Okay. Settle in your seats, sip your lattes, and listen carefully because there will be a quiz later.

Rhetoric is a learned skill. Rhetorical eloquence is an art. George W. Bush is not a skilled speechmaker. He stumbles over words and garbles the easiest of sentences. However, it’s far too facile to convolute what he says with how he says it. A case in point is his recent State of the Union Address.

This speech was a masterwork of false dichotomies in the ‘If you’re not with us, you’re against us’ vein and misdirection. Here’s an example:

“In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom — or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy — or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting — yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people … the only way to secure the peace … the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership — so the United States of America will continue to lead.”

What he is saying is that we are involved in a form of a zero/sum game. In zero/sum, one side wins and the other loses. The classic zero/sum is the prisoner’s dilemma: if the prisoners cooperate they will both gain, however, if one prisoner defects he will gain more. There are no grey areas in zero/sum, I win, and you lose. You’re either with me or agin’ me. If you don’t agree with me on the war in Iraq, then you’re an isolationist. If we don’t go forward, we go backward. Life, of course, is not like a zero/sum game. Life is filled with grey areas, unresolved differences, and resolutions that resolve nothing.

The State of the Union Speech also contained some purposeful misdirection:

“On September 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state seven thousand miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause.”

All right, if the attack came from a “state,” What state was it? Is he referring to Afghanistan? We went into Afghanistan and removed the government; but it wasn’t that “state” that attacked us. We didn’t manage to find and detain the ones who were behind the attack. It’s become a joke, “Osama bin Forgotten.” Why hasn’t he been captured? What about George Bush’s promise of “dead of alive”? It wasn’t Afghanistan that attacked the U.S.; it wasn’t Iraq that attacked us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Ayman al-Zawahiri attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us. Yes, they have been aided by states, Pakistan among them. But we were attacked by Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda has no state. Further, Bin Laden looked upon Sadam as apostate and Sadam, as we know, trusted no one. That’s why he wanted the world to think that he had weapons when he had spent the oil-for-food money on other things like building palaces and bribing officials.

By the way, if “every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer,” Then why, when the Palestinians democratically voted for Hamas, did our leaders decide that this was not acceptable? That’s rhetorical, no answer required.

Finally, George Bush made a statement:

“I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have — and Federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it — because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.”

First of all, in writing the Constitution the Framers very wisely created 3 branches. The Framers were very wary of allowing a strong Executive. They had enough of that with the King of England. The Legislature is the first branch described in the Constitution. The Executive must consult with the Congress: the checks and balances are built into the framework of our government. No matter how much the Executive would like to think that he/she can authorize a program such as George Bush described, he can’t. He must consult with Congress.

Second, since the passage of FISA in 1978, no president, by statute, can unilaterally, order domestic surveillance, nor has one done so. Yes, before FISA, it had been done in times of war; but since FISA the president is barred from ordering domestic surveillance. FISA, by the way, is no cure all. It employs a secret court; but at least there is a judicial check on Executive power. Also, NSA can perform a warrant-less search for 3 days before going to the FISA court.

Third, as Michael Chertoff (Homeland Security Head) testified, thousands of Americans have been the objects of surveillance. Without the FISA court to oversee these procedures, there is no check on possible abuse. There is no check on innocent people being subject to surveillance. How long is the information held? Who is using it? And to what end? Think this doesn’t matter to you? Here’s an example: someone suspected of terrorist activity mis-dials from outside the U.S. and gets your number. The NSA can then monitor you and everyone you call, according to Mr. Bush’s unilateral order. Munch on that one for a while.

Fourth, we live in a representative democracy. Our laws are supposed to be reactive. One is punished after the crime, not before. If you want to live in a country where behaviour is proscribed, then you might want to look at a Totalitarian regime. That’s the “shortcoming” of a democracy, you do have relative freedom to both good and bad. The plaudits or punishment come later. Life inside the Leviathan may seem like a zero/sum game to some, but zero/sum games of chance really only exist outside the Leviathan where life is truly, “Nasty, brutish, and short.” We do give up some liberties to live inside the Leviathan, but we are not obligated to give up them all and if we were then we might as well be outside the protective walls our laws afford us.

We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. This is not a turf battle between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. Your civil liberties and your ability to live in a state of relative freedom hang in the balance. Watch what Congress chooses to do. Who will protect you and your rights? No matter what he says, George W. Bush has sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, instead he’s shredding it. The guy in the picture? James Madison and he’s turning over in his grave about now.

Please give what you can to Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders).

And, of course