Fact checking the State of the Union?

[Steven Haworth]

I watched the State of the Union speech last night.  That is a fact.  I  also watched it again when it was re-broadcast on FOX News.  That too is a fact. 

Another thing that is a fact:  I consider paying attention to the Presidents "idea" of the SOTU a duty, only slightly less than voting, but every bit as important as vetting the candidates of the next election.  And this SOTU, the third in the first term of a sitting President seeking reelection is really nothing more than a campaign "kick-off" speech.  As it was with the last President, and the one before that. 

I found this speech to be one of the weakest speeches this President has yet delivered.  He delivered it nearly flawlessly, as he almost always does when aided by a teleprompter.   But there were no real strong points, no facing the real issues that still plague the economy, no new ideas for the nation to rally around.  This speech could have been given at a campaign rally and would have gotten a similar yawning response from a gym full of supporters.  The Democrats applauded and rose at the planned pauses, but often seemed to do so reluctantly.  The Republicans sat on their hands, as expected.  Yawn.  Rehash platitudes.  Yawn.

There were a few things in the speech which were close to the truth, like the remarks concerning the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  True I suppose, but the underlying truth that is not spoken, is that this administration was unwilling to extend an agreement with the Iraqi government to maintain a U.S. Military security force to continue aiding the Iraqis.  The real truth here is that the previous administration, led by George W Bush, had in 2008 signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which expired at the end of 2011.  While Obama takes credit for ending the Iraqi war, he was only following a timetable established by Bush.  So I guess it's true, yet wishy-washy truth.

He takes credit for saving the US auto industry, again a questionable claim when you look at the facts.  The auto industry bail-out started under the Bush administration.  And when the bail-out looked like it was about to fail, the Obama administration forced GM into a restructure agreement where the unions actually acquired controlling interest of the company...so with the union in charge the survival of GM is still up for grabs. History will tell.  Chrysler continued it's foray into failure and when asking to be allowed to file bankruptcy the Obama administration forced it into a take over by a foreign auto company, Fiat.  Is that an American success story the President lauds?  In the same paragraph he mentioned Ford's successful growth during this same time, but Ford declined government bail-out monies, to avoid the strings attached.  I'll buy FORD.  But I think it is a fallacious argument for the President to even mention Ford in the same context as GM and Chrysler. 

The list goes on and on.  Is there such a thing as soft facts? I learned as a child, relearned as a teen, and have always believed that omission of facts that would change the understanding of the story is dishonest.  Some call it a lie of omission. 

Most people who will read this will have already done their reading on the facts, listened to the pundits, and have their own knowledge and opinions of the Presidents, dare we call it,  a State of the Union speech.

Some further reading: 

Washington Post

Boston Globe