to return it.

We're requiring higher standards [in schools]. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing.

We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda. Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act — (applause) — unless you act — unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away. For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.

Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits.

Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

My administration is promoting free and fair trade to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs and manufacturers and farmers — to create jobs for American workers. Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.

In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Tonight, I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy.

I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.

[ED. NOTE: The precedent for guest worker programs goes back at least to the Eisenhower administration.]

In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best — just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses in a health savings account.

On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs.

Small businesses should be able to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance. I urge you to pass association health plans. I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance.

To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.

A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world.

One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001.

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.

It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country — mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.

The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable — and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.

What's all that got to do with our failure, after 28 months, to implement relatively simple measures to x-ray cargo and mail at airports, as well as a whole host of other commonsense security measures ??

Surely as a nation, we can do better here at home to defend ourselves.

Surely we can defend our borders - THAT is the primary role for our federal government, after all, to provide for the common defense.

The War on terror is the direct opposite. Our enemy is in hiding and very few in numbers. They also do not prescribe to the Geneva Convention's protocol, as well as, they are scattered across the globe. They are also very primitive and have their ideals centered in the 11th century.

Gosh, do you think it would help if we identified the enemy? Bush says the enemy is "terrorists" but any person who had their coffee this morning realizes the enemy is "islamic terrorists." To compound his error and politically correct thinking, the Theologian-in-Chief demands that we believe that "Islam is Peace." Meanwhile, our airports are no safer, our borders are no more secure, and our citizens are less free.

The Bush Admin. will lose all credibility overnight and unless they do declare martial law and suspend the Constitution, he can kiss his presidency good-bye at that point - any sane American would then vote for a president who will close the border.

Actually, this is about the only thing that could defeat his re-election. But I think the Islamic terrorists are too afraid of him to try for it.

Bush and the rest of the U.S. govt. enforces the laws they like and ignores the ones they don't like. Selective enforcement of laws is a form of tyranny.

Well, Bush hardly invented selective enforcement. It's a trick that goes back to the beginning of the republic. It's no tyranny, just politics as usual.

Well, Bush hardly invented selective enforcement. It's a trick that goes back to the beginning of the republic. It's no tyranny, just politics as usual.

It militates against one of the basic founding principles of this country - LEX REX. Nation of laws not men who an arbitrarily rule as they please. However, I would add a caveat, and that is that there are no so many tens of thousands of laws on the books that no American could possibly obey them all, let alone be aware of them. This is scary in the sense that the government can conceivably arrest any citizen on the grounds that the citizen broke some obscure law he knows nothing about.

Well, Bush hardly invented selective enforcement. It's a trick that goes back to the beginning of the republic. It's no tyranny, just politics as usual.

It militates against one of the basic founding principles of this country - LEX REX. Nation of laws not men who can arbitrarily rule as they please. However, I would add a caveat, and that is that there are no so many tens of thousands of laws on the books that no American could possibly obey them all, let alone be aware of them. This is scary in the sense that the government can conceivably arrest any citizen on the grounds that the citizen broke some obscure law he knows nothing about.

I'm just a regular guy who believes in supporting his country in time of war. I'm just a guy who hasn't forgotten 9/11 and the many other prior attacks launched against this country by Islamic terrorism. I'm just a guy who knows that our enemies grow stronger when left or right wing bubbleheads, cowards, geeks, and cranks give them reason to doubt our resolve.

Mesmirized? Nah. Simply proud to support the first president we've had since Reagan to fully and effectively understand and respond to the enemies we face.

...pretty teenage girls with underwire bras are singled out for increased scrutiny...

Aha, a hidden perk for the screeners!

Actually, I don't think we can be protected fully, given the vast influx of cargo. I don't mind the restrictions much. They're intended to head off another 9/11. Personally, I think we should instead have federal universal CCW. It would make terrorism too uncertain. And it would have prevented a 9/11.

But I won't pretend we're safer when the borders are so wide open. We're not. Only taking the fight to the terrorists can do that. Bush is right on that score.

IMO, I'd rather we had Osama in custody than Saddam. But I won't cry over Saddam either way. Execute him. But we really need to get Osama and clean out all the terrorist nests. At some point, Iraq is just a distraction from the real war on terror. But I think BushCo knows this well enough.

