After six months, shock and awe has come home to America. Last Sunday our president went on national television to remind us that terrorism is bad and, almost as if in passing, mentioned that he’s going to need 87 billion dollars to keep us in Iraq. Even those who missed the speech (like a majority of the American public) could tell that something was up from the sound of millions of jaws hitting the ground at once.

Last week, civics nerds all over American television and radio were pointing out that Bush had maintained a laser-like focus on his campaign message: The economy. Even though the nine Democratic candidates were railing against the somewhat lackluster peace in Iraq in several televised debates, Bush continued to talk about jobs. Now, with last Sunday’s speech, the civics nerds are talking about how the president’s, “focus has shifted” to the occupation.

This isn’t quite the case. Yes, Bush spent a good deal of his national air-time trying to rally support for our never-ending war against terror; but the main focus of the speech was money. All that patter about keeping America safe was there to impress upon us how important it is for that money to get to Iraq; not to keep America safe.

After all, the $87 billion is just for Iraq. Not for Afghanistan, not for the CIA and FBI, not to fund all of those Homeland Security expenses currently being foisted on local governments – just Iraq.

Frankly, a high school student could easily see how the speech was put together (ok, not recent enrollee, but maybe one from the sixties could do it). Point 1: Terrorism is bad. Point 2: Iraq is the frontline in the battle against terror now.

Point 3: In order to fight terrorism – which is bad, we must remain in control of Iraq – which is where terror comes from (see points 1 and 2). Point 4: It’s going to require a lot of money. Point 5: I’m gonna ask Congress for some.

A speech, constructed in this way, with each point built on the previous one, relies on all of those points being correct. No one could argue with Point 1 (terrorism is bad), but you would have to conveniently forget about Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Yemen, and Syria in order to buy into Point 2 (Iraq is the frontline of the war against terrorism). Certainly, plenty of terrorist-type people are flooding into the country, but only because they don’t have any other way to take potshots at Americans; it’s much easier to go to a poorly secured country where American troops are then to get into the U.S. these days (even though it’s still too easy for them to come here).

Over the past six months the Bush administration has been label mad with regards to Iraq. Consider that in the course of this administration’s attempts to justify the war that Iraq has gone from being the WMD capital of the world, to a nation that desperately needed a regime change that probably had WMD’s, to a country in desperate need of liberation that might have WMD’s, to a mess which we must now clean up with no WMD’s anywhere to be found. If there’s a massive flu epidemic this winter you can almost expect to see Condoleezza Rice go on television to let us know that it’s Iraq’s fault that we’re all sick.

The notion that we must avoid ceding control of Iraq to the UN or – dare we say it, the Iraqis – which makes up Point 3, is a tremendous non sequitor. Some might say that a prolonged occupation will increase terrorism. But even if that’s not the case, the only possible benefit is that all of our brave men and women in Iraq will draw fire from people who otherwise would be plotting their next move against the homeland in a German apartment somewhere. Somehow, it seems wrong for a soldier’s duty to protect America to extend to acting as a lighting rod for every hate-ridden maniac in the Middle East, but they might be doing just that.

Points 4 and 5 are statements of intent and not justifications, but even so, they’re worth a look. President Tax-Cut is asking Congress to give him $87 billion dollars. Where will it come from? Who knows? At least the question might distract the American public from realizing that the Bush legacy is most likely going to be one of ambitious programs which everyone agrees on, but wind up not getting funded (like No Child Left Behind).

Still, the speech was a good effort, and will no doubt be easy to spin come 2004. We’re in Iraq now, up to our necks; it would be shameful not to restore essential services and set up some sort of democratic regime before we bug out. Congress people who vote against the allocation of the money run the risk of being labeled traitors; those who vote for it wind up supporting the president. But the race has just begun; actually, since a few of the candidates started campaigning in January, we’ve reached the quarter-mark.

What dark times our nation is in: A war, a sagging economy, a jobless recovery, more pollution, rising crime, and the longest presidential election campaign ever.

-B. C. Silvia