BuzzFlash
presents Southern Style
by Rebecca Knight
August 2, 2002
Questionable Motives
by Rebecca Knight
The Bush administration came to power under questionable circumstances at best. The Bush campaign misrepresented his record as governor of Texas and hid relevant facts about his personal background, purely for the purpose of attaining the highest office in the land. Bush was not the choice of the American people as represented by the fact that Al Gore received over 540,000 more votes nationwide. Bush is president because of the American electoral system and the highly questionable actions of the U.S. Supreme Court in ending the recount controversy in Florida. A logical thinking American would expect a newly installed administration, grounded on such a shaky foundation, to tread lightly and reassure the American people that it understood the historical significance of the circumstances involved in its assent to power.
However, the candidate who attained the presidency without winning the popular vote and campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" and a "uniter, not a divider," immediately began governing from the far right, apparently to appease his supporters in the Christian right. This was demonstrated by his choices of anti-choice diehards John Ashcroft and Tommy Thompson for his cabinet. In fact, on his first full day in office, Bush reinstated the "gag" rule preventing international family planning clinics from receiving U.S. funding if they so much as mentioned the word abortion, reversing eight years of Clinton policy.
Now the Bush administration has withdrawn $34 million in family planning funds designated to the United Nations. The funds were approved for the United Nations Population Fund as part of a foreign operations bill passed by Congress in December of 2001 and signed into law by Bush. The New York Times reported in January of this year that the funds were in suspension due to the objections of conservatives about China's abortion policies.(1) Representative Christopher Smith, Republican of New Jersey, wrote to Bush requesting that he deny all funding to the population fund, even though officials of the fund countered that the group only works in counties in China where the one-child policy has been lifted.
Why would the Bush administration take such action? In a scathing column by Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe, she reports that the reasoning was explained with an administration statement saying that the money to the agency helps the "Chinese government to implement more effectively its programs of coercive abortion."(2) This statement is proven disingenuous, if not an outright lie, by the fact that the money does not go to the Chinese government, it is against the law for any U.S. money to fund abortions overseas, the U.N. opposes forced sterilization, and the record shows that wherever the U.N. works the rate of abortion decreases. Ms. Goodman summarizes: "In an effort to punish a UN operation that ''gives hope to women in China,'' we are going to withdraw $34 million that pays for midwives and hospitals, birthing kits and contraceptives. And to appease the domestic ''right-to-life'' lobby, we are going to withhold enough money to prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 4,700 maternal deaths, and more than 77,000 infant and child deaths."
On Sept. 20, 2001 George W. Bush said, "We will direct every resource at our command – every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war – to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network." Like a bull in a china shop the Ashcroft Justice Department went about dismantling the civil liberties of American citizens in their efforts against domestic terrorism. There has been only one exception to Ashcroft's zealousness. In December 2001 the Ashcroft Justice Department reversed prior policy and banned law enforcement from checking the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background System to determine if potential terrorists tried to buy firearms.(3) Ashcroft claimed that this was the finding of his own Justice Department and that he had to abide by it. However, in his latest Newsweek column Jonathan Alter exposes the Ashcroft lie.(4) On July 23, the General Accounting Office reported that Ashcroft's own Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel had issued an opinion on Oct. 1 allowing the background checks. It seems the interests of the NRA were more important to Mr. Ashcroft than the all out effort against terrorists and the safety of American citizens. Take away our civil liberties, but don't dare touch those guns in the hands of terrorists!
On November 1, 2001, Bush signed an executive order allowing either the White House or former presidents to veto the release of their presidential papers.(5) Initial reaction was outrage and suspicion that Bush was attempting to hide actions taken by his father as president and vice-president. However, there may have been a secondary motive in secreting those documents. When Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua he signed a series of executive orders providing FEMA with broad powers in the event of a "crisis" or "violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a U.S. military invasion abroad."(6) It is known that Oliver North was involved in the development of the plans, but the full details remain uncertain. It is also known that many of the key players of the Reagan administration are also a part of the present Bush administration, including John Poindexter, to whom North reported.
General Norman Schwarzkopf once said, "It doesn't take any courage to order men into battle." That statement reflects badly on the Bush administration and Republican congressional leaders since a vast number of them apparently lacked the courage to do what they would ask of others in going to war. While most Americans are probably aware of Bush's questionable activities as a member of the Texas Air National Guard and the possibility that he failed to complete his service, they may not be aware that numerous other conservative leaders supporting military actions around the world did not serve in the military themselves. The New Hampshire Gazette published "The Chickenhawk Database" in their ongoing effort to report on the military status of public personalities and governmental leaders who advocate military solutions to political problems.(7) It makes for interest reading, indeed. For example, the list includes Karl Rove, Bush's chief political advisor, who has demonstrated his willingness to use the war on terrorism for political advantage. Colin Powell wrote in his autobiography, "I am angry that so many sons of the well placed and powerful managed to wangle slots in the Reserve and National Guard Units." Well, Mr. Powell, if you were so angry, why are you now aligned with those types in the Republican Party and the Bush administration? Apparently power and influence took precedence over your principles.
