Blood on Their Hands : How Callous Conservatives Capitalize on Clueless Constituents 9780761846031, 9780761846017

Citation preview

Blood on Their Hands How Callous Conservatives Capitalize on Clueless Constituents

Forrest P. Redd

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF AMERICA, ® INC.

Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Copyright © 2009 by University Press of America,® Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard Suite 200 Lanham, Maryland 20706 UPA Acquisitions Department (301) 459-3366 Estover Road Plymouth PL6 7PY United Kingdom All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America British Library Cataloging in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Control Number: 2009925762 ISBN: 978-0-7618-4601-7 (clothbound : alk. paper) ISBN: 978-0-7618-4602-4 (paperback : alk. paper) eISBN: 978-0-7618-4603-1

∞ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992

To Annie Clary & Susie Thomas & Daniel Elizabeth, Matthew & Madeline Christopher & Morgan Leah Cleo & Yermo

In Memory Charles L. Redd, Jr. Julia H. Redd Charles L. Redd, Sr. Emma Jane Mulinex & Charlene M. Redd

Congratulations Josh & Christie August 2009

Contents

Acknowledgments

vii

Introduction

ix

1

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

1

2

Fail to the Chief

19

3

Axis of Evil

35

4

Back to Larson

53

5

No Saint John

69

6

Comparatively Speaking

87

7

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

103

8

Boneheaded America

122

9

The Perfect Scapegoat

143

10

More of the Scapegoat

155

11

Bush Backers Undermine America

165

12

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

185

Epilogue

213

Index

219

v

Acknowledgments

I remember vividly calling The Jim Leach Show the morning after the 2004 election. “WMAY, you’re on the air,” Jim bellowed as he was broadcasting from his downtown studio. “I feel like I just got hit by a bus,” was my first comment. “I feel a kind of emptiness inside…disappointment, frustration, anger and outrage.” “Jim,” I continued as I was reliving the moment Ohio put George W. Bush over the top, “Are Americans really this stupid?” A few weeks after that phone call, I began to vent my frustration by jotting down notes about Bush’s dismal and disastrous first term. This act helped, but it didn’t feel like enough. After the hustle and bustle of the holiday season, I remember thinking, “somebody ought to write a book.” It was around Saint Patrick’s Day 2005, I decided, “that ‘somebody,’ ought to be me.” I have many to thank for the creation of this work. Some provided technical support, others provided emotional support and encouragement, and still others were simply an inspiration to me via their unconditional love and friendship. At this point, I would like to thank them all. To my coworkers and friends alike: Marci Aherin, Tina Babbs, Patty Barnes, Nina Bolton, Dani Boosinger, Gail Bouillon, Bob Brown, Joyce Brown, Shirley Burris, Mary Cockrell, Melody Combs, Wally Combs, Phil Cox, Penny Crawford, Heather Davenport, Donald Deleu, Michael Deleu, Daniel Dye, Julie Flessner, Christopher Fuiten, Art Gaterman, Sue Green, Rachel Griffin, Steve Henderson, Kelley Henry, Beverly Horrighs, William Houlihan, Robin Hutchins, Chala Hutchins, Doug Johnson, Michelle Jorgensen, Ramona Kennedy, Carole Kerr, Ellen King, Tom King, Tina Kohart, Lesley Kuhl, Maggie Kuykendall, Jessica Laurent, Jim Leach, Susie Lendy, Kevin Logan, Linda Logan, Annette Lomelino, Vicki Lutes, John Lutz, Cindi Martin, Susie Martin, Kathy Maulding, Terri Maulding, Julie McAllister, Marilyn McAllister, Cam McGown, Steve Medlock, Steve Mitchell, Cheryl Moffitt, Gary Moffitt, Lisa Mohr, Annette Murphy, vii

viii

Acknowledgments

Mary Neuenschwander, Lyle Newell, Betsy Newingham, Richard Nyilas, Sandy Nyilas, Jason Padgett, Susan Payne, Teri Peters, Christopher Quick, Jacob Quick, Valerie Quick, Norm Reynolds, John Ringle, Kathleen Rogers, Kim Rohr, Craig Ruch, Anthony Schulze, Paula Schwartz, Jane Scott, Chris Sentman, Teresa Smith, Jerry Spencer, Pam Spencer, Kim Stanley, Jeannie Talkington, Crystal Travous, Cheryl Turley, Amanda Turner, Julia Walden, Mindy Waller, Mary Beth Weller, Shannon White, Cheris Whitford, Peggy Whitler, Lana Wildman, Brianna Williamson, Denise Williamson, Jenny Willis, Nancy Yeagle & Karen Zelmer. For their generous technical support and friendship: Eddie Allison, Sammy Allison, Philip Bateman, Danielle Jacob, Sue Ellen Kunz, Amanda McKinley, Anthony Pearce, Brayden Pearce, David Pearce, Lisa Pearce, Christopher Rodems, & Steven Rodems. Special contributions are courtesy of the following individuals who have enriched my life in numerous ways: Eleanor Glenn, Kathryn Glenn, Marc Glenn, Troy Glenn, Bob Lee, Pam Lee, Rick Mathany, & Jason Allen Peel. Special thanks to Editor Philip Saulnier, University Press of America Associate Editor Brooke Bascietto, and my publisher, Judith L. Rothman, Vice President and Director at University Press of America. An extra special thanks to my literary agent Henry Holmes, who embraced my work from the very beginning and encouraged me regularly throughout the creation of this work.

Introduction

In his Inaugural Address on January 20, 1961, John Fitzgerald Kennedy stood in front of the steps of the U.S. Capitol and inspired a nation with hope, unity, and a new frontier. He summoned America to battle the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war. Kennedy charged all Americans, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”1 This work is one of the ways I can do for my country—the land I call home—the land that I love. Cathartic in a great sense, this book allows readers the opportunity to vent their frustrations held over from the 2004 election. A plea to the nation to come together to practice common sense and strive for enlightenment, this work calls upon all Americans to exercise decency, tolerance, and compassion. My decision to write this book was fueled by the outcome of the 2004 general election. However, my motivation to actually begin writing did not assert itself until shortly after the election. I began noticing with horror, the many bumper stickers that were clinging to the vehicles of Bush supporters throughout central Illinois. While driving through America’s heartland, I saw those God-awful reminders, w04 and Bush/Cheney04. I nearly ran off of the road one time when I spotted Bush/Cheney08. Americans will need to work together to begin the healing process of a nation which has been deeply scarred. The darkness that has besieged our nation since George W. Bush took the Oath of Office must be excised. Martin Luther King once stated, “Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.”2 In the wee hours of Wednesday November 3rd, 2004, I am confident that George W. Bush must have been thinking to himself, “I can hardly believe ix

x

Introduction

it. The people of America swallowed it—hook, line, and sinker. I outsourced jobs and boast a record of net job loss. The economy is in a downward spiral. I turned a large surplus into an enormous deficit, raped our environment, shredded our Constitution, and sent thousands of our troops to their deaths for an unnecessary and costly war. I have committed multiple war crimes and promoted a nation of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance. As well, I looked like a complete fool during the presidential debates against John Kerry. Yet, all I had to do was talk about ‘family values’ and tell the American people to shut up and wave the flag. Now I have been rewarded with a second term. Wow, what a great country!” Shortly after the Bush administration turned Saddam Hussein into Osama bin Laden, they transformed a war hero into a war criminal and a war criminal into a war president. Other transformations occurred as well. Bigotry, intolerance, and hatred became “family values” while torture became quaintly known as “hazing.” Poverty, unemployment, and working multiple jobs to make ends meet metamorphosed into “character building.” The narrowest margin of victory turned into a mandate. A tragic first term featuring a multitude of failures was redefined as a successful term filled with great achievements. How does an incompetent, arrogant, reckless, and selfish war criminal not only avoid prosecution, but maintain his grip on the White House? What is in store for America’s future? Will we move beyond the darkness which King spoke of? This book, Blood on Their Hands: Callous Conservatives Capitalize on Clueless Constituents, has the ability to stand the test of time by converging the past, the present, and the future. It is in a sense, eternal. Inspirational as well as informational, it is the first book ever to meld science, spirituality, and politics. It is the first book to put the blame for George W. Bush serving two terms squarely where it belongs. As well, it will change the way Americans view politics, God, religion, the media, and mankind. “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” Groucho Marx “Sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power.” John F. Kerry

NOTES 1. Clarke, Thurston. Ask Not (Henry Holt. New York, New York. 2004) p. 201. 2. Gore, Al. The Assault on Reason (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2007) p. 272.

Chapter One

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

On Election Day 2004, George W. Bush won and America lost. Throughout his life, George W. Bush has led a life of wealth and privilege. From the beginning, he has stopped at nothing to acquire more wealth and power at the expense of others. Born in New Haven, Connecticut, George W. was the first born son of George Herbert Walker and Barbara Pierce Bush. After much success in the corporate world, George W.’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was elected to the US Senate in 1952 (R-Connecticut). In 1967, his father was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives (R-Texas). George H. W. entered politics mostly to please his father. Phrases such as “humble beginnings” and “worked his way up from nothing” will probably not be found in any biographies on George W. Bush. Our nation’s forty-third President was no doubt born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was the oldest of six children. His siblings include two sisters and three brothers: Dorothy, Robin, Marvin, Neil, and John. Robin died in 1953 of leukemia while still a child. Younger brother John nicknamed “Jeb,” served two terms as Florida governor (1999-2007). As a toddler, George W.’s father moved the family to Texas and began wheeling and dealing in the oil industry. In the heart of the Permian Oil Basin is the town of Midland, Texas. On Interstate 20, between Odessa and Big Spring, the downtown business district lays claim to a multitude of oil industry headquarters. Museum of the Southwest and the Permian Basin Petroleum Museum are two of the town’s major tourist attractions. Midland, which boasts the town slogan “The Sky’s the Limit”, is also the boyhood home of George W. Bush. It was in Midland where George W. spent his formative years. Limousines were not hauling little George through the streets of Midland. The Bush household was void of any butlers, gardeners or housemaids but these commodities could be found 1

2

Chapter One

at any one of the many Bush family estates or residences back east. George W. attended public schools in Midland: Sam Houston Elementary and San Jacinto Junior High. His first political victory was that of seventh grade class president. Bush had a great passion for sports. Located behind the Bush home on Sentinel Street was Cowden Park. It was a natural depression ideal for outdoor athletic events. Young George would spend most of his time there playing pick-up baseball games with friends from the neighborhood. He was also active in Little League and Junior High Football. On overcast rainy days, George and his friends would often ride their bikes to the Ritz Theatre and take in a movie. After storm clouds had unleashed showers on Midland, Cowden Park became a haven of fresh rain water, frogs, and toads. George and his friends would often meet there and spend several hours entertaining themselves. Neil Mallon was the president and general manager of Dresser Industries, a large oil conglomerate headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Mallon was a former Yale classmate and business associate of Prescott Bush. He was also an investment advisor and close friend of the Bush family. Without hesitation, he stepped in to mentor Bush’s son, George Herbert Walker. Upon Mallon’s advice and to further his ambitions, Bush moved his wife and son to Texas in order to enter the oil game and continue to add to the family wealth. Located in nearby Odessa was a subsidiary of Dresser Industries called International Derrick and Equipment Company. It was also where Bush’s new job was waiting. “Uncle” Neil had just handed George a “golden opportunity.” Bush’s wife Barbara was a bit reluctant, however, at the thought of moving to such a place. When she first heard the news from her husband, she responded with dry wit, “I’ve always wanted to live in Odessa, Texas!”1 It was less than a year in Odessa before Bush’s new career required a move to California. He negotiated high level contracts at Pacific Pumps, another subsidiary of Dresser Industries. Another close friend of the Bushes was a former Midland neighbor named John Overbey. Overbey was also an established independent oil operator. Bush and Overbey would often “talk shop” and share ideas with each other. Overbey told him that acquiring potential oil property and then selling it to the highest bidding oil company was more lucrative than drilling. The end result was the Bush-Overbey Oil Development Company. The Bushes lived the ideal American dream, a storybook American family. That is not to say that there were not any problems or heartaches. The death of Robin was a testament to that. It was a “traditional” family in every sense of the word. George W.’s mother, Barbara, was perfect for the role of “stay-at-home mom.” Unlike her husband, she had no aspirations to take on a career or go into politics. She was the family’s “moral leader.”

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

3

Outspoken and direct, she never hesitated saying whatever was on her mind. While her husband was essentially passive in this area, Barbara was the one in charge of discipline in the home. George and his father were somewhat distant. His father was often away from home negotiating business deals or seeking out various investment opportunities. Whether it involved sports, business, or politics, George Senior had to win. It was paramount in his life. This was also the philosophy that he passed on to his children. “Bushes had to be winners.”2 In his run against Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign, he declared that he would do anything to get re-elected. He also taught his son that “you must be a politician to be successful.”3 Being a “winner” is about exercising morality while treating others with dignity and respect. Winning is also making sincere efforts to achieve positive outcomes that benefit others. This is clearly a foreign concept to members of the Bush clan. A prestigious neighborhood in the southwest part of Houston became the next home of George Herbert Walker Bush and family. It was the ideal location to feed his political aspirations while enjoying a more exclusive life style. Houston had all the advantages of a large city including a large downtown with flourishing businesses, cultural sites, entertainment, professional sports teams and a variety of independent school systems. Near the Bush’s new two story home was the most established private school in the city. The Kinkaid School, founded in 1906 by Margaret Kinkaid, was where George W. Bush attended the eighth and ninth grades. Almost as though society had owed it to him, his response to it was, “for the first time in my life, I went to a private school.”4 George Washington longed for Howell Lewis and all of his other nephews to attend Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. Just north of Boston, it was the oldest private boarding school in the country. It was also the alma mater of George W. Bush. Bush senior graduated from Phillips years earlier creating a standard difficult for Junior to follow. His father excelled in athletics and campus politics. He underachieved academically, but compensated with leadership roles in various extracurricular activities. George W. Bush, self named “Tweeds” while at Andover, was not blessed with many scholastic or athletic talents. He was, however, confident and charismatic. His desire for recognition and social prominence influenced his thoughts and actions. His “cool guy” image outweighed any potential academic or athletic aspirations. Bob Marshall, a classmate of Bush’s, once remembered, “I’m sure he took some things seriously, but he was more interested in his social standing than what grades he had to get in order to get into Yale. There was an in crowd. They would walk around with a certain confidence, bravado, a little swagger...”5 George Bush was a part of that “in

4

Chapter One

crowd.” Marshall went on to say, “He wasn’t a scholar, he wasn’t a leader, he wasn’t a good athlete.”6 This resulted in George W. Bush slandering other classmates that were not a part of his clan. This was no doubt his attempt to make up for his own insecurities. Marshall adds, “He would call people names, derogatory nicknames. Other people would use them behind people’s backs, but he was more open about it.”7 Cheerleading, it turned out, was more Bush’s forte. He was not just one of the cheerleaders, but the head cheerleader. The cheerleaders were passionate and serious about their contribution to the school. During one football game, the headmaster, John Kemper, asked George and his squad to “tone it down a little” because there seemed to be more interest in the “side show” than the game. He had a great deal of enthusiasm for this aspect of his life, but it was not something mentioned at home in Houston. Bush recalls, “Texans have a hard time relating to male cheerleaders.”8 Thus, his involvement in extracurricular activities, including the stickball league that he founded, became his legacy at Andover. The University of Texas was the logical choice for Bush, even though most of the alumni from Andover attended Yale or one of the other Ivy League schools. Yale was also the alma mater of his father, grandfather and greatgreat grandfather. Bush knew, however, that his College Board scores were well below the average for students applying to Yale. It was more realistic to plan on becoming a Texas “Longhorn.” Regardless of his low expectations, Bush submitted an application to Yale. Lowering his expectations was a common practice. It was his way to level the playing field. It also afforded him the opportunity to insert himself into the “underdog” role when it was suitable, yet the ivy adorned and beautifully landscaped campus of Yale University was about to meet George W. Bush. Not even dismal College Board scores could keep Bush out of Yale. Having his grandfather and Great Uncle Herbie on the Yale board of trustees might have had something to do with it. The commencement address at Phillips Academy was administered by John Kemper in June 1964. Little mention was made of possessing strong convictions, morals or principles. Having a sense of style and originality was instead the primary message presented to the future Ivy Leaguers. Bush was at ease with this sentiment that he adamantly shared with the headmaster. Yale, the alma mater of such notables as James Fenimore Cooper, Paul Newman and Thomas Wolf, had now become the collegiate home of George Walker Bush. Vietnam was at center stage during the Bush college years. It was a volatile period that featured anti-war demonstrations, racial conflicts riots, and a general discontent with the establishment. As Bush’s freshman year began, the John Kennedy assassination was still ripe in the minds of most Americans.

