Bush’s message interpreted many ways

A National Guardsman watched, listened and prepared for the possibility of war. A peace protester found irony in the description of this country’s compassion. A local Republican praised the president.

People in Douglas County reacted with applause, surprise and outrage to President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address — a speech anticipated as one of the most important in his presidency.

Air National Guardsman Paul Vincent, 25, watched from his Lawrence home with his personal circumstances in mind.

He’s already served in Kosovo and Turkey. His period of service as a traditional guardsman is scheduled to end Feb. 19, when he’s scheduled to become an inactive reserve, but that date could be postponed if the country goes to war.

“I don’t know how he could possibly be doing anything besides going to war at this point,” said Vincent, a Kansas University student and member of the 190th air-refueling wing at Forbes Field. “Whatever happens, myself and everyone that’s in a similar situation will do what we’ve been asked to do and do it proudly.”

One big question of the night was whether Bush would give more details to support attacking Iraq. Chris Miller, chairman of the Douglas County Republican Central Committee, didn’t need to hear any.

The issue, Miller said, is not whether Bush reveals details but whether Saddam Hussein would comply with United Nations requirements already in place.

“I thought it was helpful that he went back and reminded everyone that all of this stems from action by the U.N. 12 years ago,” Miller said.

However, Alice Lieberman, a former Douglas County Democratic chairwoman, sounded afterward as though she could have used more persuasion. She said Bush gave a good speech with rhetoric that masked poor logic.

“He is taking this country in a direction that really scares me,” she said. “He still is positioning this country as the world’s cowboy, and that concerns me.”

Another Bush skeptic is Allan Hanson, who’s been organizing anti-war protests recently for the Lawrence Coalition for Peace and Justice. He found it strange that Bush talked about Americans’ caring and compassion at a time when the gap between the rich and poor is growing.

Hanson accused Bush of being the aggressor toward Iraq.

“He says, ‘If war is forced upon us, we will respond,'” Hanson said. “In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of just about all the other countries in the world, Bush is forcing this war. It’s not being forced upon him.”

A presidential historian who runs Kansas University’s Dole Institute of Politics, Richard Norton Smith, heard a speech with two halves, one related to domestic concerns and another related to war. The first half contained what he called a surprising “grab bag” of health and environmental programs.

“No one would have really expected this president to talk about hydrogen-powered automobiles,” he said. “It’s as if the compassionate conservative was in the first half of the speech and the defiant, if-need-be-go-it-alone world leader was in the second half of the speech — the two sides of George Bush.”

One thing almost all people said about the speech was that Bush delivered an effective performance. Ellen Reid Gold, a KU associate professor of communication studies, called it an “excellent speech” and “one of Bush’s better efforts.”

Kathy Sexton, a manager for The Palace, Eighth and Massachusetts streets, enjoyed the speech but didn’t agree with all of its content.

“He was pretty impressive, actually, and I’m not even a Republican,” Sexton said. “I get the feeling that he’s ignoring North Korea, which is almost more scary. I don’t know if he just doesn’t know what to do or if he has a real thing for Saddam.”