Expectations are that war with Iraq may be imminent, even though conditions for such an attack are nothing like the previous war with Iraq, there is no broad coalition of support, and Congress has not consented to such actions. Americans would be wise to contemplate why Bush would proceed with actions against Iraq under such circumstances. Popularity polls are enhanced during times of war and mid-term elections are just around the corner. In these times of a faltering stock market, the corporations which appear to have escaped unscathed or even seen their stock prices rise are in the defense industry. Former world leaders and influential conservatives work for the Carlyle Group, which is heavily invested in the defense industry. And don't forget that Bush 41 is probably still very much ticked off that he never got Saddam.
The Washington Post reports that Bush has decided to go ahead with a new Office of Global Communications, including a counselor to the president, which will seek to coordinate the administration's foreign policy message and supervise America's image abroad.(8) Isn't that what the State Department is for? So, now we have more bureaucracy aimed at shaping foreign opinion from the administration that supposedly favors smaller government. Where will the hypocrisy end?
The current administration seems to specialize in disinformation tactics. We have a president that speaks in bits and spurts when commenting off-the-cuff. Sometimes even when scripted, he blunders badly enough that the presidential transcripts are sanitized to remove his gaffes. Accounts of intelligence warnings get more and more contradictory and revisions of Bush's financial dealings are too numerous to mention.
The one thing we do know for sure about this president is that he has a thirst for power. He made that abundantly clear on numerous occasions by openly stating his desire to be a dictator. He may have been joking, but there was a certain ring of truth to his remarks. Bush is the most power hungry president since Richard Nixon. He has expanded presidential powers at every opportunity.
Poll numbers remain high for Bush – if you believe them to be accurate – which is confirmation of the skill of his political team in maneuvering through the minefield of scandalous accusations surrounding him. However, poll numbers are notorious for falling when the public loses faith in a president's interest in issues that concern the people. This is evidenced by the fact that his father did not achieve a second term, even with the Gulf War success. History may repeat itself in that respect.
The most confusing aspect to the personality of George W. Bush is that his actions and words reflect a total lack of compassion for fellow human beings, directly conflicting with what he professes are his beliefs as a Christian. A few months ago he was called to task on this by Methodist minister, Rev. Rich Lang, whose scorching letter to Bush was widely circulated on the internet.(9) Rev. Lang's letter closed with the following three paragraphs:
"The Spirit of Death rises, and nations tremble. We the people of the United States tremble. We discover how truly powerless we have become. Our military budget grows to obscene levels, bankrupting the social infrastructure from which our security and freedom rise. We see basic medical care costs increase, even as more and more Americans find themselves without health care. We see environmental treaties subverted, ignored, and disappeared, even as Mother Earth signals increasing distress. Labor rights are made secondary to the rights of corporations, resulting in wage reductions and growing financial insecurity. Homelessness exposes itself through tented cities. Education becomes the victim of budget knife cuts. A few benefit but the groan of the masses is growing. Whose side are you on, George?
Perhaps you think that God has chosen you for this hour. Perhaps God has. So again I ask you; Is this how you learned Christ? If God has chosen you for this hour then, in Christ's name, serve the values and vision of Jesus: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, release the prisoners, cancel the debt, forgive your enemies, practice Jubilee. Then, through you, this nation and all nations will be blessed.
But beware: the road of the sword will bring division and much blood. Those who take it up will be devoured by it. Many people, in the name of God, have taken up the sword. And many have come to ruin. Thinking themselves capable of naming evil, they have become the very evil they name. "
So, the Bush administration, established in controversy and built on a foundation of shifting sand, is responsible for policies and actions that are deserving of critical examination.
Suspicious? You bet! The American people have strong reasons to be suspicious of Bush's questionable motives.
* * *
(1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/16/international/asia/16PREX.html
(2) http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/206/oped/
Cutting_off_women_to_spite_China+.shtml
(3) http://www.vpc.org/press/0112ash.htm
(4) http://www.msnbc.com/news/786378.asp
(5) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&
contentId=A27293-2001Nov1¬Found=true
(6) http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html
(7) http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
(8) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18822-2002Jul29.html
(9) http://www.realchangenews.org/pastissues/Apr_18_02/opinion/opinion.html
* * *
Rebecca Knight is a native Tennessean, who grew up in Nashville, and currently resides in a small town near Nashville. Ms. Knight's political awareness evolved through the civil rights movement, the Vietnam era, the Watergate era, and the cold war. The debacle of the 2000 election increased her sense of responsibility for political activism. You may contact Rebecca Knight via e-mail at tennessee_gal655@yahoo.com.
© 2002 by Rebecca Knight