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

5

By the end of his senior year, Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy had both been the victims of an assassin’s bullet. Nuclear proliferation and politics were popular discussion topics in homes, coffee shops and on college campuses around the country. Unlike his classmates at Yale, Bush had little interest in discussing Vietnam or politics. Instead, he insisted that he would create his own destiny and not emulate his father and grandfather. Ironically, up to this point in his life, he had been doing just that. He quite possibly did not discuss politics or world events in fear of jeopardizing his father’s political career. Maybe he was considering a future in politics himself, or perhaps, it was all too overwhelming for him to comprehend. Classmates including Doug Hannah recalled that Bush wanted to be popular, important and wealthy. He also wanted to please his father. As he talked about charting his own course, he continued to follow family tradition. He participated in athletics, including baseball, and was a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity. Bush was also admitted into Yale’s secret society, the “Skull and Bones.” His father had asked “that his first son do the right thing and join Skull & Bones—become a Good Man.”9 Bush had every intention on being “a good man.” In his own definition of course—popular, important and rich. Bush had seriously considered law school, but his grades were not competitive enough to make this a reality. He also contemplated an advanced degree in business which could catapult him onto Wall Street as a stockbroker. That was his new ambition as Hannah remembers. “Poppy” as his father was known among family, was busy strategizing his run for a congressional seat in Texas’ Seventh District. Bush, meanwhile, continued to perform his collegiate role as a student at Yale. Academics, however, were not a priority for George W. Bush. “Gentlemen’s Cs” were more than adequate for the boy from Midland. Just being a member of Yale’s secret society had positive implications. Having the Bush name and wealth were beneficial, too. Classmates remember that he loved to party and would often overindulge. Bush would go home to Houston during the summers, except for one particular summer when he was down on the bayou. Through his father’s connections, Junior received temporary employment with Circle Drilling in Lake Charles, Louisiana. It was a chance for Bush to “get his feet wet” and learn more about the oil industry. Manual labor, however, did not match well with his “cool guy” image and before his commitment was over, he walked off the job. The plush Tanglewood subdivision of Houston is where Bush could be found during holiday breaks and long weekends. Most of his time was spent at family gatherings or at a variety of other social functions. It was an opportunity to visit with friends, reflect on the past, and contemplate the future, as

6

Chapter One

well as a vacation from some of the peace activists and liberals back in New Haven. As an avid supporter of his father’s political ambitions, Bush also assisted a great deal in the campaign effort. George Walker Bush and his fiancée often discussed marriage, but their discussions never included setting a date. He was at Yale and she was a coed at Rice University in Houston, however, the dark cloud of Vietnam was still looming overhead. With it was the ever present possibility of receiving a draft notice. For someone who was set on creating his own destiny, Bush was pretty accurately “following in the footsteps” of “Poppy.” As his father did, Bush announced his engagement at age twenty during his junior year at Yale. However, Cathryn Lee Wolfman and George Walker Bush were never married. The actual reason remains unclear. Wolfman did not quite fit the Bush persona one theory concludes, or perhaps Bush was too preoccupied with thoughts of Vietnam. Tensions remained high in Vietnam following World War II. Not long after the Communists invaded the southern sector, the United States sent military advisors to the region. As the war unfolded, U.S. involvement escalated into committing combat troops by the thousands. The fighting and bloodshed continued for over a decade. More than three hundred American troops a week were dying in combat. Only a few months remained of Bush’s deferment and he needed a plan to stay out of Vietnam. Going to Canada would have been an embarrassment to his family, especially to his father, the United States congressman. In December 1967, students at Yale and colleges elsewhere were heading home for Christmas break. Bush returned home to Houston to take care of some administrative matters. One of these matters included contacting the Texas Air National Guard. Bush already knew that very few National Guard units were being deployed to Southeast Asia. Less than two percent of national guardsmen and reservists went overseas. Bush went to see the commander of the 147th Combat Support Squadron, Lieutenant Colonel Walter Staudt. When the colonel questioned his motives, Bush responded, “I want to be a fighter pilot because my father was.”10 George W. Bush was facing a problem in his effort to avoid the draft. National Guard units across the country had long waiting lists to get in. Guard units in Texas were no exception to this. Pilot shortages were common in Vietnam, but definitely not in the Texas Air National Guard. He received a marginal score on the pilot aptitude test that he took after returning to New England. Bush had very little hope of getting a slot in the Air Guard. But as luck would have it, he had connections with some political people in Texas. Of course, his father happened to be one of them. Sidney Adger, wealthy oil tycoon and friend of the Bushes, had received a special request to contact

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

7

Congressman Ben Barnes on Bush’s behalf. Barnes was the Texas speaker of the house and needless to say, he could easily influence certain high ranking members of the Guard including Brigadier General James Rose. Barnes himself was a lifetime member of the Guard. According to Staudt, Bush did not receive any favoritism in order to get into the National Guard. Supposedly, he was accepted on his own merits. In May 1968, Bush was sworn in by a junior officer. It was customary for a captain to initiate the Oath of Office. However, Staudt was so excited about having a congressman’s son in his unit, he arranged a second swearing-in ceremony. He swore in the new recruit himself and captured the moment by inviting a host of photographers. Bush was assigned to the 147th Combat Support Squadron at Ellington Air Force Base. In July 1968, he attended basic training at Lackland Air Force Base. After basic training, Bush was assigned to the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Ellington. George W. Bush has never publicly acknowledged that he contacted Staudt during Christmas break of his senior year at Yale. He contends that in May 1968, he learned that pilots were needed in the Texas Air National Guard. Until then, he still insists, he had not given it any thought. Bush has never admitted that he had any special connections to enter the Air Guard. However, two decades later, Staudt told a Houston reporter that Bush’s family wealth “indirectly” helped him get in. Bush, himself, did not put forth a lot of effort to obtain a slot in the Ellington Air Force Base unit. A question on his initial National Guard application asked, “Background qualifications of value to the Air Force.” Bush managed to come up with a one word response. He scribbled in the word, “None.” Under the question pertaining to overseas service, Bush checked the box that read, “Do not volunteer.” Only a few months after completing basic at Lackland, Bush received a direct commission to the rank of second lieutenant. At the time, only physicians were eligible for direct commissions. Bush was waived from having to attend Officer Candidate School. He was instead approved by a “special” appointment board to receive officer status and attend flight training, an appointment board that Staudt himself was a member of. Bush was scheduled to begin flight school in November 1968 at Moody Air Force Base near Valdosta, Georgia. His training curriculum would qualify him as an F-102 fighter pilot. George W. Bush’s unit in Houston was scheduled to cease operations within a year and he was quite confident that he was not going to Vietnam. Before reporting to Moody, Bush continued to enjoy the privileged life. His National Guard unit allowed him nearly three months leave to assist in the Florida senate campaign of family friend Edward Gurney. It was a period in his life, like most of his life, void of any obligations, responsibilities or worries. When he was not working the Gurney campaign, he was soaking

8

Chapter One

up the spirits and courting the women. Meanwhile, the American casualty rate overseas was rising. Troops that were not returning in flag-draped coffins were coming home with physical and psychological wounds that would remain for a lifetime. Many suffered through years of incarceration in prisoner of war camps. Some had succumbed to post traumatic stress disorder. Bush’s good fortune and his antics to avoid service in Vietnam did not set well with many veterans. One in particular was former prisoner of war John McCain. The Arizona senator once remarked that he “slept better at night as a POW in Vietnam for five-and-a-half years, knowing that George W. was protecting the coast of Texas from invasion.”11 George W. Bush attended a twelve month pilot training program at Moody Air Force Base. Richard Nixon was celebrating his presidential election victory over Hubert Humphrey when Bush first arrived at the small training base near Valdosta. Unlike Bush, his fellow classmates at Moody were required to prove themselves before being accepted into flight school. They had spent a significant amount of time on active duty and completed the required Officer Candidate School. Although Bush had not shown any potential or commitment, he still received favorable treatment. He took advantage of the opportunity and learned how to fly. Cruising beyond the clouds at supersonic speed was euphoric for Bush. Nothing matched the adrenaline rush he got while seated in the cockpit of an F-102 Delta Dagger fifty thousand feet above America’s Dixieland. Bush demonstrated the skills necessary to fly the jet aircraft. He was proficient enough, at any rate, to qualify on the Convair manufactured plane and earn his wings. Uncharacteristic of his previous lifetime endeavors, Bush displayed some promise as a pilot. Lowndes County, Georgia was for the most part, rural and conservative. Drinking establishments were a rare commodity. There was one watering hole in Valdosta and the air force base provided the always popular Officer’s Club. The club was a convenient spot for Bush to satisfy his desires for booze and the feminine gender. Fast planes, fast women and enough alcohol to float a battle ship, Bush’s new environment was exhilarating. He was like a kid in a candy shop. Meanwhile, Bush’s father was anticipating a run for the U.S. Senate. President Nixon was hoping to create a Republican stronghold in Texas, so an endorsement from Nixon would have been a significant boost to the congressman. However, an endorsement from the White House never came. Despite all of his efforts, George Herbert Walker Bush would not become a member of the Senate. During Bush’s pilot training at Moody, his father arranged for him to have a dinner date with Nixon’s daughter Tricia. With Nixon’s bless-

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

9

ings, a government plane had been sent to Georgia to pick up the younger Bush for the Washington held event. The relationship never developed, but Nixon did eventually appoint the elder Bush to Ambassador to the United Nations. After completing his obligation in the Peach State, Bush returned to Texas where he was assigned to the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Ellington Air Force Base. He moved into the Chateaux Dijon, a trendy upper-class apartment complex in the southwest part of Houston. However, Bush did not have any direction in his life. He knew only that he wanted to be rich and powerful. Much like his presidency years later, Bush had no significant ideas or plans for the future. One weekend a month, Bush patrolled the skies over the Gulf of Mexico. More of his time was spent poolside sucking down martinis and trying to get laid. Bush lacked the motivation to engage in any consistent employment, but he did dabble in the agricultural business for a short time. After he abandoned the agricultural industry, Bush took a position with the Professionals United for Leadership League, a position he obtained through Daddy’s efforts. During his brief stint with PULL, Bush applied to a local law school and the MBA program at Harvard. He was rejected by the University of Texas law program, but the decision from Harvard was still unknown. Booze, smokes, and women were just some of Bush’s vices. The hard drinking playboy from Midland also indulged himself with marijuana and cocaine. The God-fearing good old boy has made an art of tap dancing around questions about his cocaine possession arrest and drunk driving conviction, but he has never held back in exercising hypocrisy. He has often adamantly lectured others to be celibate, sober and drug free. When asked about his illegal drug use in the past, he has responded, “I have made mistakes. I choose not to inventory my sins...I’m not going to talk about what I did as a child.”12 After Chateaux Dijon, Bush moved into a small one bedroom apartment near the edge of the city. Domestic chores were of little concern. His apartment was usually adorned with soiled clothes, unfilled papers, National Guard documents, and bottles and cans that once contained alcohol. Bush predominantly lived the life of leisure. He continued his active status in the Texas Air Guard, partied often, and maintained an avid interest in politics. The small Houston apartment soon became a memory. In the spring of 1972, Bush headed east to enter the political arena. In lieu of working at an actual job, Bush spent several months in Alabama campaigning for US Senate candidate Winton Blount. Blount was a local postmaster and family friend of the Bushes. In the fall of 1972, Blount lost in a landslide to the incumbent Democrat John J. Sparkman. This was in

10

Chapter One

spite of mud slinging lies via the Blount campaign. In order to fulfill his National Guard obligation, Bush had previously “transferred” to a guard unit in Montgomery. However, there was one small problem. Bush never officially transferred to the Alabama unit. The Air Force had rejected his request to serve temporary duty with the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron. Bush was still assigned to his original Guard unit in Texas. Bush did not report for National Guard duty in Alabama, Texas, or anywhere from May through September 1972. In August, he was suspended from flying for failure to take the annual flight physical. In September, he made a second request to serve with an Alabama unit. This time he actually received orders transferring him to the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group at Dannelly Air Force Base. The orders stated that Bush was to report for his first drill weekend on October 7th at 0730 hours. However, Bush never reported for duty. Still busy with the Blount campaign, Bush was a “no show” in November as well. He continued to disregard his military obligation for several more months. In fact, Bush was missing from National Guard duty for a period of one year, May 1972 through April 1973. In other words, George W. Bush was absent without leave. George W. Bush has never been able to disprove any allegations that he did not fulfill his contract with the American people. Grasping at straws, Bush aides claim that he performed one day of duty on November 29th, 1972. However, there is no documentation proving that Bush performed any military duty in November of that year. Also, this does not negate the fact that he was still missing during all of the other months previously mentioned. No Guard members ever acknowledged seeing Bush at any unit in the Alabama Air National Guard. During Bush’s year in limbo, his commander in Texas, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian reported that Bush “had not been observed.” Lieutenant Colonel Reese Bricken of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron stated that he had never met George W. Bush. Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed and Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Lott of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group claimed that Bush “never put in an appearance.” Lieutenant Colonel Robert Mintz also from the Reconnaissance Group stated that no one in the unit “saw him there.” Instead of receiving a well deserved court-martial, Bush was allowed to complete his military service by way of “Inactive Reserve” status. This was a simple means for the Air Force to avoid embarrassment. It would have been devastating if the public learned that an AWOL soldier had gone undetected for one full year. Although Bush had previously been denied admission to law school, the doors remained open at Harvard. In the fall 1973, Bush began his journey through graduate school, a journey that concluded with a Master of Business

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

11

Administration degree in the spring of 1975. In Bush’s own words, “Harvard gave me the tools and the vocabulary of the business world.”13 Similar to his years at Yale, Bush participated in intramural sports, frequented the bars and underachieved academically. Mediocre grades were kind of a Bush trademark. One of his professors remembered a man that was often late for classes and usually ill prepared. Professor Yoshi Tsurumi once remarked that he found George W. Bush to be, “lazy...devoid of compassion, social responsibility, and good study discipline.”14 While attending Harvard, George W. Bush still had an opportunity to make things right with the American people. It was their tax dollars after all that funded his training to become a pilot. Harvard, located in historic Cambridge, Massachusetts, was near several Air National Guard and Reserve units in the greater Boston area. Although Bush could have requested an assignment to any one of them, that idea never crossed his mind. He had already accomplished his objective: avoid Vietnam. Again Professor Tsurumi, “He admitted to me that to avoid the Vietnam draft, he had his dad’s friends skip him through the long waiting list to get him into the Texas National Guard. He thought that was a smart thing to do. What I couldn’t stand, and I told him, he was all for the U.S. to continue with the Vietnam War. That means he was all for other people, Americans, to keep on fighting and dying.”15 In Cambridge, Bush lived in a small one bedroom apartment. He enjoyed early morning jogs along the Charles River. He was able to recreate some of the experiences that he took pleasure in at Yale. However, Bush was not completely content to be back in New England. He considered the people in his surroundings to be superficial and arrogant. Bush described it as a “plastic” society. They were more “penny loafers and coat and tie restaurants” and he was more “cowboy boots and barbecues.” Perhaps the basis for Bush’s feelings may have been good old fashioned resentment. Richard Nixon was submerged in the Watergate scandal that eventually ended his political career. His reputation was severely tarnished and his confidence was melting away. The Harvard Republicans had voted to send a letter to Nixon asking for his resignation. Bush no doubt felt frustration and bitterness towards his conservative classmates. Nixon, after all, was a fellow Republican, a family friend, and the man that appointed his father to an ambassadorship. After graduation, Bush returned home to the Lone Star State to try out his new “vocabulary.” He set up a small office in Midland and began investigating oil mineral leases throughout West Texas. Soon, Bush was able to buy, sell, and trade drilling rights located in the oil rich Permian Basin. As always, having enough capital was not a problem. Bush had plenty of connections, an abundance of potential investors, and he never hesitated to use other people’s

12

Chapter One

money. He was extremely frugal when it came to his own finances. In fact, he borrowed office space in order to avoid paying rent. Bush was optimistic about his future. He had successfully laid out the ground work for a promising career in the oil industry. As his father was entering the spy game, Bush was attempting to establish himself in the oil business. President Ford had appointed Bush Senior to head the CIA the same year that Junior became an oil entrepreneur. Problems were evident as in any charter business, but overall, there was potential. Bush had a staff composed of secretaries, geologists, and advisors. Bush would often talk shop at the office with other local oilmen. It was an ideal forum to toss back a few and tell war stories about business in the oil world. Bush still enjoyed the party atmosphere and any chance to overindulge. The aroma of “black gold” filled the air throughout Midland. From little league fields to oil fields, George W. Bush was back in the place he called home. He appreciated his home town with its familiar people and comfortable surroundings, but it was always nice to get away for awhile, too. The Bush’s summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine was a favorite family vacation spot. There were other family estates, of course, but the one in Maine was ideal during the warmer seasons of the year. Fishing, tennis, and golf were popular activities amidst the eleven acre site. But for Bush, drinking and drinking to excess were always in season. Labor Day weekend of America’s bicentennial year, George Walker Bush was arrested by Kennebunkport Police for driving under the influence. Fall of that same year, he was convicted on the charge, and his driving privileges were revoked for almost two years. Following his recent experience in Maine, Bush was relieved to get home to the oil biz. He was familiar with the basics and his persona matched well with the business world. Bush was aggressive, arrogant, and confident. “Arbusto” meaning “bush” in Spanish, was Junior’s clever name for his new company. Bush was fortunate to obtain various investors including James R. Bath. Bath, a Houston businessman and former guardsman with Bush, invested money belonging to Sheik Salem M. bin Laden. Bath had appointed bin Laden to be his official business representative in the state of Texas. The Saudi Sheik was also a co-owner of bin Laden Brothers Construction Company and the oldest brother of the notorious Osama bin Laden. With George W. Bush at the helm, Arbusto Energy had quickly earned the reputation of a failing enterprise. Selected drilling sites sometimes produced oil, but mostly, nothing more than dry holes. Investors, including Bath and bin Laden, were becoming anxious, frustrated, and discontent. Feeling pressured, Bush responded by increasing his alcohol intake. It was like one giant party that lasted several months. Through the efforts of his family and a

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

13

couple of oilmen who let him invest in their company, Bush was able to keep Arbusto afloat for nearly a decade. Incompetent leadership and poor decisions led to a difficult first year for Arbusto. Bush worked harder at partying than establishing himself as a responsible business owner. The oil game was not developing as Bush had hoped. However, politics always intrigued Bush and he was no stranger to the familiar territory. Shortly after, Plains, Georgia native Jimmy Carter became America’s thirty-ninth president, George W. Bush began contemplating a run for Congress. During the summer of 1977, Bush attended a backyard barbecue that would alter his life. Joe and Jan O’ Neill hosted the event on an unseasonably cool day in August. Kicking back and sucking down one beer after another, Bush daydreamed about his future career in politics. But campaign slogans quickly dwindled from his mind when he met fellow Midlander Laura Welch. Both attended Sam Houston Elementary, but they did not know each other. Welch, however, remembered hearing stories about the mischievous “Little George.” Years later, ironically, the two were neighbors at Chateaux Dijon in Houston. Neither was aware that they lived in the same apartment complex. Dating each other would have been improbable anyway. Welch was very much a “homebody” and Bush was “wild and rambunctious.” Welch took pleasure in quiet evenings at home with a good book and a pack of smokes. Despite their differences, there was an immediate mutual attraction. Welch was beautiful, intelligent and gracious. A graduate of Southern Methodist University, she loved her work as a public school librarian. Bush and Welch dated regularly for several weeks following the day of the barbecue. Welch enjoyed Bush’s companionship, listening patiently to his tales of the past and laughing at his not so funny jokes. Although she adamantly supported Bush’s congressional aspirations, Welch had no interest in politics herself. Her easygoing personality and soothing nature were a prime benefit to their relationship. Unlike anyone else in Bush’s life, Welch was able to corral and tame his more reckless side. Three months following the O’ Neill’s barbecue, George Bush and Laura Welch were married at Midland’s First United Methodist Church. On November 5, 1977, the Reverend Jerry Wyatt officiated the intimate affair in front of seventy-five of their closest friends and relatives. On Bush’s thirty-first birthday, veteran Congressman George Mahon announced that he was calling it quits after forty-four years. The timing was perfect for Bush’s political aspirations. Mahon’s resignation would create a vacancy in Texas’ Nineteenth Congressional District. Bush had numerous connections and more than enough money to make a serious run at Capitol

14

Chapter One

Hill. With his wife Laura by his side, Bush campaigned relentlessly throughout the West Texas District. Former Odessa mayor Jim Reese was probably Bush’s toughest competition in the Republican Primary. During the debates, however, Bush managed to babble, smirk, and tap dance his way to becoming the Republican nominee. However, Democrat Kent Hance would prove to be a more formidable opponent. Raised on a wheat farm near Dimmitt, Hance grew up with a sincere and robust appreciation for public service. As a child, Hance would attend local political rallies just to soak up the atmosphere. One of the problems facing Bush was that many locals viewed him as somewhat of an outsider. He had a great deal of financial backing from outside sources. In addition, Bush’s elite eastern education did not play well with many West Texans. His father’s connections to the CIA and the Trilateral Commission did not help his chances either. The Trilateral Commission was designed to maintain global stability and was less than favorable to the agricultural industry. Bush’s defeat in November 1978 was inevitable. There were various factors that contributed to his congressional loss. Unlike his opponent, Bush was more concerned with political gain than actually serving the people. He was also motivated by self-serving revenge. As a U.S. congressman, he would have had ample opportunities to disrupt Jimmy Carter’s efforts to rebuild America. It was President Carter that wasted no time in terminating Bush Senior from his post at the CIA. Bush also had difficulty playing the downto-earth “good old boy” that Texans comfortably relate to. However, Bush’s congressional loss turned out to be a valuable experience. Years later, he was able to tap into and benefit from the lessons he had learned. The corporate world in West Texas clearly had an ally in George W. Bush. His loyalty was firmly riveted to the well-heeled elite. That policy was a significant factor in his loss to Kent Hance. Meanwhile, Bush’s Arbusto was successfully maintaining its reputation as a second-rate oil enterprise. Expenditures usually exceeded the company’s revenues, but it remained a win-win situation for Bush and his investors. A neatly wrapped tax write-off was always available to heal their financial wounds. While Junior was busy running Arbusto into the ground, Daddy Bush was running for president. In an attempt to resuscitate his failing business, Bush renamed the company “Bush Exploration.” The name change also coincided with his father’s sudden national prominence. In the Republican Primary, however, Senior was unable to match the more conservative Ronald Reagan. Reagan did ask Bush to be on the ticket, however. Reagan’s decision was simplistic: Bush came in second. Bush was taken by surprise when Reagan phoned, “George, it seems to me that the fellow who came the closest and

