State of the Union

Well, it sounds to me like we're going to war.  I just hope Powell is able to convince the UN to come along with us, otherwise we are going it alone and if we don't have the world with us, and things go badly, we're in for a terrible mess.

That being said, I though it was a great speech.  I found a lot I agreed with, and a lot I disagreed with

In agreement:

1. The $1.2 billion for hydrogen vehicles, and $15 billion for worldwide AIDS relief are bold moves.  I hope they come into being as presented, and if they do I will bow down.   Energy independence is the key to extricating ourselves from the mess we're in now, and relieving the suffering of the third world can only help our public image.
2. The only mention of a war on drug was oriented towards dealing with treatment, $600 million worth.  Granted some of it was "faith-based" which bugs me, but the fact that the sole mention was in regards to treatment indicates a shift away from the dark side.  
3. Project Bioshield ($6 billion worth) is a good sized part of the kind of homeland security initiviatives that have been missing.  This, combined with the joint department intelligence center between the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and Pentagon is a good move forward.  It's not the kind of ideas that Gary Hart will be presenting, but its a definate move forward.

Now, for the stuff I disagreed with

1. Abortion - when will the right get that pro-choice means pro-choice, not pro-abortion.  If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
2. Cloning - this is so short sighted I can't even express it.  If we don't take the lead, technically and morally, someone else will.
3. Faith-based initiatives - I appreciate what he's trying for, public service in all shapes and forms, but there's a reason for the seperation of church and state, and giving money to groups that WILL push their beliefs is totally contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
4. Economy and tax cuts - No further comment.  Suffice it to say the Democrats aren't the only ones for economic redistribution, but at least they're redistributing to the little guy.
5. Ballistic missles != terrorism and anyone who thinks that is a mouth-breathing retard.  The attempt to link missle-defense and terrorism needs to end, because it just makes everyone involved look idiotic.  If you want to make a case for missle-defense, cite North Korea.

Finally...Iraq:

The evidence presented:

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. "

If all of this is true, and the intelligence behind it is sufficient, the UN should be convinced of the case behind war.  If they are not, and the solid evidence behind these assertions is presented to the UN, I'm for war.  But that evidence better be ROCK FUCKIN' SOLID and the only objection in the UN would have to be crazed socialist rantings with no basis in reality.

This all being said this is my initial reaction, 30 minutes after the fact.  I've attempted to get my thoughts down here before the TV punditocracy influenced my thought patterns.   I'm sure my thoughts will be distilled both by the professional punditocracy, and the less-professional, but equally-insightful blogitocracy, over the next day or two, and I will present them as they do.  But what fun is a blog if you can't see someone's mind at work ;)