Integrity and the State of the Union
…We are told that "the state of our union has never been stronger." More significantly, we are told that the war has united Americans and made them better people, with a new ethic and a new creed.

This shift toward an elaboration on national character may help explain a major omission in the president's war talk: his failure to make any mention of Osama bin Laden, who planned the Sept. 11 attack but has yet to be captured. In many minds, the justification of the United States attacks on Afghanistan was retaliatory, exemplified by the president's vow to track down Mr. bin Laden. This is what Americans want, the yardstick they have identified for victory.

But Mr. Bush has become transcendental. The war may have to be enlarged to deal with added threats in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. The fight against "evil" — a word he used five times — may require it. Justifiable retaliation may be turning into a wider crusade. Mr. Bush, a Bible-minded man, also preaches to Americans the need to collaborate on domestic policy as they have on war.

This is red, white and blue bunting on an inaccurate reading of history. In America's traditional military conflicts, from 1812 through Vietnam, large and disunited chunks of the country spoke disrespectfully of Mr. Madison's war, Mr. Lincoln's war, Mr. Wilson's, Mr. Roosevelt's or Lyndon Johnson's. Domestic consensus was not expected, although from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one recurrent presidential wartime emphasis was greater tax fairness — rates that rose most for the wealthy because of their greater ability to pay. Mr. Bush, in contrast, had nothing to say about who ought to pay for the war.

Meanwhile, the president's talk of escalating America's war against terrorism to include new foes, this time definable states like Iraq, stands in sharp contrast to his abandonment of a domestic battlefront. This is the war that many in Congress and the nation as a whole want to declare — the war on money politics and the big-contributor stranglehold on policy making that lets a rogue corporation like Enron rise to influence and power. The unexpected consequences have ranged from last year's California energy crisis, in which Enron was both a victim and a culprit, to Enron's bankruptcy, with its loss of jobs and pensions.
Integrity http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/31/opinion/31PHIL.html