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

15

got the next most votes for president ought to be the logical choice for vice president. Will you take it?”16 In November 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in a landslide. America was about to go under new management. It was the beginning of the “Reagan Revolution.” Nineteen eighty-one was a particularly memorable year for the Bushes. Bush Senior had procured the vice presidency and Laura was pregnant. The pregnancy was especially meaningful since they had been trying for about three years. Due to an infertility problem, they were about to give up all hope. They were in the process of adopting when Laura’s physician called with the news. The proud parents-to-be were elated. On November 25, 1981, Laura Bush gave birth via cesarean section to twin daughters: Barbara Pierce and Jenna Welch. Despite the new-high profile name, Bush Exploration was on a course towards bankruptcy. A temporary merger with Spectrum Seven enabled the company to prolong it’s existence. Just before the agreement was finalized, Bush Exploration had a book value of less than a half of a million dollars. In 1986, Dallas based Harken Energy Corporation purchased what remained of Bush Exploration. In exchange for the sale, Bush received an extremely lucrative deal. He was paid approximately one hundred thousand dollars a year to be a “consultant” for investor relations and equity placement. He was also given membership on the board of directors and allowed to buy stock at forty percent less than face value. Years later, Bush described his business career as successful due to “hard work and skillful investments.”17 As a child, Bush and his family were members of the Episcopal Church. He attended Sunday school and served as an acolyte. While growing up, religion was normally a part of the Bush household. Throughout his life, he has mainly attended the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. Evangelist Billy Graham has been an inspiration to Bush during most of his adulthood. As a close family friend, Graham has given Bush much advice and support. Since his twin daughters were about five years old, Bush has claimed to be “born again.” His actions and policies, however, do not coincide with those of a spiritually sound, born again Christian. George W. Bush seriously lacks spiritual attributes: love for all mankind, patience, compassion, tolerance, and humility. He does not, however, have a shortage of hypocrisy. A brief description of Bush’s atrocities and failures while Governor of Texas is noted in Chapter Two. As the Reagan era was winding down, America masochistically decided that eight years of economic hardship were not enough. In 1988, “Reagonomics” was replaced by George H.W. Bush’s “voodoo” economics, a term coined by Ronald Reagan during his 1980 quest for the White House. Meanwhile, Bush Junior was just “trying to make a living.”18 The money he had

16

Chapter One

inherited, combined with investments and tax write-offs, put his net worth in the millions. In 1989 while he was still trying to “make ends meet,” he received a phone call from baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth. Also a friend, Ueberroth urged Bush to form a syndicate of local investors and purchase the Texas Rangers. Ueberroth and baseball owners were united in blocking Edward Gaylord’s attempt to buy the team. They were concerned that Gaylord would create another “superstation” similar to those of the Atlanta Braves and Chicago Cubs. Gaylord already owned The Nashville Network, and Ueberroth felt that non-local ownership would put an economic strain on the baseball industry. Bush was able to compile the necessary investors and purchase the franchise owned by oil baron Eddie Chiles. As part owner, Bush was given the title “managing general partner.” Shortly after becoming the “owner” of the Texas Rangers, rumors were underway that Bush was already targeting the governor’s mansion in Austin. Publicizing Bush as the “owner” was a ploy by GOP henchman Karl Rove. His strategy was to create the illusion that George W. Bush was an authentic and responsible businessman. His strategy was also to stay under the radar, so Bush claimed that the only race he was interested in was the pennant race. During the 1992 presidential election, the American people sent Bush Senior an eviction notice. His handling of the Gulf War was his shining moment, but a weak economy and various other mistakes cost him the election. The voters were not swayed by simple flag waving and patriotic rhetoric. One of Bill Clinton’s advisors James Carville often uttered, “It’s the economy, stupid.”19 Breaking his, “Read my lips, no new taxes”20 pledge ultimately sealed the deal. Twenty years had passed since the Washington Senators relocated in the Lone Star State. The team’s owners concluded that it was time to build a new stadium, not at their own expense, though. A proposal was initiated by the City of Arlington to pay for the sports complex themselves. In other words, the taxpayers would foot the bill. The owners essentially convinced the city that baseball would cease to exist in Arlington if they did not. Hypocritically, Bush had always claimed to be a big proponent of private property rights. It was an issue that he gave plenty of lip service to when he ran for governor three years later. Capturing the State House enabled Bush to move closer to his ultimate goal. Before Bill Clinton had completed his first inaugural address, Bush and Rove were already contemplating a Bush Junior presidency. In order to have success in the governor’s race he would have to unseat the popular incumbent Ann Richards. By the end of her first term, Richards was enjoying an approval rating of well over sixty percent. The crime rate was down, school

A Four Letter Word Which Starts with B

17

test scores were up, and the economy was buzzing. She promoted a cleaner environment, the welfare to work program, and AIDS research. Richards presided over the largest prison construction program in Texas state history. She also supported legislation to keep violent criminals in prison longer. Additionally, she never once raised taxes. Being facetious, of course, it was easy to see why the people of Texas booted her out. There were certain factors that led to Richards’ defeat. Utilizing the crafty strategist Karl Rove was instrumental. Playing the God card and tapping into Texans’ love affair with guns were also key contributors. The Christian Right and the National Rifle Association lobbied very hard for their candidate. The “holier-than-thou” clan were fixated on discrimination towards gays and various other groups that they felt were undeserving of God’s love. The fanatic gun totters were pushing for the right to carry a weapon bill that Richards would not sign. The primary reason was quite simple; the citizens of Texas dropped the ball. Flashing their ignorance, the voters in Texas had essentially “shot themselves in the foot.” In 1998 during his re-election bid, Bush defeated Land Commissioner Garry Mauro. That same year, little brother defeated Democrat Buddy MacKay to become Florida’s forty-third governor. MacKay assumed the duties as governor a few weeks before the election due to the death of Lawton Chiles. Shortly into his second term, Governor George W. Bush threw his hat in the ring. He was going to do for America what he had already done for Texas: what a scary thought!

NOTES 1. Minutaglio, Bill. First Son: George W. Bush (Random House, Inc. New York, New York. 1999) p. 25. 2. Parmet, Herbert S. George W. Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee (A Lisa Drew Book/Scribner. New York, New York. 1997) p. 207. 3. Ibid. 4. Minutaglio, Bill. First Son: George W. Bush (Random House, Inc. New York, New York. 1999) p. 67. 5. Ibid. p. 66. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. p. 67. 9. Ibid. p. 104. 10. Ibid. p. 120. 11. Hatfield, J. H. Fortunate Son (Soft Skull Press. Berkeley, California. 2001) p. 42.

18

Chapter One

12. Ibid. p. 47. 13. Bush, George W. A Charge to Keep William Morrow & Company, Inc. New York, New York. 1999) p. 60. 14. Hirschkorn, Phil. Inside Politics Cable News Network. New York, New York. 2004. 15. Ibid. 16. Parmet, Herbert S. George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee (A Lisa Drew Book/Scribner. New York, New York. 1997) p. 245. 17. Mitchell, Elizabeth. W: Revenge of the Bush Dynasty (Hyperion. New York, New York. 2000) p. 206. 18. Hatfield. J. H. Fortunate Son (Soft Skull Press. Berkeley, California. 2001) p. 65. 19. Bush, George W. A Charge to Keep (William Morow & Company, Inc. New York, New York. 1999) p. 4. 20. Noonan, Peggy. New York Times August 19, 1988 (New York Times Press. New York, New York. 1988) p. A14.

Chapter Two

Fail to the Chief

In reference to Richard Nixon, President Harry S. Truman once remarked, “He not only doesn’t give a damn about the people, he doesn’t know how to tell the truth. I don’t think the son of a bitch knows the difference between telling the truth and lying.”1 This sounds much like George W. Bush. In the fall of 2000, the ingenious Karl Rove had masterfully carried George W. Bush across the threshold of the U.S. Presidency. Al Gore had quickly become nothing more than an ex-presidential candidate. Quite simply, Bush was motivated by power, greed, and revenge. He entered his presidency having three primary objectives. One was to accomplish what his father was unable to do-serve two terms. Protecting the interests of the wealthy and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq rounded out the triad. Bush’s “Road to the White House” began during his first term as governor of Texas. A game plan was designed by Rove and other members of the Bush team. Success depended upon accomplishing various tasks. These included a landslide re-election, election of a Republican lieutenant governor, seizing the Hispanic vote, and getting little brother into the governor’s mansion in Tallahassee. A large margin of victory in the statewide election would increase his notoriety throughout the country. It would also give him credibility during a nationwide campaign. Having a Republican lieutenant governor would prove his loyalty to the state’s GOP. If he were elected president, a fellow Republican would become governor. Winning the Hispanic vote would potentially create a national alliance with the minority group. They were the swing vote in seven southwestern states. A brother as Florida’s governor would secure the state’s twenty-five electoral votes. Combined with Texas’ thirty-two, this would then total fifty-seven of the two hundred and seventy needed to win the presidency. 19

20

Chapter Two

People spend their entire lives striving for a better life. The opportunities they receive are often a result of hard work, patience, and discipline. America’s forty-third president has many attributes, but hard work, patience, and discipline are not among them. As revealed in Chapter One, George W. Bush never had to work for anything in his life. The power and status he enjoyed was given to him by way of the American people. Through his numerous failures and impeachable acts, George W. Bush has not been held accountable. He says and does whatever he wants without consequences. “Dubya” relishes positions of authority, but accepts none of the responsibility. Anyone criticizing or questioning him is labeled un-American and anti-patriotic. In summary, just shut up and wave the flag! Books demonstrating George W. Bush’s greed and unethical business practices alone could fill a small college library. During his presidency, billions of dollars worth of federal contracts were awarded to corporations associated with the Bush clan. “What the Bush family’s protean worldwide network of political and financial connections symbolizes is a system where insiders almost always win and investors often lose. It is a system that encourages neither good government nor responsible business. It’s a system that results in wasted capital, squandered or purloined assets, and busted companies. It mocks the conservative notion that free enterprise can operate transparently and fairly in the absence of government regulation. The story of Bush Incorporated is also a warning against a government run by the same insiders whose political and financial fortunes have been built not on free enterprise or ‘compassionate conservatism,’ but on the infectious greed of crony capitalism.”2 George W. Bush entered his presidency with a smug and arrogant attitude. He also began his tour of duty in the Oval Office with contempt, resentment, and a healthy appetite for revenge. Bush’s animosity was primarily targeted at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Years earlier, Hussein had solicited the assassination of his beloved father, George H.W. Bush, but the voters of America and former President Bill Clinton were also victims of Bush’s indignation. In electing Bill Clinton, America made sure that his father would only serve one term. To this day, a bitter Bush Senior agonizes over the election that ended his presidency. Alan Keyes, Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, and a handful of other candidates were a small challenge to Bush during the Republican Primary, but Arizona Senator John McCain was undoubtedly Bush’s toughest competition. McCain was successful in winning the New Hampshire primary and several other New England states. Early in the primaries, he seemed poised to win the nomination. However, Bush’s campaign manager Karl Rove was not about to allow a McCain victory. Utilizing smear tactics and a variety of other unethi-

Fail to the Chief

21

cal means, the Bush team stymied McCain’s shot at the presidency. As the Republican National Convention was winding down in August 2000, only the future Democratic nominee stood in Bush’s way. A few weeks later, Vice President Gore edged out former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley to win the Democratic nomination. Both men were unquestionably qualified to hold the office of the president. They were intelligent, articulate, and empathetic towards the needs of others. They appreciated the importance of public service and understood that the president works for the people. Collectively, the Democrats were committed to improving upon the accomplishments of the Clinton administration. A successful administration that created millions of new jobs, a strong economy, and a multitude of initiatives that was beneficial to all Americans. It was essential for the nation to maintain strong decisive leadership. Electing George W. Bush would be a grave error and a setback that America could not afford. Joining the Republican ticket was former defense secretary and corporate executive Dick Cheney. Tasked to find Bush a suitable running mate, Cheney selected himself. Mostly known for his unethical business practices and corporate scandals, Cheney was the ideal number two man. Bush and Cheney shared various attributes including bigotry, hatred and intolerance. They also stood firmly on common ground regarding the Almighty Dollar and “what’s in it for me?” attitude. Neither man could fathom Jack Kennedy’s concept, “Ask not what your country can do for you—Ask what you can do for your country.”3 A man of character, Cheney was not, but he was aggressive, opportunistic and shrewd. Cheney had become Bush’s attack dog and their target was Al Gore. A profound contrast to Cheney was Al Gore’s running mate Joe Lieberman. The author and U.S. senator from Connecticut viewed public service as an honor and a privilege. In one of his books, “In Praise of Public Life,” Lieberman stressed the need to have a strong and responsible defense program. He also emphasized the importance of helping others to build a better society. An advocate of working families, Lieberman developed initiatives and solutions beneficial to their cause. A product of the working class himself, it was a cause that he was intimately familiar with. He was proud of his Jewish heritage and had a strong faith in God. Many Americans are skeptical and cynical when it comes to modern day politics. “All politicians are alike,” they insist, and “Nothing ever gets done in Washington.” These are the very couch potatoes that never show up at the polls on Election Day. They prefer to sit on their hands and complain. Through their eyes, the 2000 Republican and Democratic National Conventions were virtually the same. Without question they were indeed esthetically similar. However, there were few, if any, similarities regarding substance.

22

Chapter Two

Innovative and refreshing ideas at the Republican National Convention were essentially nil. Nothing new or substantial was introduced to the American people. Instead, they relied on the fundamentals of their playbook: lies and scare tactics. They also attempted to down play the economic successes of the Clinton and Gore administration. In their efforts to camouflage their true colors, they unveiled the term “compassionate conservative.” In the spirit of their all-inclusive scam, they banished their hard core members from the convention. The Pat Robertsons and Ralph Reeds were nowhere to be found. Perhaps they had been shackled inside the catacombs of Bob Jones University. Their fangs may have been filed down, but they were still the same old greedy bigoted Republicans. Shortly after the Republicans convened in Philly, the Democrats took center stage at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. It was a festive, yet serious, event enhanced by an obvious Hollywood presence. There was an added glamour and glitter including formal remarks from Gore’s college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones. But also, there was a significant amount of substance. A detailed outline of domestic and international concerns was presented to the American people. In retrospect, there was perhaps too much substance. Simple minded Americans, no doubt, were overwhelmed by specific information and ideas. Absorbing patriotic pep rallies and talk of “family values” was much easier than actually thinking for themselves. Many Americans considered the 2000 campaign boring and uninspiring. Poll numbers throughout the campaign, however, were indicative of a historically tight race. It was a race to the White House that concluded with an historically close election. Tax cuts and national security were at the cornerstone of the Bush campaign. Of course, Bush also spewed out the usual unimaginative Republican mantra proclaiming Gore as a “tax and spend liberal” that would hand America over to the terrorists. Gore focused his energies on issues affecting middle and lower income families. Although he was passionate, the vice president’s methodical and precise approach to the campaign became a hindrance. He was constantly being scrutinized by the so-called “liberal” media to “define himself” and come across as more human. The debates gave America the opportunity to have a closer look at the candidates. In the one and only vice presidential debate, Cheney and Lieberman engaged in a relatively civil affair. There were notable disagreements on domestic policy, but they shared similar international concerns. Showing off their lighter sides, each earned bonus points by adding an always welcome touch of humor. Tensions were more evident during the three presidential debates. Most of the heated exchanges were generated via the domestic front. There was an abundance of smirks and sighs, but no memorable “zingers.” Perhaps Lloyd Bentsen should have dropped from

Fail to the Chief

23

the sky exclaiming, “Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy!”4 The 2000 presidential election was filled with drama and suspense. Lasting an unprecedented five weeks, it had become the most controversial election in U.S. history. While Bush and Gore were both shy of the necessary two hundred and seventy electoral votes, Florida was unable to determine a winner. The two term Texas governor assumed a narrow lead following the retraction that Gore had initially won. Sanctioned by Florida law, a manual recount was administered in three of Florida’s critical counties. The tedious recount procedure produced an array of disputes involving the validity of the punch card ballots. Anticipating a possible Gore victory, Bush petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to immediately stop the recount. Florida, of course, was Governor “Jeb” Bush country. Meanwhile, Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris moved quickly to certify Bush as the state’s winner. The Gore campaign then petitioned to resume the recount. Determined to win by any means, Bush and Harris took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once again, requests were made to cease the Florida recount. In a five to four decision just two weeks before Christmas, the highest court in the land officially declared an end to the Florida election. The Court had ruled in favor of Bush, and thus, Secretary of State Harris proceeded to certify George W. Bush the winner of America’s Sunshine State. In his book, Sore Winners, John Powers uses the following Bushism to accurately illustrate the erratic thought process of George W. Bush. “When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world and we knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them. And it was clear who them was. Today, we’re not so sure who they are, but we know they’re there.”5 Unfortunately for Vice President Gore, competency was not one of the qualifications voters were looking for. Inconceivable as it was, George W. Bush had become the nation’s forty-third President and leader of the free world. I rarely have the stomach for conservative talk radio, but I occasionally like to check out the latest Republican propaganda. One night in particular, I was listening to the Lars Larson Show which airs weeknights on ABC radio. Larson was praising Bush while reminding listeners how wonderful the war was going. I felt compelled to call in and give him a dose of reality. If nothing else, it would have hopefully prevented my head from exploding. Although I may have limited debating abilities, I can still distinguish fact from fiction. I am able to recognize an obviously corrupt and destructive administration. After trying to get my point across, Larson asked me, “What’s so bad about the president?” Immediately my debating skills kicked in—I was frozen! Larson quipped, “He must not be too bad if you can’t think of anything,” but

24

Chapter Two

my hesitation was simply a result of not knowing where to begin. There was so much to choose from. The remainder of this chapter will partially answer Larson’s question posed to me during “Dubya’s” first term. In 1998 the voters of Texas re-elected George W. Bush to a second term. They were apparently enjoying the ride of a downward spiral. Governor Bush’s path of destruction included everything from bankruptcy to sleeping with the Taliban. From failures as a businessman to failures as a governor, George W. Bush was at least consistent. The Bush administration and the Republicans always want to have it both ways. They brush aside polls when the results are unfavorable, and praise poll reliability when it fits their agenda. They distort the truth and blame others for their mistakes despite facts that offer the contrary. Many of these facts reveal George W. Bush’s incompetence as well as his priorities. Governor George W. Bush did little for the people of Texas. He did manage to add a laundry list of blunders and atrocities to his already pathetic resume. Perhaps the word “E”trocities might work as well. His dismal record boasted failures which included the economy, the environment, education, executions, energy, and Enron. On Bush’s watch, the state treasury was forced to declare bankruptcy. The high unemployment rate contributed significantly to a poverty rate that ranked fifth in the country. Environmental spending cuts helped to create the highest levels of air and water pollution in the nation. Changing various environmental protection laws to favor the state’s energy and oil industries also contributed to the number one pollution ranking. The “No Child Left Behind Education Governor” cut spending that reduced teachers’ salaries to the lowest in the country. No surprise, Bush supported school vouchers favoring the wealthy. Texas led the nation in children without health care and ranked near the bottom in child support collections. Under the so-called “Pro-Life” governor, the Texas justice system executed one hundred and fifty-two people. That was, and still is, the most ever by a single governor in United States history. Claiming to be against abortion, Bush stated if ever elected president, he would not initiate a Pro-Life amendment to the Constitution. Gun control was virtually nonexistent. The National Rifle Association was a proud supporter of the Texas governor. Governor Bush was opposed to gun owners having to be licensed and registered. He also opposed a three day waiting period to conduct background checks for new gun owners. He tried to eliminate background checks all together. He resisted any common sense legislation including safety trigger locks. However, Bush did sign the right to carry bill. This allowed Texans to pack heat anywhere in the state including churches and hospitals. He also signed legislation prohibiting cities to file law suits against gun manufacturers. During Bush’s reign as governor, concealed