But I think the Islamic terrorists are too afraid of him to try for it.

I have to disagree with you here. Anyone who is willing to blow himself up for Allah isn't afraid of George Bush, and events in Israel prove their lack of fear. His motivation is his reward - 72 virgins in that big brothel in the sky.

In answer to your thought, firstly, it is not easy to implement total compliance as quickly as you like. There is a limited budget to work with. On one hand, you complain about the President's "runaway" spending, yet you require total implementation of people, expensive monitoring equipment that hasn't been invented yet, but is in the process, add the huge cost of implementing the WAR, then add all the opposition the fights the President in everything he does......

Perhaps you would do much better if you were in his shoes. You could also draft large numbers of troops to line our borders and build razor wire fences over several hundred miles, all of which takes time, planning, approval, FUNDING, etc....

Instant response only exists in dictatorships. Democracy's take time. and your idea that these measures are "simple" is simply a figment of your very active imagination.

Oh? I hadn't noticed this great influx of Al-Quaeda seminar posters here at FR. Is it really that big of a problem?

I've noted a good sized handful of their waterboys right here in this thread.

was part of the vocal majority at FR who were impatient for Bush to act. But I'm not one of the mad-dog contingent calling for widespread use of nuclear weapons on the Muslim homelands after 9/11 either. I opposed it.

Poor boy. Just doesn't know what to think. Which freeper seriously advocated the "wide spread use of nuclear weapons on the Muslim homelands after 9/11"? You really do object to freedom of speech, don't you?

I'm using my freedom of speech to say clearly that American opposition to this war will encourage our enemies to kill more Americans. I guess some people can live with that.

Their strategy is creating chaos and letting us self-destruct. Some would argue they're winning.

They do not fear retribution or death - their only fear is that we can disrupt and delay their schedule.

I'm just a regular guy who believes in supporting his country in time of war.

I also support Bush on the war and the troops (with some disagreements). However, I am not one of those Americans who say "America, right or wrong." If America is wrong, then it's wrong. My moral standard is the bible and my legal standard is the U.S. Constitution, and whenever a President or any other leader acts in a way contary to these, he is wrong.

The whole world changes from day to day and will never be the same. This is simply the way the world is. 911 changed this country faster and to some very necessary degrees. There are changes most of us do not like, but in time, we will learn what works and what makes our lives better as a result.

The rule of law under the Constitution is not a fad to be dismissed. It is the basis of the first and greatest democracy and the commonwealth it has built for its citizens throughout its history.

The Constitution is who we are.

If you don't believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then you actually have only the rights that any particular government in power is willing to give you.

The history of such naive trust in central government has a sad history.

Never mind, someday the Dims will be in power again. Then you'll suddenly discover how important your rights are. That is, if you have any left.

You sound like Howard Dean. In that respect, how many terrorist acts have been committed on our soil since 911?

Do you suppose that there is much more going on behind the curtain that you are not aware of?

They do not fear retribution or death - their only fear is that we can disrupt and delay their schedule.

Their biggest fear is destruction of Islam, and a well placed ultimatum from the President (bomb LA, lose Mecca) would go a long way in winning the war on Islam.

You're missing the key words here. To this President, issues like "the public's opposition to open borders and unlimited illegal immigration; the confiscation of taxpayer money for international causes..." and I might add the public's opposition to out-of-control legal immigration are NOT "issues of such great consequence".

And there is a bipartisan agreement, even with Dim labor leaders, to implement this.

It's another issue where the voters are excluded by design of both parties.

You sound like Howard Dean. In that respect, how many terrorist acts have been committed on our soil since 911?

Spare me your invalid comparisons. To a rabid Bush supporter, anyone who disagrees with Bush sounds like Howard Dean or a liberal.

Second, the southern border is WIDE OPEN. If you don't think that is a security risk, then you are whistling past the graveyard as much as Bush is.

So, had you been around in 1943, if you had to choose between fighting a just war and tossing a "socialistic" Democrat president out of office, you'd have chosen the latter.

The point is that your efforts to get rid of Bush help increase the likelihood of our defeat at the hands of radical Islamists. And they increase the likelihood of further 9/11's because the evidence suggests that no Democrat (other perhaps than Lieberman) has the will to defend this country.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.