Fail to the Chief

25

handgun permit holders were arrested nearly seventy percent more than the general population for weapons related offenses. Some of these offenses included murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault. Texas ranked near the bottom in funding for public health and social services. Texas topped the list, however, regarding citizens without appropriate health insurance. Governor Bush was opposed to any type of hate crime legislation. This was in spite of the 1998 dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas. Bush vetoed the hate crime bill due in part because it included sexual orientation. In fact, George W. Bush did nothing for the promotion of civil or human rights. In 1997, Governor Bush invited a small delegation of Taliban leaders to Houston to scheme money making ventures. The Taliban were known for harboring terrorists including those responsible for the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole and the U.S. Embassies in Africa. Practicing his own brand of morality, Bush focused on the financial gain afforded by the talks. Taliban reps and executives from Unocal met for discussions involving a pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan. The primary contract for construction and operations was offered to Dick Cheney and the Halliburton Corporation. Others benefited too, including Bush’s top campaign contributor Kenneth Lay of Enron. Of course, the Bush clan was also a big beneficiary via kickbacks and timely investments. Two of the saddest days in American history occurred during George W. Bush’s first term as President. One was Inauguration Day 2001 and the other was September 11, 2001. There are no words that can accurately describe the horror that happened on September 11, 2001. The devastation was unimaginable. The United States had been attacked. Four commercial jetliners were hijacked and used to destroy thousands of innocent lives. Two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. The first, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, struck the north tower at 8:46 a.m. Less than twenty minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175, also out of Boston, slammed into the south tower. Both towers eventually gave way and collapsed in a firestorm of smoke and ash. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77 out of Washington’s Dulles Airport found its way into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. Had it not made a direction change to the south, the White House might have been a target of the large steel aircraft. Panic, shock and disbelief spread through downtown Manhattan and along both sides of the Potomac. A stunned America watched as the terror unfolded. Flights were canceled and planes were grounded throughout the country. America was on high alert. It’s intended target was unknown, but a fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in rural Pennsylvania killing everyone on board.

26

Chapter Two

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 might well have been avoided. The Bush administration elected to ignore the August 6, 2001 memo entitled “bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”6 Ironically, twenty four of Osama bin Laden’s relatives were in the United States on the morning of September 11, 2001 to participate in business deals worth billions of U.S. dollars. Osama bin Laden was already a known and wanted terrorist. Bush himself was entertaining Saudi Arabian Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the White House just two days after the U.S. was attacked. Saudi Arabia was home to the bin Ladens and most of the Nine-eleven hijackers. Bush had been warned by U.S. and foreign intelligence that al Qaeda members were planning an attack and there was a possibility that hijacked planes would be used. Clearly, Bush had been waiting for an excuse to attack Iraq. He had devised a plan to invade the sovereign nation long before September 11, 2001. It was Afghanistan that was harboring bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists, yet Bush was determined to point the finger of blame at Saddam Hussein and Iraq. A year following the Nine-eleven attack, Bush stated, “You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”7 Former security advisor Richard Clarke stated that George W. Bush was insistent that Intelligence return to him with information that there was “an Iraqi hand”8 behind Nine-eleven. No other nations were being considered. Bush told Clarke, “It was Iraq...Saddam...find out...get back to me.”9 Bush never even asked about al Qaeda. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Clarke, “There are no good targets in Afghanistan...let’s bomb Iraq.”10 Even George W. Bush knew that America would have been in an uproar if nothing had been done regarding Afghanistan. An attack on Iraq could not have been made public until the US made a nominal attack on Afghanistan. Bush only sent a little over ten thousand troops into Afghanistan and he waited a month after Nine-eleven to do so. U.S. Special Forces did not arrive to the region until two months after America was attacked. In an interview shortly thereafter, Bush casually remarked, “He’s (Osama bin Laden) a person who’s now been marginalized so...I don’t know where he is...I don’t spend that much time on him...”11 The chances that Nine-eleven would have ever happened are probably much less had the American people not rejected Al Gore. Unlike Bush, Al Gore actually read all of the daily intelligence reports and asked his advisors questions if clarification was necessary. Gore, much smarter and more experienced than Bush, had an actual plan to eliminate bin Laden and al Qaeda. That plan was rejected by the incoming Bush administration. Bush and the Republicans boast about how tough they are regarding terrorism, yet they claim to be “strong on defense.” This is a common misconception. They are,

Fail to the Chief

27

however, strong on war. Al Gore and the Democrats understand that war is to be utilized only if it is absolutely necessary. President Bush had a variety of excuses for going to war against Iraq. However, he did not have a single reason. Thousands of U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead because of George W. Bush’s unnecessary war. Their blood is on his hands. It would be fair to say that their blood is also on the hands of those who support him. The war in Iraq is just one of Bush’s many failures. Following, we see an assortment of Bush’s “reasons” for invading Iraq. Astonishing, it is, to learn that so many Americans believe that the World Trade Center and Pentagon disasters were a result of the actions of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government. George W. Bush said that Iraq was responsible for the Nine-eleven tragedy. Selling this to the American public was not a difficult task. A poll taken in 2003 revealed that nearly seventy percent of Americans bought Bush’s lie. Besides, Osama bin Laden had eluded capture and the country wanted some form of retaliation. Congress had already approved an attack on Iraq, but only if Iraq was connected to the Nine-eleven bombings. However, U.S. and foreign intelligence found no link between the al Qaeda terrorists and Iraq. The Bush administration, including the Vice President, Defense Secretary, and National Security Advisor, were all pushing for a preemptive attack. As the unprovoked war was beginning to lose its popularity, the Bush administration was developing new excuses for going to war, one being, the United States was under the threat of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Perhaps that one would stick. Although the CIA, UN, and U.S. forces were unable to find any evidence of WMD, mainstream America swallowed this lie too. Bush’s claim that Iraq possessed WMD was obtained from CIA reports that were over a decade old. Iraq actually had very little military capability since the end of the Gulf War. Secretary of State Colin Powell spearheaded the claim that WMD did indeed exist in Iraq. This was during his testimony to the United Nations Security Council in 2003. Despite having no legitimate reasons, the Bush administration was hellbent on attacking Iraq. Utilizing scare tactics and grasping at straws, the White House’s new claim was that Iraq is a viable nuclear threat. They failed however to get their stories straight. In 2002, while Cheney was announcing that Iraq had “reconstituted” nuclear weapons, Bush was telling reporters that nuclear capability was only six months away. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, a pseudo-Bush administration member, was also on board the war bandwagon. No evidence or report ever existed that Iraq ever had a nuclear weapons program. An alarming eighty-one percent of the nation believed that

28

Chapter Two

Iraq was a definite threat to the United States. America had apparently been duped again. Another justification for attacking Iraq was that the U.S. would be recognized as liberators. The Iraqi people would dance in the streets and hurl flowers at our feet. The war would also be affordable since Iraqi oil would pick up the tab. These are just a couple more of Bush’s lies. We, however, were viewed by the majority as invaders, not “liberators,” and the cost of the war fell on the U.S. taxpayers. George W. Bush had no plan to wage the war. U.S. forces would be called upon to remain in the region indefinitely. There were no considerations for occupation, reconstruction, or retaliation from insurgents. Bush’s cry was already getting tiresome: “Stay the course!” Bush also used the “morality card.” Action must be taken in order to protect the human rights of the Iraqi people! No doubt Saddam Hussein was a despicable and evil dictator, but UN sanctions were effective, and he was in fact contained. Iraq was no threat to the United States. The Iraqi people were of little, if any, concern to the Bush administration. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld had previously met with Hussein to talk Middle East policy and munitions support. George Bush Senior had also visited Hussein on several occasions to discuss potential business deals. When he was CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney cozied up to the dictator regarding various pipeline contracts. Another lie: Bush was acting on behalf of the international community. A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would eventually create a democracy throughout the Arab world, an idealistic venture, but hardly a reason to go to war. Iraq is a society of deeply rooted anti-democratic tradition. It is also a nation plagued by numerous economic and social problems. These problems coupled with religious and ethnic friction, leave very little chance that a democracy would ever take hold. Establishing a democracy would have been difficult under ideal conditions. Iraq was far from being fertile ground that might embrace western values. Bush’s war had become an inspiration to terrorist organizations worldwide. Insurgent attacks and suicide bombings were becoming commonplace throughout Iraq. In its infancy, the war already had the ear markings of a quagmire. “Are we not better off without Saddam Hussein in power? Is the world not safer without him?” This is the common rhetoric I often hear from conservatives desperately trying to defend Bush’s decision to go to war. In other words, the end justifies the means. Even Bush supporters know that there was not one legitimate reason for invading Iraq. None of those matters they argue; Saddam Hussein is gone! No, America is not better off without Saddam Hussein. The world is not safer without him. George W. Bush’s war has fueled existing hatred throughout the world. It has spawned coalitions seeking retribution against the United States and its allies. Bush’s war set a

Fail to the Chief

29

precedence which endorses unjustified aggression. It has also aided to significantly increase global instability. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas is where I heard the most profound explanation for invading Iraq. It was a hot and very humid Kansas afternoon. I was sitting in a large auditorium with several dozen fellow Army Reservists from around the country. We were listening to a lecture on the role of logistical operations during each level of war. The war in Iraq was obviously the popular topic around the water cooler. At one point during the lecture, I questioned the officer seated next to me. I wondered what his perspective might be. I asked him why America had waged war against Iraq. I noticed a smug expression develop across his face as he leaned towards me. His answer to my question would have made George W. Bush proud. He cleared his throat and arrogantly whispered, “Because we can!” George W. Bush had alienated much of the world community. Protests directed against the Bush administration were becoming prevalent across the globe. An angry and frustrated U.S. ambassador located in an allied country put it in perspective, “Bush has become the enemy.”12 Conservatives and warmongers insist that President Bush was simply finishing the job that his father started. This is a more plausible reason because it parallels Bush’s primitive thought process and mammoth ego. Bush’s selfish and contemptuous attitude towards the war was made evident in October 2003. This was the infamous “Top Gun” spectacle aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Bush pranced about the deck in a flight suit declaring “mission accomplished.” The photo-op was a clear attempt by the Bush team to portray the AWOL National Guardsman as an authentic leader capable of making tough decisions. The war in Iraq was the president’s own personal agenda. It was also a choice, not a necessity. “My way or the highway!” Questioning the commander in chief had become taboo. You were either with the president or against him. If you were against him, you instantly became anti-American and unpatriotic. In Bush’s own words just prior to the war, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I don’t need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”13 Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in oil production. Currently, Saudi Arabia controls about one fourth of the world’s oil. They have enjoyed economic and political influence over Washington for decades. A U.S. takeover of Iraq meant controlling the rich plentiful oil fields throughout the region. This could potentially give the United States leverage over the Saudis. Of course, U.S. energy corporations would acquire enormous benefits from an invasion on Iraq. Not to mention, Cheney’s Halliburton would receive the majority of

30

Chapter Two

the multi-billion dollar rebuilding contracts. Distributing “favors” to all of their business associates and cronies enabled Bush and Cheney to financially benefit as well. Bush’s most personal motive for the war was to eliminate Saddam Hussein. In September 2002 at a fund-raiser in Houston, Bush reminded the wellheeled gathering that Hussein had plotted to kill his father. In the spring of 2003, Bush confided in Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Although the White House denied it, he informed the Palestinian leader that God told him to strike at Hussein. As the U.S. president “eloquently” told his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, “Fuck it, we’re taking him out.”14 As Bush’s first term of failure was winding down, over a thousand U.S. and coalition forces were dead. There were very few allies participating, but they suffered many casualties as well. Over four thousand had been seriously wounded and the Iraqi body count had reached more than one hundred thousand. Casualties of the war also included numerous Iraqi citizens that were detainees at various prison camps. Several of them were innocent, but still endured interrogations and torture. One of these included Hayder Sabbar Abd. Abd was incarcerated at the infamous Abu Ghraib Prison where he was forced to pose naked with a bag over his head. Humiliating acts and beatings were sanctioned by the Bush administration. Information was to be obtained by any means, regardless of international law and the Geneva Convention. Determined to have a war, the Bush administration pressured many traditional U.S. allies that were unable to see any logic behind the invasion of Iraq. They shunned the allies that would not come on board. They also chastised the United Nations for attempting to continue inspections and wanting to utilize diplomacy to avoid a war. Bush’s war resulted in the loss of many lives, wasted money and resources, and seriously damaged our reputation among the international community. Quite frankly, Bush’s loyalty to the rich was a higher priority than fighting the war on terror. Vice President Cheney himself lobbied Congress for less spending on counterterrorism in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. President Bush very accurately put it this way, “I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about myself, why I do things.”15 In the 1876 presidential election, Rutherford B. Hayes won by just one electoral vote. Not since 2000 had America witnessed comparable election results. Hayes did not have a mandate and neither did George W. Bush. But upon taking office, the Bush administration proceeded to govern as though they had. Although Bush claimed to be a uniter, he proposed sweeping changes that coincided with his far right wing agenda. President Bush governs the country in an almost imperialistic fashion. He uses the tragic events of September eleventh as a catalyst for violating our rights and freedoms.

Fail to the Chief

31

In October 2001, The Bush administration unveiled the Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act, short for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, was spearheaded by US Attorney General John Ashcroft. The three hundred and forty two page document was written behind closed doors by members of the Bush team. It was then presented to Congress for only a one hour debate. Congressional members were instructed to vote on the Act without having adequate time to read it. A close observation of the Patriot Act reveals violations of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Patriot Act desecrates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments. Ironically, as well as hypocritically, conservatives are the ones who constantly whine about their rights and wanting smaller government. The Ashcroft designed document exemplifies a protocol that strikes at the heart of civil liberties. The USA Patriot Act grants widespread authority to the attorney general and various law enforcement agencies including the CIA and FBI. Any non-citizen suspected of having terrorist connections can be detained indefinitely after charges have been filed. Free speech can be considered an act of aggression against the United States. Homes can even be searched without notifying the occupants. Any organization can be defined as “domestic terrorists” under the auspices of the Patriot Act. This includes any legal advocacy group. Telephone and internet taps, surveillance, and infiltration can be used against any U.S. citizen without probable cause. Academic, financial and medical records are available to the FBI upon request. The FBI can also confiscate tangible items such as books, pictures, letters, tapes, CDs and computers. Authorities can access names that coincide with library books borrowed, magazine subscriptions and websites visited. Even an individual’s place of worship and genetic information are not off limits. The Patriot Act also eliminates attorney-client privilege by monitoring their conversations without consent. Under the banner of national security, the Bush administration can target anyone as an “enemy combatant.” The USA Patriot Act infringes on the civil liberties of all U.S. citizens. It intimidates and embarrasses Americans throughout the world. Leading the way, John Ashcroft introduced the new and improved Patriot Act in early 2003. It was officially named the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. Created as an addendum to the original Patriot Act, it was too radical to pass legislation. A couple of additions included developing a DNA database for those under suspicion and expanding the range of crimes that would constitute capital punishment. Another statute involved eliminating judicial oversight for intelligence gathering, also, stripping individuals of their U.S. citizenship if they were a member of a suspicious political organization. In December

32

Chapter Two

2003, the Bush administration pushed through the Intelligence Authorization Act. It was a revised edition of the Patriot Act and included many proposals of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. Karl Rove enjoys telling the story of the encounter he had near Capitol Hill. One afternoon, a man approached Rove and identified himself as a Democrat. He continued on, telling Rove he was glad that “his man” had won the election. He explained that the Bush administration would be more security conscious than the Democrats, and therefore, keep America safer. On the contrary, it was Democrat Joe Lieberman that initiated and drafted a plan for homeland security. In typical partisan fashion, George W. Bush rejected it. Bush insisted that homeland security was a function of the Executive Branch and could be coordinated by the White House. Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, was overtly critical of Lieberman’s idea and stated that it would not solve anything. After reconsideration, the Bush administration reluctantly accepted the Lieberman proposal. The White House was under pressure to do something about national security and realized it would be a good public relations move. Bush then appointed Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge as Director of the Department of Homeland Security. The president then proceeded to restrict or reject funding necessary to keep America safe. In the fall of 2001, Bush rejected a fifteen billion dollar national security package proposed by senate Democrats. Bush claimed that it would have increased the size of government. The security plan specifically outlined spending for bioterrorism, food safety, water supplies, and emergency first responders. Also included in the package was funding for the security of the borders, ports, airports, nuclear power plants, postal agencies, and computer systems. Yes, the additional spending would have expanded the size of government-by nearly one percent. At the end of 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed a homeland security bill costing a little more than twelve billion dollars. Bush and senate Republicans reduced the bill by nearly five billion dollars. Then on the eve of 2002, additional homeland security cuts were made. In mid 2002, Bush introduced his own version of the homeland security bill. By using “executive privilege,” Bush transformed the bill into a partisan conservative based initiative. In effect, the homeland security program was altered in order to serve the administration’s own interests. It was also a strategic political move because the Democrats would surely vote against it. Bush could then claim that the Democrats were weak on homeland security. The Democrats in the House and Senate that voted against it were chastised and labeled unpatriotic. Two U.S. Senators ended up losing their senate seats. One of these in particular was the esteemed Max Cleland of Georgia. This allowed the Republicans to regain control of the U.S. Senate. The Bush administration was very adapted at vilifying anyone that got in their way. This includes Cleland, a decorated Vietnam veteran who lost both legs and an arm

Fail to the Chief

33

in combat. It’s ironic that the weak-kneed George W. Bush would have the balls to call anyone such as Max Cleland unpatriotic. In 2003, the Bush administration continued to slash funds in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the FBI, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Transportation Security Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard. Before the 2004 election, the Democrats introduced approximately a dozen amendments to protect America which were rejected by the Bush administration. Due to the partisan changes and financial restrictions imposed by the Bush administration, homeland security has many deficiencies. There is a clear indication that the Bush administration is not serious about homeland security. We might very well pay the price for this someday. Trimming a tax break for the wealthy in 2003 by approximately five percent would have produced one billion dollars for homeland security. This too was rejected by the Bush administration. We certainly know where their priorities are. Fueling personal initiatives while advancing the conservative cause are the foundation of a corrupt and contemptible administration. With the exception of the affluent class, George W. Bush demonstrates a blatant disregard for the American people. Tax cuts, including the deficit-financed tax cut on corporate dividends, sent public funds into the bank accounts of those needing the least help. The extra money was hoarded by the wealthy with no intention of “stimulating” the economy. Very few of these public funds went to working families. Even less went to minorities in large cities. In 2003, Bush reshaped the Budget Act which added wealth to his base while placing the burden on those that depend on Social Security and Medicare. Making matters worse, Bush also imposed the Alternative Minimum Tax which applied a “surcharge” requiring taxpayers in certain states to pay more than their fair share. Two of these states included California and New York. What a coincidence, both went with Al Gore in 2000. Early in his presidency, Bush made great efforts to dismantle Social Security. His proposal for privatization would have transformed a safety net into a program benefiting the rich—at the expense, of course, of the middle and lower class. The privatization of Social Security was also designed to initiate severe cuts in disability benefits. In addition, Wall Street would have gone into a frenzy; become ecstatic. The securities industry would have been able to confiscate billions of dollars in payments to manage for their own profit. A similar fate was in store for Medicare. These changes created the Medicare Drug Benefit Law. Federal contributions are in essence, administered by private for-profit insurers. This results in the depletion of bank accounts belonging to middle and lower income seniors. Then, seniors are rewarded by receiving less than adequate health care. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, George W. Bush was motivated by power, greed and revenge. These were also the very reasons he took America into an unnecessary and illegal war. Bush lied to the American people on

34

Chapter Two

several occasions in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. How ironic that his predecessor was impeached for lying about sex. No lives were lost when Bill Clinton lied about a personal matter. Without question, the war in Iraq is George W. Bush’s greatest failure. In comparison, Nixon’s Watergate and Reagan’s Iran-Contra seem trivial. Putting this chapter together was somewhat taxing. It was exhausting to absorb the seemingly endless amount of negativity and corruption that define the Bush administration. Thus, I have decided to take time out, switch gears, and devote the following chapter to some of Bush’s key colleagues. At this point, I feel very confident that the contents of this chapter have sufficiently answered Larson’s question, “What’s so bad about the president?” However, I am not quite finished. Chapter Four will be devoted to the remainder of “Dubya’s” disastrous first term!

NOTES 1. Miller, Merle. Plain Speaking (Berkeley Publishing. New York, New York. 1973) p. 135. 2. Conason, Joe. Big Lies (Thomas Dunne Books. New York, New York. 2003) p. 170. 3. Dallek, Robert. An Unfinished Life (Little Brown & Company. Boston, Massachusetts. 2003) p. 326. 4. Dionne, E. J. Jr. New York Times August 6, 1988 (New York Times Press. New York, New York. 1988) p. A1. 5. Powers, John. Sore Winners Doubleday (New York, New York. 2004) p. 1. 6. Alterman, Eric and Mark Green. The Book on Bush Penguin Group (New York, New York. 2004) p. 215. 7. Ibid. p. 252. 8. Moore, Michael. Fahrenheit 9/11 (Westside Productions. Marin County, California) 2004. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Alterman, Eric and Mark Green. The Book on Bush (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2004) p. 287. 13. Carter, Graydon. What We’ve Lost (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. New York, New York. 2004) p. 340. 14. Alterman, Eric and Mark Green. The Book on Bush (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2004) p. 301. 15. Carter, Graydon. What We’ve Lost (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. New York, New York. 2004) p. 27.

Chapter Three

Axis of Evil

Meaningless rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy are core elements of the Bush administration. George W. Bush advocates morality, yet his actions display nothing remotely close to a man of good moral character. He has lied, broken promises, and reversed policies for his own personal gain. About a year after taking office, Bush introduced the term “axis of evil.” It was of course in reference to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. The word “evil” is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “bad or harmful.” Yet, the most harmful entities to the United States have been the Bush administration and the Republican Party faithful: Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Ashcroft, the list goes on and on. With the intelligence similar to a Texas tumbleweed, George W. Bush has surrounded himself with a cabinet that shares his warmonger initiative. Their vision is nothing less than dominating the world via military power. The foundation of their philosophy has three primary principles. The first is that preemptive strikes are a necessity even if the United States must “go it alone.” Second, we will create a superpower that cannot be challenged by any other nation. And finally, dominate the world by spreading American ideals. It’s interesting how many leaders throughout history were certain that it was God’s will that they lead their respective nations. Waging war then must have also been God’s will. Apparently, Al Gore was unable to win the popular God vote. “But I feel God wants me to do this, and I must do it.”1 “I believe that it was God’s will...to become the leader of the nation.”2 A powerful display of military might against Iraq was a warning to the rest of the world. According to Bush, his values should be America’s values, and America’s values should be the world’s values.

35

36

Chapter Three

The “coalition” invading Iraq only consisted of the United States, Britain, and a small contingent of troops from a handful of other nations. The initial phase took just three weeks, but Bush’s team did not anticipate the resistance that would follow. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz finally acknowledged that there was a problem with insurgents approximately three months after the “end” of the war. At the same time, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld insisted that U.S. troops were not involved in a guerrilla war. With the defeat in Vietnam still fresh in their minds, the Bush administration concentrated their efforts on building the most feared military in the world. This was also the sentiment of German leaders following Germany’s defeat in World War I. Despite the fact that invading Iraq was a needless, costly, and illegal venture, the Bush team was on a mission to flex America’s muscles in front of the world. The Bush administration also did not anticipate any formidable aggression via the insurgents. Many in the Bush administration shared the arrogance that their leader portrayed. One in particular was Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Innocent lives were irrelevant and the chaos that ensued in Iraq was simply a “by-product” of war. Like Bush and Company, Rumsfeld had little concern for what effects the war would have regarding the future of Iraq and the Middle East. Secretary of State Colin Powell played a leading role in building America’s military since Vietnam. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was still holding resentment over America’s withdrawal from Vietnam. As was his boss, Armitage was a Vietnam veteran with much combat experience. Yet, as members of the Bush administration, Powell, Armitage and others were unable to view a powerful military in its appropriate role. A strong efficient military is used with diplomacy in order to deter potential aggression. It is to be utilized for defending America and her allies, not as a tool for political and personal gain. One of “Dubya’s” many trusty servants was the former Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott. Lott displayed his true racist colors in December 2002 at the one-hundredth birthday celebration of United States Senator Strom Thurmond. Lott had been a warrior in the battle against segregation since his college days at the University of Mississippi. Lott claimed that the nation would have been better off had Thurmond, a devout segregationist, won the 1948 presidential election. As recently as the 1990’s, Lott had given speeches at small white supremacist groups throughout the South. Severely wounded by the backlash over his comments at the Thurmond party, Lott resigned as Republican leader of the Senate.

Axis of Evil

37

In January 2003, Bill Frist of Tennessee replaced Lott as Senate Majority Leader. Frist’s status as Majority Leader was due to the outcome of the 2002 election which gave the Republicans control of the Senate. Until he became serious about entering politics, Frist had been a member of a racially segregated country club in Nashville. Having a background in medicine and business, Frist is a strong advocate of medical malpractice tort reform. He loathes trial lawyers devoted to helping the consumer. Frist had been a central figure during the well publicized Terry Schiavo case involving “Pro-Life” Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. Frist had attempted to diagnose Schiavo via a videotape and claimed that she responded to visual stimuli. The autopsy showed that she had irreversible brain damage, and was in fact, blind. Like many others in Bush’s circle, Frist was into big money making schemes and unethical business practices. Frist’s file of corruption includes insider trading violations, conflict of interest and fraud. Frist’s family owned Hospital Corporation of America has been under federal investigation for several years. Investigations were made regarding timely stock sales that Frist and other company officials made just before share values plummeted. HCA is also under investigation for double-booking and overbilling of Medicare, Medicaid and Tri-care. Savvy, snooty and cynical, Mary Matalin is one of the leading pit bulls within the Bush administration. She rode her passion for politics and hard work all the way to the White House. She spent the Clinton years bashing the president, strategizing, and increasing her rapport with Karl Rove and others in the Republican hierarchy. She also co-hosted two talk shows and worked as a political commentator for the Today Show. After the 2000 election, Matalin was appointed as counsel to Vice President Cheney and assistant to President Bush. In August 2002, George W. Bush constructed a small band of warmongers to meet each week in order to discuss plans for invading Iraq. Mary Matalin was a member of this secretive gathering known as the White House Iraq Group. Publicly, it was a task force developed to educate America regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In reality, it was a group designed to create propaganda in order to sell the war. But before the first bomb had reached Iraqi soil, Matalin had resigned. Perhaps even she had grown tired of the Bush administration’s antics and corruption. It was the reserved and soft spoken National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that drafted the National Security Strategy for a preemptive strike against Iraq. Rice was President Bush’s closest advisor and the primary advocate for

38

Chapter Three

aggression against Iraq. Although she was well educated and had a promising future, Rice migrated to the Republican Party. While on the faculty at Stanford University in 1984, she met National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft at a political seminar hosted by the university. Scowcroft invited Rice to various seminars and conferences during the following few years. In 1989, Scowcroft appointed Rice to the National Security Council to lead all matters pertaining to the Soviet Union. During the first Bush administration, Rice returned to the Stanford faculty. While back at Stanford, she kept in contact with her conservative cohorts and laid the ground work for her own political and business ambitions. While a member of the National Security Council, Rice had become close to former Secretary of State George Shultz. They shared a similar conservative philosophy and overall view of the world. It was in 1998, at a Republican fund-raiser in San Francisco where she met the former President’s son, George W. Bush. The two immediately hit it off by learning the many things they had in common. Bush selected Rice as his National Security Advisor as he was gearing up for his run at the presidency. At a meeting with Rice in January 2003, French diplomat Maurice Gourdault-Montagne warned of the dangers of invading Iraq. The closed minded loyal Bush supporter rejected all of his arguments. Gourdault-Montagne claimed that the war would destabilize other Middle Eastern countries. Attacking Iraq would cause numerous demonstrations while increasing recruitment for al Qaeda. These predictions have in fact come true. The increase in turmoil throughout the region has exacerbated anti-American demonstrations. A multitude of insurgent attacks has resulted in thousands of lives lost and al Qaeda has never been stronger. Meanwhile, America is more vulnerable than ever before. The queen of spin and one of the leaders in Bush’s rise to the top was communications director Karen Hughes. Her brash personality, skillful intimidation of the media, and ability to twist facts and lie, made Hughes an indispensable force within the Bush administration. Ironically, the former journalist made a habit of berating the press if it did not conform to the carefully orchestrated message. Unlike Karl Rove, who would phone reporters at their homes and scream at them, Hughes used a smooth more subtle approach. Putting it frankly, Hughes and the Bush administration decided what the news would be, not the media. Hughes became quite adept at damage control as well. As Bush’s communications director, she was afforded many opportunities to work on this skill. One example in particular was when Bush visited Israel and spoke to some of the locals. He bluntly told the Jewish gathering that they were all going to

Axis of Evil

39

hell. Hughes responded by telling the press that Bush was “troubled if people misinterpret his comments to indicate anything other than his great respect for people of different faiths...As a Christian he believes that Jesus Christ is his personal savior...Judgments about heaven and hell do not belong to the realm of politics or of this world. They belong to a higher authority, and he recognizes that.”3 A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf. Hughes, along with Karl Rove, dressed Bush up as a “Compassionate Conservative” having a moderate stance on social issues. Of course, Bush’s record on social issues is nothing close to being “moderate.” According to journalist Richard Wolffe, when George W. Bush uses the word “compassionate” he actually means “Christian” or “religious.” Bush was obviously a hit during his first presidential campaign when he spoke at the anti-Catholic, bigoted and racist Bob Jones University. In the fall of 2001, Hughes and her successor, John Rendon, worked together to develop the Coalition Information Center. It was a creative public relations operation used to respond to anti-American sentiment throughout the world. This was her last significant contribution to the Bush administration. In the spring of 2002, Hughes decided to resign claiming that she simply wanted to spend more time with her family. Even after Hughes had left the limelight, she still continued to assist the Bush administration with speech writing and strategy. On a cold winter day in February 2001, Robert Pickett of Evansville, Indiana, walked up to the south lawn of the White House, pointed a small hand gun north and began to fire several rounds. He was trying to commit suicide by cop, but was instead shot in the knee and taken into custody. During the commotion outside, members of the Secret Service followed protocol by immediately checking the status of the president and vice president. They discovered Vice President Cheney in his West Wing office preparing a speech. President Bush was in the White House gymnasium where he could often be found. Bush routinely avoided responsibility. Cheney, the University of Wyoming alumnus, worked his way up the ladder by sacrificing public service for his own ambitions. He has befriended only those that have benefited his rise to the top. His loyalties have been only to those that control the buttons of power. A brief example can be seen in the 2000 presidential election. Bush and Cheney lost the popular vote by more than a half a million votes. Cheney was able to create a political team in order to disrupt the re-counting of the Florida ballots. He knew then that the election outcome would be determined by the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court that was dominated by his friend and hunting partner Antonin Scalia.

40

Chapter Three

It was Cheney that began hand picking various individuals that would promote his agenda. Knowing his reputation for despising the United Nations and other mediums of multinational cooperation, Cheney selected John Bolton to be undersecretary of state for arms control. His old Ford administration friend and CEO Paul O’ Neill would serve well as head of the treasury. O’ Neill did not last long, however. Cheney sent O’ Neill on his way after he caught him actually doing his job. O’ Neill was attempting to utilize fiscal responsibility by steering the Bush administration away from creating massive deficits. Cheney’s selection of former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft was an ideal move to appease the holy rolling Religious Right. Although he was generally discreet, Cheney used his power to make policy, plan election strategy, and hand out favors to the appropriate people. Meetings with Cheney, not Bush, were known as the important ones that White House staffers should attend. During the attacks on September 11, 2001, Cheney was the one that took charge. While Bush was showing off his reading skills to elementary students in Florida, Cheney was on the phone choreographing who needed to do what and who needed to go where. Unlike Cheney, Bush was usually in a meltdown mode when it came to foreign affairs. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush was questioned by reporters as to who the leaders of various nations were. The majority of his answers were either wrong or “no.” Chechnya, India, Pakistan, Taiwan— Bush did not have a clue. He was unable to pronounce several of the nations on the planet, let alone, understand their relationship to the United States. Cheney was proficient in all of these areas plus many more. Bush’s lack of intelligence, however, appealed to many. Many Americans were drawn to his “regular guy” image with no concern for his competency. Anticipating the invasion, Cheney insisted that the threat level in Iraq was higher than it had ever been before. Ironic, since the Halliburton Corporation had been doing business with Saddam Hussein for several years. Cheney’s energy policy was highlighted by three incriminating documents. One was a map that included all of the Iraqi oil fields. There were also two charts listing significant Iraqi oil and gas projects. In 2002, Cheney even admitted to attendees at the VFW National Convention, that in fact, the war would be over oil. He then went on to utilize fear tactics insinuating an apocalyptic outcome if Saddam Hussein remained in power. Cheney, like his boss, was salivating over the thought of attacking Iraq. Like many Americans, Cheney was discouraged that the first President Bush did not “finish the job.” Yet, he was none too proud to continue doing business with Hussein during the 1990’s. Cheney played an intricate role in

Axis of Evil

41

piecing together the Bush administration. War mongering hard-liners were necessary in order to establish a strong resolve and absolute determination. Putting together an administration such as this was not too difficult a task. Finding warmongers among neoconservatives is a lot like finding music lovers at a concert. Early in Bush’s first term, Cheney created a document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” The paper included a statement explaining that there needed to be some type of justification for attacking Iraq. Approximately eight months later, the Bush administration had their excuse to invade the small Middle Eastern nation. Just a reminder, it was the Hussein-hating Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden who masterminded the attacks of September 11, 2001. As one of Bush’s top henchman, Cheney was charged with developing a plan to connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Cheney had become frustrated with the CIA for not finding a connection. He frequently harassed personnel at the CIA headquarters to come up with the answers he wanted. The vice president was not by any stretch of the imagination, interested in the truth. In desperation, Cheney began to claim that Iraq was the home base of the world’s terrorists. Despite the evidence, he insisted publicly that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Authorization to go to war was given to the Bush administration by House and Senate members. However, the authorization was only if the United States faced an eminent threat from Iraq. This as we all know, was not the case. After Colin Powell’s lackluster performance before the United Nations in February 2003, it was clear that the UN was not on board. Right up until the eve of the war, Cheney continued his streak of lies. In a March 2003 interview, he insisted that diplomacy was still a top priority. But for Bush, Cheney, and Company, peace was not an option, the war was on. So often in recent years we have had to endure hearing the expression, “Nine-eleven changed everything.” It is a phrase coined by the Bush administration that means, “We will shred the U.S. Constitution, violate the civil rights of our citizens, launch war against whomever we want and torture our captives.” Torture in some cases resulted in death. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had personally issued orders to abandon traditional interrogation methods. Rigid, relentless, and above all, ruthless, Donald Henry Rumsfeld is the chief hit man within the Bush administration. Known affectionately as “Rummy” by his closest adversaries, Rumsfeld knew that Iraq would be the ideal scapegoat for the September 11, 2001 attacks. Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration wanted retaliation and they knew that Iraq would do

42

Chapter Three

nicely. Rumsfeld told specific members of Bush’s cabinet that Iraq would be the “principal” target in the “war on terror.” Rumsfeld used the absurd argument that absence of evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction did not mean that there was evidence of absence. As he began his second of what would be four consecutive terms in Congress, Rumsfeld had become discontent with the House minority leadership. Rumsfeld led a coup to replace House minority leader, Charles Halleck, with Michigan Congressman Gerald Ford. Ford was successful in becoming the new minority leader and later, made Rumsfeld one of his key advisers. It would not last long, however, as Rumsfeld became restless and wanted more. He attempted to worm his way into the Nixon administration by volunteering to assist with the 1968 presidential campaign. After much lobbying on his own behalf, Rumsfeld received a position from Nixon as director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Ironically, Rumsfeld’s job was to procure funding for the organization that was created to help the poor. He had vetoed funding for the organization when he was a member of Congress. Rumsfeld’s executive assistant at OEO was a new intern named Dick Cheney. As the years passed, both Rumsfeld and Cheney worked in various, but separate, political domains. Their paths would cross again during and in the Ford administration. Rumsfeld was Ford’s headstrong and radical secretary of defense. Unscrupulous and tenacious, Richard Cheney had assumed the role of White House chief of staff. After the inauguration of Jimmy Carter, both men were deservedly out of a job. Rumsfeld and Cheney were reunited as members of what will prove to be the most destructive and diabolical administration in U.S. history. A few years prior to the George W. Bush Presidency, former Reagan adviser Richard Perle, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a handful of others, founded a group called Project for the New American Century. The PNAC was a neoconservative think-tank designed to promote global domination through the use of force. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on America in September 2001. However, there is most certainly a connection between U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other detention facilities throughout the world. It is convenient how international law and the Geneva Convention do not apply to the United States. They do not apply because George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have vowed to do whatever it takes to “protect America.” So apparently, rules must not only be bent, they must be broken. After all, we are in a War on Terror, and as we all know, “Nine-eleven changed everything!”

Axis of Evil

43

Prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib included, among other things, beatings, burnings, electric shock and sodomy. These shameful acts sound an awful lot like torture. It seems, too, like a strange way to promote democracy and Western values. In addition, George W. Bush refused to sign the International Criminal Court treaty because he said it would jeopardize America’s sovereignty. The interrogators at Abu Ghraib were comprised of U.S. and British forces. Private contractors hired by the U.S. government were also involved, but the primary responsibility lies with top U.S. officials including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and White House attorney Alberto Gonzales. Regardless of how much the Bush administration utilizes loopholes and spin, torture is torture. It may be to the GOP, but torture is not an American value. A brilliant political consultant to George W. Bush and the Republican cause, Karl Rove is, in fact, a liar, cheat, and thief. To Rove, these are not negative traits. These are just some of the qualities that Rove and the Republicans take much pride in. Winning by any means is their ultimate goal. Idolizing Richard Nixon made the Watergate scandal a difficult pill for Rove to swallow. Nixon’s role in Watergate was not what was so upsetting to Rove. He was bothered by the fact that Nixon and the Republicans got caught. Karl Rove has literally spent his entire life brewing up strategies beneficial to the GOP. Some of Rove’s tactics have actually been known to be ethical and legal, but not too many. There is no doubt as to why Rove is so revered by the Bush administration. Since his grade school days, Rove has been obsessed with politics, power and winning. At only nine years old, his classmates were into sports, cartoons and all of the usual childhood activities. The only sport that interested Rove was politics. His lifelong goal was to go to Washington and dominate the political world. With a massive amount of intelligence, a photographic memory and creative debating skills, Washington would someday become a reality. Rove attended Olympus High School in Salt Lake City. He was the classic geek complete with pocket protector and horn-rim glasses that covered most of his face. As an incoming freshman, Rove set his sights on becoming a member of the debate team. He spent most of his high school career in the library reading and preparing debate material. Ultraconservative Utah was prime territory for developing Rove’s kindred spirit with the Republican Party. By his senior year, Rove was the most respected member of the debate team and was also president of the student senate. Twisting facts and breaking the rules, Rove utilized anything necessary to win a debate. Not just win, however. His goal was to crush and humiliate his opponent, nothing less

44

Chapter Three

would do. He used various techniques to psyche out the competition before a debate would begin. His remarks did not always contain substance, but there was always plenty of hype. Rove never earned a college degree, but did attend the University of Utah for a short while. Classes and studying only got in the way of practicing politics. In 1973, Rove made a run to become chairman of the College Republican National Committee. His mentor was Lee Atwater, president of the College Republicans of South Carolina. Atwater also acted as Rove’s southern district campaign manager. Under a cloud of suspicion regarding unethical and shady tactics, Rove was appointed college chairman. He was appointed by RNC chairman George H.W. Bush. Less than a year later, Bush hired him to be a special assistant to the Republican National Committee. Rove had arrived; he made it to Washington. Achieving celebrity status was of little concern to Rove. He was most comfortable behind the scenes doing much of the “dirty” work. As an assistant to the RNC chairman, Rove had essentially no authority. His position had placed him in an ideal place to hobnob with the upper echelon of the Republican Party. He was also able to stay abreast on all of the current GOP schemes and propaganda. This was the venue in which Rove first met the family of his boss, including the eldest son, George W. Bush. Rove had been Bush’s chief consultant since Bush was a gubernatorial candidate. Years earlier, Rove had been advising and assisting the Bushes in some of their other political endeavors. In 1978, he developed campaign strategies for Bush Junior’s congressional bid. In 1980, he was an advocate for the Fund for Limited Government during which time he assisted in Bush Senior’s presidential candidacy. Over the years, Rove assisted many GOP members hoping to further their political careers. Karl Rove operates within the political world by using his intellect. With limited resources, George W. Bush utilizes his instincts. Together, they make an ideal match. Their plan to win the White House began during Bush’s bid to become Texas’ forty-sixth governor. The state of Texas alone was a solid base to launch a presidential bid because it contained a large number of electoral votes. Rove was also instrumental in influencing the outcome of the 1998 gubernatorial election in Florida. Florida was endowed with a good number of electoral votes as well. Rove is not the typical political consultant. Traditionally, consultants work to get their candidate elected and then move on to other endeavors. Rove however had become America’s first “permanent” presidential consultant. Fiercely loyal to Bush, Rove had given new meaning to the term “political consultant.” The Rove plan, first and foremost, was to get George W. Bush elected president; second, steer the administration’s policy; third, get Bush re-

Axis of Evil

45

elected; and last, use Bush’s second term to implement policy while searching out the perfect successor. As the years passed, Rove kept in close contact with his friend and mentor, Lee Atwater. It was Atwater who ignited Rove’s rise to the top and taught him many tricks of the trade. Rove has taken what he learned from Atwater and combined them with his own ideas to create an extremely effective propaganda machine. Books containing examples of Rove’s corruptive and deceitful ways could fill a warehouse. He has ruined the careers of anyone who opposed him or his candidates. Putting it bluntly, Rove and Bush would destroy America, if necessary, in order to achieve their own personal and political agendas. Stay on message and repeat it again and again and again. Despite the fact that the mantra is full of lies, it will not matter. Stupid Americans will believe it if you continue to drive it home. Karl Rove is a master at this as well as various other dirty tricks. Some examples include: “Al Gore is a liar,” “The Democrats will say anything to get elected,” “Class Warfare,” “Liberals are terrorist sympathizers,” and “John Kerry is an anti-American atheist.” These are all lies, of course, but people buy this crap! They have heard it again and again and again. An associate at my job was so mesmerized by it all, he decided to come up with a couple of his own: “Al Gore is a queer” and “John Kerry is a Communist.” “Class Warfare” is a good example deserving of a closer look. Under the Bush administration, many Americans lost their jobs and have no healthcare. In addition, many have lost their pensions due to the actions of America’s rich and powerful. Yet, people buy this Republican propaganda. It’s ironic, since the Republicans are the ones that are working so hard to socio-economically divide the country. Perhaps I should come up with my own phrase, “George W. Bush is a greedy coward that has lied to the American people and cost thousands of troops their lives.” This one, I admit, is not nearly as creative as the Republicans’. There is little shock value in the truth. Another one of the successful ploys used by the Republicans is to wrap themselves in the flag. Anyone that voices opposition to the Bush administration is labeled “anti-American,” “unpatriotic,” or the always popular, “traitor.” This has been an extremely simple and effective tool. Apparently, it is a treasonable offense to speak up against a preemptive attack on Iraq which was based on lies. It must also be anti-American to stand up for the United States Constitution which includes the civil liberties of her citizens. Voter fraud, smear campaigns, personal attacks, and control of the media, allow the Republican machine to operate effectively and increase their hold on America. They have three strategies for winning: suppress the vote, buy

46

Chapter Three

people with tax cuts, and scare others into voting against their own interests. They utilize loyal Right-Wing extremists to do their dirty work while the greedy well-heeled finance them. They appeal to America’s sense of patriotism, religion, and homophobia in order to divert attention away from their own selfish initiatives. Right-Wing extremist Karl Rove is the master of deception and diversion. He will lie, cheat and steal for the Republican cause. In the 1986 Texas gubernatorial election, Republican Bill Clement faced off against Democrat Mark White. Rove held a press conference just before the election to announce that White’s people seemed to know an awful lot about Clement’s campaign strategy. Rove then planted a bug in his own office and called the police and the media to tell them what he had discovered. Clement won the election and Mark White’s political career was over. In 1994 during the Texas gubernatorial campaign season, Rove began spreading lies that the incumbent Governor Ann Richards was gay. He then went on to insinuate that Richard’s staff was predominately lesbian. Even fellow Republican John McCain was not immune to Rove’s unethical tactics. During the 2000 Republican primary, Rove made accusations that while a POW in Vietnam, McCain gave classified information to the communist North Vietnamese. Rove also added that McCain was mentally unstable. Rove started rumors that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child and his wife was addicted to drugs. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Rove obviously had the vice president in his cross hairs. Rove sent George W. Bush’s debate strategy to the Gore campaign and then told the media that Gore’s people were spying on them. Targeted at America’s Bible Belt in 2004, Rove choreographed phone calls, letters and e-mail claiming that John Kerry was planning to ban the Holy Bible from use in America and that George W. Bush was the right choice because he was a real Christian. When I was contemplating the title of and material for this chapter, “Karl Rove” was obviously one of the first names that came to mind. I have only touched on a few examples of the corruption that define Karl Rove and the Republican cronies, seemingly endless and overwhelming, yet there is so much more. From his early days of learning the ropes from Lee Atwater and planting bugs on himself, to orchestrating the swift boat liars, Karl Rove has no shame. It would almost be sacrilege to not mention John Ashcroft in this chapter. Bush’s pick for attorney general, keep in mind, lost his senate seat to a man that was deceased. On October 16, 2000, Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan was killed in a plane crash. His death occurred less than a month before the November election, thus it was too late to remove his name from the ballot. Carnahan’s widow, Jean Carnahan was then appointed to the U.S. Senate by

Axis of Evil

47

Lieutenant Governor Roger Wilson. Ashcroft, poster child for the religious right, has stood by the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization that believes that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites. John Ashcroft is a real piece of work. He has even defended remarks made by the “Southern Partisan,” a magazine praising the Ku Klux Klan. In addition, he opposes among many things, interracial marriage, gay rights, various types of contraception and common sense gun control. He may not have planted any bugs on himself, but he certainly killed a few. Former House Majority Whip Tom Delay entered Congress in 1984 after a successful career in the exterminator business. In 1994, after the Republicans gained control of the House, Delay was elected as the Majority Whip. Loathsome, hypocritical and corrupt, Delay was an embodiment of the Bush administration. The “hammer” as he was known by GOP congressional members, unequivocally rejects any separation of church and state. In other words, the United States must become a fundamentally Christian state. He falls quite a bit short, however, regarding the question “What Would Jesus Do?”; unless of course, Jesus was into hate, intolerance, bigotry, extortion, bribery, fraud, money laundering, and fundraising abuse. Delay is a champion of the Christian Coalition and big business. He despises Democrats and considers them to be the cause for all of America’s problems. Liberal initiatives including day care and equal rights are seen by Delay as programs that tear at the fabric of America’s “family values.” Keep the guns, get rid of the gays, and proudly display the Ten Commandments in every public school in the country. Delay has fought diligently to repeal clean air and water legislation, eliminate occupational safety and health guidelines, and protect the corporate world from consumer lawsuits. Conservative lobbyists that shared common goals with Delay always got a break. Delay used extortion in dealing with lobbyists that had a more liberal agenda. He pushed lobbying firms and trade associations to fire the Democrats within their organizations and replace them with Republicans. Delay was a strong advocate for the rich and unapologetic about it. He abhors the working poor and has no interest in any tax measure helpful to their cause, unless, because he is such a good Christian, it can also benefit the wealthy. It would be an injustice to complete this chapter without recognizing conservative scam artist Jack Abramoff. Abramoff has been involved in numerous high-profile scandals and has been under federal investigation for his criminal activities. Lobbyist and member of Bush’s Transition Advisory Team, Abramoff has made millions via a multitude of illegal and unethical ventures. Born into a family of Jewish decent and an avid supporter of Israel, Abramoff’s laundry list of illegalities is beyond reproach. He has financed

48

Chapter Three

illegally occupied territories of the West Bank in Israel. Millions of dollars he has swindled from his Indian tribal clients. He has created phony charities and committed bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion, corruption of public officials, and wire as well as mail fraud. Keep in mind that the money Abramoff funneled into Israel has funded militant groups that have killed innocent Palestinians. Bush and his team are dedicated to fighting for the rich. Their aim is to eventually eliminate all capital gains, inheritance and corporate taxes. More and more tax breaks for the wealthy create an ever growing deficit. Thus, less and less funding is available for the oppressed groups and individuals mentioned previously. This puts an even greater burden on the working class and poor. It is an ideal tactic because it reinforces the “anti-tax” sentiment that many Americans have. Therefore, Bush received little, if any, resistance from the general public whenever he uttered the phrase “tax cut.” The end result: the rich continue to reap the benefits. The Bush administration seemed to be intent on changing the role of government in order to achieve it’s own specific desires, to protect property and sovereignty through the use of law enforcement and the military, and to eliminate social programs and those nasty economic regulations that pester big corporations. Building up the deficit is not an accident. It was actually part of the Bush administration’s strategy. More deficits mean less funding for social welfare programs and economic regulations. Programs that cannot be eliminated completely will be privatized. The outcome would be an autocratic “imperialistic” state that represses institutional and individual rights. Certainly, the Executive Branch must be able to exercise discretion involving matters that pertain to national security. Meetings behind closed doors are obviously not unconstitutional. However, Bush and Cheney have taken secrecy to an extreme in their crusade to create an imperialistic society. The Bush administration routinely defies Congress and withholds information that the public has a right to know. One of many examples involves safety and health. In September 2001, the Bush administration issued orders to the Environmental Protection Agency. Shortly after nine-eleven, the EPA announced that the air quality around Ground Zero was safe when in fact, it was not. They ignored the dangerous levels of asbestos in order to comply with the White House directive. Cheney had spent years trying to get Congress to pass legislation to remove liability from corporations, including Halliburton, with asbestos problems. The EPA was content to remain silent until U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton forced them to disclose the truth. No doubt, the Valerie Plame scandal played a significant role in Mary Matalin’s decision to resign at the end of 2002. Plame was a covert CIA op-

Axis of Evil

49

erative whose identity had been leaked to the press by a high ranking White House official. It was an act of vengeance directed at not only Plame, but her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson had been highly critical of the Bush administration’s fundamental pretense for invading Iraqweapons of mass destruction. Plame focused on weapons of mass destruction as an employee in the Central Intelligence Agency’s Counter-Proliferation Division. Wilson was sent to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the validity of documentation which claimed that Saddam Hussein had attempted to obtain uranium from the small African country. Since the Bush administration was already beating the war drums, it was crucial to their case that Wilson would find evidence that the documents were valid. Wilson, the former ambassador to Gabon and advisor on African affairs to the National Security Council, concluded that the documents were forgeries. His findings were verified by numerous intelligence analysts plus Barbro Kirkpatrick, the former ambassador to Niger. As we already know, President Bush and his cronies were more concerned with playing politics than promoting national security. A year following the publication of Wilson’s findings, Bush proclaimed in a State of the Union address, that the documents were authentic. The disclosure of Plame’s identity appears to have been a team effort featuring a variety of players. From the evidence I have obtained, Vice President Cheney got the ball rolling. This is by no means an all-inclusive chronology, but it is a brief synopsis of the events that transpired. In June of 2003, Cheney told President Bush, his sidekick Karl Rove, and a few other White House officials that CIA operative Valerie Plame was the wife of Iraq War critic Joseph Wilson. He informed the small group that she also arranged Wilson’s investigative trip to Niger. Shortly thereafter, he discussed Plames’s status with his Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. He then proceeded to tell Libby to go talk to Judith Miller of the New York Times and bring her up to speed. That same month, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that the wife of former Ambassador Wilson worked for the CIA as a weapons of mass destruction analyst. Meanwhile, Libby informed Miller that Wilson’s wife worked in the Counter-Proliferation Division of the CIA and that she was involved in her husband’s trip to Africa. It was July 2003 when Wilson publicly unraveled the Bush administration’s web of deceit. In an op-ed piece that was published in the New York Times, Wilson wrote about the White House’s flagrant attempt to mislead the public, make a case for war, and conceal any information that did not support the goal. Only eight days after Wilson’s commentary appeared in the Times, conservative syndicated columnist Robert Novak issued a column about

50

Chapter Three

Wilson’s journey to Niamey, Niger. Despite a warning from the CIA, Novak divulged Plame’s identity in his article. The Novak piece also insinuated that Wilson was nothing more than a political hack out to get the Bush administration. Members of Team Bush, including Karl Rove, were obviously inspired by Novak’s article. Rove also took it upon himself to push the story forward. In reality, the Bush administration’s policy regarding the war was not based on intelligence. Instead, the intelligence was based on policy. The extreme secrecy within the Bush administration was a cancer upon our democracy. Denying Americans information for their selfish objectives is intolerable. Thomas Jefferson often spoke about liberty. Liberty is exercised when the government fears the people. George W. Bush evoked tyranny, whereas the people feared the government. If Congress does not call the President on his lies and efforts to withhold information, then he is not held accountable. Making matters worse, was relying on a Republican Congress that essentially rubber stamped whatever Bush wanted. George W. Bush continued to proclaim that we were winning the war on terror. But in reality, we already lost. The United States has lost thousands of men and women in the war in Iraq. With the exception of Britain’s Tony Blair and a handful of other nations, our credibility among the international community is nonexistent. Our democracy has been weakened via Bush’s violation of the Constitution and civil liberties. During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush admitted that the war on terror could not actually be won. Immediately after Bush’s comment, a staff member qualified his remark. Bush continued to spend billions of dollars and “stay the course” with no end in sight. Whenever the opportunity arises, I take time to confront Bush lovers. In addition to writing this book, it gives me another avenue to vent. When I ask them why they support the president and his policies, their responses are always void of any substance and logic. They also respond with some astonishment that I would even question why they support George W. Bush the Great. My favorite one is the always popular, “Support the president and his policies because he is the president, enough said!” I doubt they felt the same way during the Clinton administration. Speakers at the 2004 Republican National Convention were somehow able to convince the nation’s voters that total failure translates into great leadership. They even had the unremitting gall to compare George W. Bush to truly great leaders such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. Speech after speech they ranted and raved about how fortunate America was to have Bush as their president. Not one of them could point to a single significant Bush accomplishment. It really did not matter. They

Axis of Evil

51

frequently uttered Bush’s name, spoke often about patriotism and bashed liberals as the convention crowd roared. One speaker in particular was former actor turned politician, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The flamboyant California governor grinned from ear to ear as he spent nearly thirty minutes bellowing out praises for “Dubya.” He also spoke of his migration from Austria and what had inspired him to become a Republican. He said that when he first arrived to the United States in 1968, the presidential campaign season was in full swing. He claimed to have watched a debate between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon while a friend translated it for him. Schwarzenegger went on to say that Humphrey struck him as too liberal while leaning towards socialism. But he was apparently moved by Nixon’s talk of less government and self-sufficiency. Less than two years into Bush’s second term, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had had enough of being instructed to lie for the Bush administration. Before the midterm election, McClellan submitted his resignation. He would later go on to write, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What’s Wrong with Washington, a work detailing the corruption and deception of the Bush administration. It was just before the midterm election when Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair announced his decision to resign within a year. With Bush-like approval ratings primarily for his backing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Blair resigned in shame in June 2007. Two months later, amid allegations of perjury, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also resigned in shame. Gonzales played a key role in President Bush’s illegal and unconstitutional wire-tapping venture. He had also teamed up with Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor Karl Rove to fire eight U.S. attorneys without cause. Despite having received positive performance evaluations, the Department of Justice lawyers were not considered “loyal Bushies.” Possibly in an attempt to avoid future prosecution for a number of crimes, Rove himself abandoned the “S.S. George ‘Dubya’ Bush presidency” in August 2007. He claimed that his resignation was for “the sake of his family.” A little housekeeping is in order to wrap things up. During the 2000 campaign, Bush said, “But I feel God wants me to do this, and I must do it.”4 If this is true, God must have some serious contempt for the citizens of the United States. By the way, the quotation following Bush’s located on page one of this chapter belongs to Adolf Hitler. Also, Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon never debated; Schwarzenegger made it up. It is most certainly worth repeating. The most harmful entities to the United States have been the Bush administration and the Republican Party faithful. A few of these obnoxious zealots have already been touched upon. But there are many

52

Chapter Three

more that deserve recognition including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. The list goes on and on!

NOTES 1. Mansfield, Stephen. The Faith of George W. Bush (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2003) p. 109. 2. Waite, Robert G. L. The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (Basic Books. New York, New York. 1977) p. 28. 3. Flanders, Laura. Bushwomen (Verso. New York, New York. 2004) p. 101. 4. Mansfield, Stephen. The Faith of George W. Bush (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2003) p. 109.

Chapter Four

Back to Larson

As the death toll in Iraq continued to rise, George W. Bush’s assault on America continued to unfold. While he was pampering and helping the super rich, Bush aggressively stomped upon the rest of the American people. Then he used them to wipe off his Texas cowboy boots. The first act of Bush’s presidency was, in fact, initiating and then passing a gigantic tax cut for the top two percent of income earners. He then went on to repeal the estate tax and dividend tax. Shameless and immoral, George W. Bush has no regard for the common man. This chapter will finish answering Larson’s question, “What’s so bad about the president?” As the saying goes, so goes the Bush administration, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” They utilize cute little quips such as “all-inclusive” and “compassionate conservatism” in order to mask their true intentions. Bush’s “supply-side” economics has created an ever growing gap between America’s wealthiest citizens and those lower on the economic totem pole. Upon taking office, George W. Bush inherited the largest surplus in U.S. history. By the end of his first term, he turned that surplus into the largest deficit in U.S. history. Bankruptcy filings were over twenty percent. While over two million Americans lost their jobs, three million were added to the poverty rolls. Homelessness increased by twenty percent. The costs for health care increased over ten percent. Bush’s list of failures goes on and on. Managing to fail upwards in all of his careers, Bush has never worked the way many Americans have to. He has never lived “pay check to pay check” or worried about having the best available health care for his family. While he has had virtually everything handed to him, he has always had a healthy amount of contempt for those less fortunate. Harvard professor Yoshi Tsurumi remembers an essay Bush wrote for the Japanese Institute of Global Communications. In it, Bush insisted that poor people were simply lazy. He 53

54

Chapter Four

argued his opposition to labor unions, Social Security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public education. Bush once claimed that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was bad for America. Bush boasted more net job losses than any president since Herbert Hoover during the Depression. Often ridiculed for his personal actions, Bill Clinton left office with a net job increase of twenty-two million. By the end of his second term, Clinton had balanced a budget that was previously in the red due to Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts for the wealthy. Research by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was conducted towards the end of Bush’s first term. Their conclusion was that since 2001, Bush’s tax cuts were “the single most important factor in explaining the move from surpluses to deficits.”1 With unemployment rising, the Bush administration stopped issuing the monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics Report. When this was done, Bush had been in office less than two years. The report, also known as the Mass Layoff Statistics Program, tracks workplace closings with a termination of greater than fifty employees. The Bush administration tried to claim that issuing the report had ceased due to budget cuts. After the Washington Post caught wind of their tactic, the administration was forced to resume releasing the report. The reports since than have had a new look, however. They only reveal the private non-farm economy. Layoffs in government and the agricultural industry are not included. Under George W. Bush, most of the three million jobs losses were in the manufacturing industry. Many of these were due to corporations shipping jobs overseas. In February 2004, Bush signed a radical revision of the corporate tax law which basically rewarded corporations for moving jobs overseas. At a campaign appearance in Canton, Ohio, Bush claimed that the bill would actually keep jobs in the US. The Bush administration used “smoke and mirrors” to promote the bill and make it appear affordable. Not only did millions of jobs go overseas, but signing the bill increased the deficit over two-hundred million dollars. In addition, Bush attempted to pawn off jobs in fast-food restaurants as “manufacturing” jobs. Ironically, the United States is the wealthiest nation on Earth, yet it has one of the highest poverty rates among industrialized countries. According to the Luxembourg Income Study, the U.S. poverty rate sits at seventeen percent, about two percent lower than Russia. The entire population of Canada is less than the number of Americans living in poverty. Of these, nearly twenty percent are in the workforce. Cutting programs targeted to help the poor is one of the ways Bush pays for his tax breaks for the wealthy. Federally subsidized housing, child care aide, and the child tax credit have all been subjected to the Bush budget cuts. One example includes three hundred million dollars cut from the federal program that provides assistance for the needy to heat their homes. Families that claim the Earned Income Tax Credit are audited more

Back to Larson

55

often by the Internal Revenue Service. Meanwhile, corporate tax shelters provide protection to over fifty percent of American businesses. America’s “War President” claimed to be strong on defense, yet he initiated crucial military base closings. Nearly twenty-five percent of the American troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have adequate equipment. Apparently, Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy Republican fat cats are a higher priority than protecting our men and women that protect us. The lack of body armor is a prime example. In the fall of 2003, soldiers, and in some cases their families were contacting body armor distributors to obtain the equipment themselves. Business has been sky rocketing at Reliance Armor in Cincinnati. Many families of soldiers serving overseas have lost their confidence in the U.S. military. Even Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine admitted that the Bush administration dropped the ball on this one. Adequate supplies of body armor were not the only provisions lacking. There were shortages of ammunition, night vision goggles, armored vehicles, and field radios. Some soldiers had to place plywood and sandbags in the floors of their vehicles for protection. Walkie-talkies purchased by family members were used in certain situations for communication. Speaking on behalf of the Bush administration at a bankers meeting, the former Majority Leader Tom Delay put it this way, “Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.”2 The Bush administration views environmental protection as nothing more than a nuisance trying to undermine America’s corporate and industrial complex. Appreciating the world for only it’s monetary value, Bush has devoted much of his presidency to rolling back more than two hundred regulations that protect the environment. From the outset, Bush put new regulations on hold that were initiated by the Clinton administration. Some of these included setting limits on drilling, logging, and mining on public property. Bush was even against increasing energy efficiency and decreasing arsenic levels in potable water. He appointed a slew of anti-environmentalists to his Environmental Protection Team. Many of these appointees had backgrounds in and ties to the energy industry, nothing like massive conflict of interest and hypocrisy. Many at the Environmental Protection Agency, including its administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, resigned because they were so disgusted with America’s “Environmental President.” Fearing that the public would not rally behind their environmental agenda, the Bush administration utilized various phrases to create a more positive tone. “Moving forward with environmental policy” and “commonsense approaches” mean rolling back regulations friendly to the environment. “Changing the climate” is a Bush term for global warming. Having “healthy forests” means turning public forests over to the logging industry. “Skies that are clear” simply means that the air pollution is not thick enough to totally obscure sunlight.

56

Chapter Four

Power plants are essentially free to fill the skies with toxic emissions. “Providing balance to the environment” actually means eliminating regulations, thus allowing big campaign contributors to continue destroying the environment. Utilizing secrecy and smoke screens have been trademarks of the Bush administration. They have been present in the majority of Bush’s policies including matters pertaining to the environment. By law, there are some environmental reports and programs that must be made public. In these cases, the administration discloses information in a subtle and cleverly timed manner. Announcements are made on days that are inconvenient, usually Fridays or holidays. Paving over conservation areas such as hiking trails and animal crossings was conducted to create roads for moving industrial equipment. This was announced to the media the night before Christmas Eve, 2002. On a Friday in August 2003, it was disclosed that coal refineries upgrading their equipment did not have to add modern day air quality controls. Overturning waste disposal regulations allowing the mining industry to use more public property as garbage dumps was announced in 2003 on Columbus Day weekend. In January 2004, on a Friday, a regulation was rescinded that protected rare animals and plants in national forests. Bush’s anti-environmental policies extend internationally as well. The Bush administration has overtly rejected treaties designed to protect the world’s environment. One of these is the Kyoto Protocol, ratified by over one-hundred countries in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialized nations to make specific cuts in greenhouse emissions. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice informed over a dozen European ambassadors that the Kyoto Protocol would not be honored by the Bush administration. Just for the record, the United States emits almost twenty-five percent of the world’s carbon dioxide, and only has five percent of the population. Bush has also ignored the Montreal Protocol which limits production of substances that harm the ozone. Also, he ignored the Stockholm Convention that limits the production of toxic chemicals. Bush’s energy bill was a scam job. During his first year in office, Bush proclaimed that Americans would face widespread blackouts and large increases in fuel prices if his bill was not passed. Under the Bush administration, higher fuel costs were a given. Bush’s “the sky is falling” remarks were made to convince Congress to ease up on environmental regulations. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force was cooking up additions to Bush’s energy bill that would create huge tax breaks for U.S. energy interests. As well, seventeen of Cheney’s energy policies were in some respect or another, advantageous to Enron. The energy bill included incentives for drilling offshore. It tied the hands of the interior secretary to deny permits to oil companies wanting to use public land for drilling. Oil and gas companies would be reimbursed for environmental impact studies. These same industries were exempt from having to

Back to Larson

57

abide by the Clean Water Act. The oil and natural gas industries were given exemptions in order to violate the Safe Drinking Water Act. Companies such as Lyondell Chemical poison hundreds of water supplies and receive legislative protection from lawsuits. Bush has put together an efficient team of “environmentalists.” At the top of course is Dick Cheney, still under bribery investigation going back to his Halliburton days. Energy secretary Spencer Abraham supported legislation to allow oil companies to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. He initiated a plan to allow Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) to qualify for lower standards by increasing their weight. Interior secretary Gale Norton fought hard against the Endangered Species Act and while a lobbyist, she was a big advocate for the lead paint industry. She also favors legislation that would allow polluters to police themselves. Frightening as it is, Norton is the keeper of America’s wildlife and millions of acres of public land. The U.S. Department of the Interior is overflowing with concerned individuals dedicated to promoting a healthier environment. Actually, this is not true, but it is supposed to work that way. Steven Griles was the former vice president of United Company, a gas, oil, and coal corporation. He has fought for oil drilling off the coast of California and paved the way for coal mining in America’s wetlands. Rebecca Watson signed legislation allowing mining companies to dig on sacred Native American sites in California. David Bernhardt has promoted drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. When an attorney, he represented the interests of oil, mining and chemical corporations. Allan Fitzsimmons is the main proponent of President Bush’s initiative regarding “healthy forests.” Bennett Raley has pushed hard to repeal the Endangered Species Act. Patricia Scarlett is the chief proponent for privatizing jobs within the National Park Service. Agriculture secretary Ann Veneman has done her part in supporting Bush and his agenda. Before she began running the Department of Agriculture into the ground, she campaigned diligently for her candidate, George W. Bush. She informed farmers in California that a Bush presidency would mean environmental regulations would be a thing of the past. Former logging lobbyist Mark Rey jumped on the bandwagon to promote the “healthy forests” initiative. Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, spent years lobbying on behalf of corporations to dismantle environmental regulations. An advocate against the Clean Air Act, Jeffrey Holmstead is now in the office that supposedly promotes America’s Clean Air Act. After the resignation of Christine Todd Whitman, Mike Leavitt took the helm at the Environmental Protection Agency. When he was the governor of Utah, Leavitt neglected the state’s environment. Utah was only behind Texas regarding the worst air quality and toxic releases in the nation.

58

Chapter Four

Utah was the worst in clean water. How Bush-like to put Leavitt in charge of America’s environment. Through policies, legislative initiatives, and appointments, George W. Bush has demonstrated his loyalty to America’s corporate polluters. He has gutted or simply disregarded several of the nation’s environmental laws while ignoring the advice of some of the world’s top ecologists. The environment and the public mean nothing to the Bush administration. Yet, in typical Bush fashion, he charges the taxpayers to pay for cleaning up the Superfund pollution sites. If there was a profit in it, the man Robert F. Kennedy Jr. referred to as the worst environmental president in U.S. history would drill through Mount Rushmore. Devoted to many causes, George W. Bush is kind of a “jack of all trades.” He wears many hats including of course, America’s “Education President.” Although Bush has given public education plenty of lip service, he has not initiated a realistic plan or provided adequate funding. The No Child Left Behind Act was essentially a design to punish public schools for not meeting the Bush administration’s standards. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, students and schools are to take annual proficiency tests. Student testing would require ninety-five percent participation. If enough students were absent on the test date to reduce participation below ninety-five percent, the school “flunked.” Schools that did not receive passing scores were subjected to possible private sector take-over, staff reassignment, reduced funding, or closing. In 2001, Congress authorized twenty-two million dollars for No Child Left Behind, but only appropriated eighteen million. The latter half of Bush’s first term revealed proposed budget cuts in public education. By 2004, No Child Left Behind dropped to a one billion dollar increase for Title I. This was still six billion dollars short of the authorized amount. Bush then proposed a five percent increase, but eliminated various programs including rural education and dropout prevention. The 2004 budget also called for a reduction in teacher training and recruitment. Bush also initiated a plan to give tax breaks for parents that transfer their children into private schools. Schools that are “failing” must set aside twenty percent of their Title I funding in anticipation that the money will be sent to private schools. Meanwhile, the federal government only provides seven percent of the funding for public schools. In short, Bush avoids accountability and responsibility by focusing on results without providing resources. The federal government is exempt from being sued for not complying to provide adequate funding for No Child Left Behind. In order to make up the difference, school systems throughout the country have been forced to rely on various measures to save and scrape for funds. Unfortunately, these creative innovations have been at the expense of students and staff. Some districts have had to eliminate art, music, and physical education. Some have resorted to charging students a fee to join organizations such as the math and French

Back to Larson

59

club. There were others that were unable to maintain their gifted-student programs. Summer school has been canceled in some districts. Teachers in some cases have worked for short periods without pay. Teachers in Oklahoma performed extra duty by working in the cafeteria and driving school buses. In Idaho and Kansas, teachers and students all pitched in to pay for salaries of their nurses, hearing specialists, and foreign language teachers. George W. Bush used the term “school choice” when he actually meant, vouchers. “School choice” sounds relatively positive in comparison. While a few might benefit from the program, many already under-funded public schools are left in disarray. Vouchers send a message that America is giving up on public education. Also, moving public funds into private institutions creates a conflict of interest regarding the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state. U.S. taxpayers are charged to pick up the tab that sends students to schools with narrow parochial agendas. Former Education Secretary Rod Paige was never shy in revealing his bias for parochial education. He has publicly admitted that he prefers that America’s children receive a Christian based education. As a private citizen, Paige’s stance would not be considered offensive. But as the U.S. Secretary of Education, he is supposed to be the lead advocate for public education. Public preference for Christian education sends the message that non-Christian students are nothing but “heathens” less deserving of a good education. Showing off his intolerance and ignorance was a common habit of the President. A speech Bush delivered in February 2004 was a prime indication when he called upon Congress to pass Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriages. No surprise—typical of Bush to malign the U.S. Constitution with a healthy dose of discrimination. Bush claimed that same-sex marriages would weaken the American society. But he was unable to sight any examples of how society would be weakened. Instead, he rambled on about how marriage has been the same in America for more than two centuries. Many conservatives believe that gay marriages would undermine the legitimacy of “traditional” marriages. Sounds to me like they are pretty insecure regarding their own marriages! America should have had a clue when Bush opened the South Carolina primary by appearing at Bob Jones University, a bastion of homophobia and racism. No surprise, Bush is a big proponent of hate groups that promote bigotry towards gays such as the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the American Family Association. We often hear these groups and others like them; complain about the “radical homosexual agenda.” The “radical homosexual agenda” is actually quite basic. They want equal rights, to be afforded the same opportunities and freedoms that other Americans enjoy. Apparently, equal rights for people Bush and the Right Wing view as less than human, are considered “special” rights!

60

Chapter Four

Bush opposes gays and lesbians participating in the adoption process or being foster parents. He is adamantly against homosexuals serving their country in a military capacity. Much of the nation is still without legislation regarding employment and housing discrimination. Most states also have no laws protecting someone from being fired simply because of their sexual orientation. America’s “War on Homosexuality” is spearheaded by narrow-minded radicals such as the late Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Louis Sheldon, Don Wildmon, and Randy Sharp. Others include James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, James Kennedy, Tony Perkins, Janet LaRue, and of course, Rick Santorum. Let us not forget, Westboro Baptist Church’s kingpin of hate, Fred W. Phelps, Sr. George W. Bush’s refusal to sign hate crime legislation affects not only the gay community, but other minorities as well. Bush’s record on affirmative action and civil rights has been less than adequate. Early in his first term, Bush filed a Supreme Court brief opposing affirmative action. Ironic, since he benefited from it himself in years past. Let us not forget his acceptances into Yale, Skull and Bones, Harvard, and pilot training despite his unacceptable grades and test scores. Since its conception, Bush had been the only president since Warren Harding to refuse to meet with and speak at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s (NAACP) annual convention. Bush was fearful of possible backlash due to his overall civil rights record. I recently held my nose and attended a central Illinois gun show. I wanted to get an idea of what makes avid gun people tick. “Gun control is being able to hit what you’re aiming at” was a vendor’s response to my comments about gun control. Another cute little slogan they adore is “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But in fact, guns, and their widespread availability make it a fairly easy task. Also, gun killings are often times spontaneous. No one has ever heard where someone wielding a knife killed dozens at a mall. In many cases, gun deaths are accidental and would have been prevented had the guns not been so accessible. The gun show I attended was a testament to the availability of guns. Firearms Owner’s Identification (FOID) cards were required by anyone wanting to purchase a gun; however, anyone could buy gun parts without a FOID card. Gun parts could easily be purchased without any form of identification whatsoever. Although complete gun sets were unavailable, the missing parts could easily be purchased at other gun shows. Also for sale were various “how to” manuals containing detailed gun assembly and bomb making instructions. Therefore, guns can in fact be purchased without a FOID card. In the eyes of many Americans, the United States is the greatest nation on Earth. Despite how passionate one might feel about their native land, “greatest nation on Earth” is a subjective comment. One thing is for sure, the United

Back to Larson

61

States does have the greatest amount of gun violence in the world. More specifically, the United States leads the world in handgun homicides. The most recent data on handgun murders was compiled by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Their study revealed that Australia, Canada, England, Germany, and Japan all combined, averaged less than one thousand lives lost due to handgun violence per year. Handgun homicides in America exceeded ten thousand per year. Keep in mind, the United States has only five percent of the world’s population. One of the roadblocks in establishing gun control is the illegitimate paranoia from the right. The National Rifle Association, the gun lobby, and the fanatic gun owners, all fear that their beloved firearms will be taken away from them. Restrictions of any type are seen as a “slippery slope” leading to complete elimination. Gun control is interpreted by the National Rifle Association as prohibition. “Disarmament” seemed to be a popular term among the gun show enthusiasts. The three “R’s” most offensive to gun rights advocates are “Restrictions,” “Regulations,” and “Registration.” George W. Bush has always been consistent regarding his pro-gun stance and his loyalty to the National Rifle Association. It has been widely known that Bush has spent years sitting deep inside the pocket of the NRA. Just prior to the 2000 election, NRA Vice President Kayne Robinson confided, “If Bush wins, we’ll have a president where we work out of their office-unbelievably friendly relations.”3 To the NRA, a Bush presidency potentially meant a repeal of the five day waiting period on gun purchases, criminal background checks, and the assault weapons ban. As governor and now as president, George W. Bush’s record on gun control speaks for itself. Right to carry, a pet project Bush initiated while governor, does not in fact curb violence. It does put more guns into public places putting more people at risk. Analyses by the Violence Policy Center concluded that concealed carry license holders are twice as likely as the general public to commit a weapon-related offense. Bush has done nothing to promote gun safety. He does not advocate mandatory trigger locks, hidden serial numbers, or smart-gun technology. Bush has “flip-flopped” regarding the banning of assault weapons. He continues to push for immunity for members of the gun industry. Shady gun dealers and manufacturers are then protected from lawsuits filed by gun violence victims. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”4 Over the years, there has been a considerable amount of controversy regarding it’s actual meaning. Gun rights advocates and firearms owners insist that they have, not only a constitutional right “to keep and bear arms,” but a divine right as

62

Chapter Four

well. To many gun owners, their “right” to firearm ownership is essentially a religion. Their entire being revolves around their misinterpretation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. In actuality, their firearm ownership is neither a constitutional nor divine right. “Well regulated Militia” by definition means that Congress cannot by law disarm a state’s whole population. “Well regulated Militia” does not mean individual gun ownership. Our forefathers, the Framers of the Constitution, did not foresee irresponsible heat packing yahoos toting around Saturday night specials. Unfortunately for society, responsible gun ownership is seen as optional. Each year, thousands of innocent Americans die because “law abiding” gun owners neglect to practice firearms safety. Maybe they just choose to practice their own brand of safety. If gun control is “being able to hit what you’re aiming at” as they like to say, then perhaps gun safety means “not injuring your trigger finger when you shoot someone!” George W. Bush loves to talk big. America’s “bring it on” forty-third president claimed to be tough on crime and terrorism. Ignoring common sense gun control and granting amnesty to illegal aliens is not the answer. Granting amnesty to illegals provides cheap labor at taxpayer expense. The Bush administration’s plan, known as “totalization,” allowed illegal aliens to be eligible for Social Security benefits. This is despite the fact that they entered the country illegally and committed fraud by using false Social Security numbers. As if America does not already have enough crime. Adding millions of illegal aliens to the mix only adds “fuel to the fire.” Much of America’s gang problems are attributed to a multitude of illegal aliens who have settled in U.S. cities from coast to coast. Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens enter the United States each year. A good majority of them work in business, that is, the business of gun and drug trafficking. Just what America’s needs— more guns and drugs. The Bush administration granted “temporary” worker status to illegal aliens via an identification card called a matricula consular. Some U.S. states recognize the card as an authentic American identification card. Some states also use the matricula consular as appropriate identification to use during the application process to obtain a driver’s license. The matricula consular is no longer necessary once an illegal alien has received a driver’s license. Most of the hijackers on September 11, 2001 carried state issued driver’s licenses. Health care is provided to illegal aliens at no cost in four U.S. states: Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. In these states, anyone, including an illegal alien, can receive treatment at any licensed medical facility. Arizona’s Republican Senators John Kyl and John McCain devised a plan to offset the cost. Lighten the burden for Arizona taxpayers and spread the expense among U.S. taxpayers. That would cost the people of America approximately two hundred million dollars a year.

Back to Larson

63

The ultraconservative Republican strategist and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has often declared that America is too liberal. Currently, we live in an era where our civil liberties are in jeopardy. In “liberal” America, women are, by and large, considered second class citizens, gays are looked upon as subhuman, and tolerance is considered taboo. Fiscal conservatives control the economy while social conservatives work to influence our values. Both of these groups are usually one in the same. What used to be the Right-Wing of the Republican Party is now considered “moderate.” Referring to America as “too liberal” is a lot like calling actor/producer Steven Seagal too feminine. Nothing was more indicative of Bush’s conservative agenda than his judicial strategy: Focus on conservative initiatives and appoint the most ideological demigods as possible to the Circuit Courts and Supreme Court. There are some key issues that Bush included targeted for elimination. These include affirmative action, environmental protections, civil liberties safeguards, and the rights of homosexuals. Bush has used the Federalist Society as the key instrument to push through his court nominees. The Federalist Society is a large group of power-hungry Right-Wingers that was founded in 1982 at the University of Chicago Law School. Some of its many members include John Ashcroft, Richard Scaife, Alberto Gonzales, Antonin Scalia, Gale Norton, and former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese. The Federalist Society is considered by many to be the most powerful organization in the legal community. Packing the courts with ultra-conservative cronies had been a priority of Bush’s since day one. Unfortunately for America, President Clinton had little success filling the courts with Constitutionally-minded common sense judges. He did, after all, have to deal with a Republican Congress. Except for the United States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia Circuit Court is the most powerful court in the nation. It determines the regulations for all of the federal agencies. Some of these decisions by the D.C. Court affect the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Agriculture, just to name a few. Confirmed in May 2003 was John Roberts. Judge Roberts has a record of opposition regarding civil rights, workers’ rights, endangered species, and the environment. He was also loyal to keeping Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force secret from the public. Like Roberts, Bush’s other Circuit Court appointees were equally undeserving to hold federal judgeships. A former U.S. district court judge, Brooks Smith of Pennsylvania has been guilty of ignoring the law in order to protect the corporate world. Clearly a conflict of interest, he was also influential in a case involving the bank where his wife worked in which he had significant financial interests. Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Michael Fisher opposes gun control, workers’ rights, environmental protection, minimum

64

Chapter Four

wage increases, and gay rights. He is also a strong advocate for the death penalty. Former district court judge and Strom Thurmond protégé Dennis Shedd has a less than stellar record himself. A big proponent of the corporate world, Shedd opposes workers’ rights and often refuses to hear jury cases involving discrimination. He has also brushed aside sexual harassment and disabled worker claims. He has dismissed nearly all of the civil rights claims that have come before him. Bush’s dismal parade of appointees for the Circuit Courts continues. Charles Pickering is anti-workers’ rights, civil rights, environmental protection, and blatantly anti-women. Ed Prado, a real piece of work, likes to equate himself to God as he fills the court room with his own flavor of contempt for the plaintiffs. Another “man of integrity” is Jay Bybee, a mirror image of John Ashcroft. Bybee is a strong hard core advocate for using torture in military prison camps. He has lobbied for a repeal of the Constitution’s Seventeenth Amendment which authorizes the people to vote for U.S. senators. He has called the Violence Against Women Act and Americans with Disabilities Act unconstitutional. He is typically redneck regarding the homosexual community. To make matters worse, he thinks that the president does not have enough power. There are still others that make up the malaise of Bush appointees. Michael McConnell advocates discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Homophobe Tim Tymkovich is an avid supporter of the right to concealed carry. William Pryor a racist also suffering from homophobia feels that civil rights laws are no longer useful. Others that Bush has appointed to help bring down America include Carolyn Kuhl, Janice Brown, and Priscilla Owen. During her confirmation hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl was inconsistent and evasive. In some instances, she blatantly refused to answer any questions. She admitted at one point that she argued a specific case in order to please President Bush. Janice Brown, a former California Supreme Court justice, has been considered by many to be the worst of Bush’s nominees. She has a long record of failure concerning civil rights and often referred to Roosevelt’s New Deal as a “revolution.” Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen has always been a big ally for the corporate world. Many of the donations she has received have come from large corporations including Enron. At one point in her career, she spearheaded a program to spare Enron from having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. The move by Owen resulted in a significant amount of lost revenue for a Texas public school district. As George W. Bush’s first term of failure was coming to an end, his approval rating was around fifty percent. This was an approval rating about fifty percent higher than it should have been. Thus—a sad indication of the American intellect. The Madison, Wisconsin based magazine “The Onion”

Back to Larson

65

observed America’s plight with a satirical description of the beginning of Bush’s presidency, “Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over.”5 Eight out of ten professional historians rated Bush’s first term as an overall failure. In summary, twelve percent of the historians concluded that George W. Bush’s presidency was the worst in American history. This however does not indicate that Bush was not successful. He was in fact successful in achieving his own personal and political objectives. But unfortunately, Bush’s success was a disaster for the rest of us. Bush’s greatest atrocity was of course the unnecessary and illegal war that turned America into an unprovoked aggressor. The United States has now become an imperialist threat to world peace. Let us not forget the thousands of lives lost due to George W. Bush’s personal agenda. He has trashed our reputation throughout the world and alienated many of our closest allies. Bush has shredded the Constitution and violated the civil liberties of the American people. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush claimed that he was going to bring back “honor and integrity” to the White House. His “pledge” turned out to be the biggest oxymoron in the history of American politics. The media equivalent would be FOX News claiming to be “fair and balanced.” George W. Bush is in fact, a liar. He has made lying a way of life, a way of life to obtain his own personal and political objectives. As Bush was campaigning across the country, he insisted that he did not use polls to decide policy. In fact, Bush did indeed use “people-meters” in order to determine what to mention in speeches to specific groups. Bush claimed that he was going to run a positive campaign. Nothing could have been further from the truth. He engaged in pandering, spinning, mud slinging, and the usual assortment of nasty campaign ads. Throughout the campaign, Bush lied about various things including his record as Texas’ governor. On the environment for example, he insisted that industrial emissions were eleven percent lower since taking office. However, the actual figures from the Environmental Protection Agency showed an increase of ten percent. The statistic Bush was referring to was compiled by the commission that he himself had appointed. Also, Texas still boasted the highest level of dangerous ozone. Bush was quick to take the credit for reforming Texas’ education system, yet it was his predecessors that had done all the foot work. He claimed to be a big proponent of the Patients’ Bill of Rights, yet he vetoed a vital patient protection act. Bush battled hard to limit the eligibility of health insurance for children. After all, he needed the capital to pay for the tax breaks for the wealthy. On the campaign trail, Bush touted himself as a champion of lower taxes and less government. Yet his record proved this was not the case. In 1997,

66

Chapter Four

Bush did indeed lower some taxes. He raised the sales tax and implemented a new tax to impose upon small business owners. The end result however was not an overall tax reduction. In fact, some citizens of the Lone Star State actually had to pay more taxes. Meanwhile, Bush boasted about how Texans still pay no income tax. The prohibition on personal income tax was in place long before he came into Office. But he was more than willing to take the credit for an amendment initiated by a Democrat-controlled legislature. While Bush claimed to have downsized the government, the state’s budget increased by almost thirty-five percent. Baseball broadcasters often say that a double play is a pitcher’s best friend. George W. Bush relied heavily on the double play during his first term. He often combined lies and deception to successfully throw out the American people. The most notable evidence of this can be seen in his “reasons” for invading Iraq. There are many other relevant examples which accurately depict Bush’s trademark dishonesty. He pledged during the campaign that as president, he would promote unity and civility. Upon assuming the presidency, he nominated John Ashcroft, America’s number one bigot, to the post of attorney general. Bush was obviously not in anyway committed to bringing the country together. It was more like a blatant slap in the face. He talked a lot about compassion and diversity, yet his policies revealed a much different story. People, Bush declared early in his political career, should be held accountable for their words and actions. He has often stressed the importance of honesty, integrity, and personal responsibility. At this point, the word “hypocrite” suddenly flashes to the forefront. Journalists, fearing retribution from the White House, have typically watered down their reporting of Bush’s exploits. They used phrases such as “distorting the truth” and “misrepresenting the facts” when they actually meant “lie.” Mentioning all of Bush’s lies since he assumed the presidency would be similar to counting cars along Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive during rush hour, not impossible, but certainly very tedious and time consuming. Bush claimed that when he was campaigning in Chicago in 2000, he was questioned about deficit spending. His response, he said, was only if we were in a war, a recession, or there was a national emergency. He then claimed that he did not expect to get the “trifecta.” There was no record of this; he made up the story in order to defend himself. Bush had turned the surplus into a deficit before September 11, 2001. Yet he blamed the deficit that he himself created on the tragic events of September 2001. Bush also lied when he insisted that his tax “relief” would not increase the national debt. The tax cuts would also be an immediate remedy. He also claimed that there was not only enough money for tax cuts, but for the war in Iraq as well. Later of course, he stated

Back to Larson

67

that Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Bush’s lies added up, but his numbers did not. The “fuzzy math” he accused Al Gore of was actually his own. Another one of Bush’s lies involving monetary matters included telling the public that the largest percentage of tax cuts would go to the lowest wage earners. In reality, those making fifteen thousand dollars a year or less received less than one percent. Those in the top twenty percent received just over seventy percent. Overall, forty-five percent of the tax cuts went to those in the top one percent. Bush also claimed that under his plan, twenty percent of all families with children will not have to pay any income tax at all. Taxpayers in the middle income range, Bush insisted, would receive a “rebate” of a little more than one thousand dollars. Bush was off on this one by about seventy percent. He boldly reduced funding for social programs designed to help the middle and lower class in order to financially aid the wealthy. Bush was playing “Republican Robinhood,” if you will. Knowing that his tax plan would be under attack, Bush, the “father of socio-economic division,” accused the democrats of trying to promote “class warfare.” Bush’s lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were simply a ploy to invade the sovereign nation. He insisted that WMD existed, told the public their general location, and finally in desperation, claimed that they had been found. Bush was referring to empty tractor-trailers found by U.S. forces in May 2003. They were supposedly bio-weapons labs, but no trace of pathogens were detected in any of the trailers. Bush claimed on several occasions that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda. CIA reports verify that this too was a lie. Another one of Bush’s blatant acts of “misrepresenting the facts” was when he remarked that Hussein would not allow UN inspectors in Iraq. Hussein was marginally cooperative, but he did allow them in. It was George W. Bush that was unwilling to let them continue their job. While encompassing a variety of issues, Bush’s lies have come in all shapes and sizes. Bush has spewed out some directly, but others have been by denial or omission. Clearly, Bush’s personal and political objectives take precedence over the truth. Prior to the 2000 campaign, Bush remarked, “Some people think it’s inappropriate to draw a moral line. Not me. For our children to have the lives we want for them, they must learn to say yes to responsibility...yes to honesty.”6 Comforting it is, to know that Bush is looking out for the moral welfare of our children. Unfortunately for us, he has never heeded his own advice. No doubt, there are more Bush first term failures that have not been touched upon. I can say with much confidence however that I have more than adequately answered Larson’s question, “What’s so bad about the president?” While in the sixth grade, Charlotte Aldebron of Presque Isle, Maine wrote an essay describing recent America. The essay, written not all that long ago is both

68

Chapter Four

accurate and enlightening. It accurately depicts life as we know it in George W. Bush’s America. After reading it, her teacher referred to her as unpatriotic: “The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. It is against the law to let the flag touch the ground or to leave the flag flying when the weather is bad. The flag is to be treated with respect. You can tell just how important this cloth is because when you compare it to people, it gets much better treatment. Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground. A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain. School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise that people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals. But we all have to promise to love a rectangle of red, white, and blue cloth. Betsy Ross would be quite surprised to see how successful her creation has become. But Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed to see how little of the flag’s real meaning remains.”7 Bush cut programs that help the poor and reduced funding for national security in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy. He has practiced outright fiscal irresponsibility by turning a large surplus into an enormous deficit. Millions have lost their jobs via his “supply-side” economics. The Bush report card on the economy, the environment, education, and gun control is a complete failure. Religious fundamentalism permeated his entire administration. Bush has spit on America’s working class, gays, and other minorities. The war in Iraq was, of course, his most outstanding atrocity. He has proven himself to be callous, corrupt, and incompetent. The evidence is clearly un-deniable: George W. Bush was never worthy of holding the Office of President of the United States!

NOTES 1. Carter, Graydon. What We’ve Lost (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. New York, New York. 2004) p. 106. 2. Miller, George. America’s Shared Sacrifice (Congressional Record. Washington, District of Columbia. 2003) p. H1779. 3. Alterman, Eric and Mark Green. The Book on Bush (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2004) p. 173. 4. Sugarmann, Josh. Every Handgun is Aimed at You (The New Press. New York, New York. 2001) p. 26. 5. Flynt, Larry. Sex, Lies, and Politics (Kensington Publishing Corporation. New York, New York. 2004) p. 27. 6. Corn, David. The Lies of George W. Bush (Crown Publishers. New York, New York. 2003) p. 1. 7. Hightower, Jim. Thieves in High Places (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2003) p. 139.

Chapter Five

No Saint John

I remember one scary moment in particular during the end of Bush’s first term in Office. It was a cool autumn night shortly before Halloween. Fear seemed to be lingering in the air as I was driving home from work. I discovered the cause for the frightening aura when I walked inside and turned on the television. There it was, our “illustrious leader” on all of the major networks smirking his way through a State of the Union Address. After about twenty minutes of lies and propaganda, and a feeling of nausea coming over me, I decided to take a timeout and call my sister-in-law Susie. I have always adored Susie and it had been awhile since we had spoken. During our conversation she apparently overheard my television and asked, “Is that President Bush’s speech?” Somberly, I responded in the affirmative. Then I felt a touch of nausea come over me as she replied, “Isn’t he great?” “No,” I thought to myself as I was grasping for something to hold onto to keep from falling out of my chair. “He’s a disgusting selfish slob” was my immediate thought. Obviously, four more years of George W. Bush at the helm was not an option. But looking ahead to the 2004 election, the voters would have the chance to redeem themselves. Their main task was to select a qualified candidate to lead America forward while repairing all of the damage Bush had caused. Leadership, we already know, had not been a White House commodity since the Clinton years. By the time the primary season ended, U.S. Senator John Kerry had emerged as the Democratic nominee. Like Al Gore four years earlier, Kerry was head and shoulders above Bush when it came to intelligence and integrity. Actually, there was no comparison. But the senator from The Bay State was by no means immune to imperfections or problems. He was, however, the cure for an ailing America. The remainder of this chapter will focus on the life of the man the American voters rejected. 69

70

Chapter Five

John Kerry certainly took a lot of heat over his anti-war stance regarding Vietnam. He has been chastised and ridiculed by the public, the media, and of course, the Bush administration. Kerry honorably served not one, but two tours of duty in Vietnam. After returning home, he continued to serve his country in a different capacity by protesting the very war he fought in. Many on the Right, including Bush, unfairly claimed that this was a case of Kerry “wanting to have it both ways.” You are wrong again Republicans. If any group was entitled to exercise its First Amendment right to protest, it was those who witnessed the war firsthand. Those who fight for the freedom of others should not be obliged to forfeit their own freedom! Taking his first breath in Aurora, Colorado two weeks before Christmas 1943, John Forbes Kerry was the second child of Rosemary and Richard John Kerry. His father, a World War II test pilot, had contracted a deadly case of tuberculosis and was receiving treatment at Fitzsimmons Hospital when Kerry was born. His parents first met in the summer of 1938 in Saint Briac, France. Richard was an apprentice at an art studio and “Rosy” was studying to become a nurse. In 1940, as U.S. involvement in the war was looking inevitable, Richard joined the Army Air Corps and was sent to Fort Rucker, Alabama for training. Rosemary escaped the Nazi invasion of France and fled to the United States where she joined Richard in Alabama. The couple was married in the winter of 1941. Kerry has two sisters and one brother. His sister, Margaret, was born just a few weeks before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. His other siblings include Diana, born in 1947, and Cameron, the baby of the family, born in 1950. When John was only a few months old, his father left the Army Air Corps and accepted a position with a Boston law firm. The head of the Kerry household had grown up in Massachusetts and attended law school in nearby Cambridge. The Kerry’s lived in Groton for about a year before moving to the small town of Millis. Located in scenic and historic Norfolk County, Millis was an ideal place to raise a family. It was a peaceful community with a handful of small businesses, churches, recreational areas, and tourist attractions. Kerry spent much his childhood leaving old friends and making new ones. Depending on his father’s work situation or his own education, Kerry was often in a moving mode, but some of his happiest memories have come from his years in Millis. He fondly remembers intimate family gatherings during the holidays and playing with friends from the neighborhood. Metropolitan Washington, D.C. was a stark contrast to the tranquility of Millis, but for a brief period, it was home for the Kerrys. Richard had taken a position with the Office of General Counsel for the Navy. He was a dedicated and hard worker with a bright future ahead of him. While still living in Chevy .

No Saint John

71

Chase, an exclusive Washington suburb, Kerry worked in the State Department for the Bureau of United Nations Affairs. Soon after assuming his duties with the State Department, he was given the opportunity to use his legal expertise overseas. His duty station was at the U.S. Mission to Berlin, Germany. His wife Rosemary was excited at the prospect of returning to Europe. It was a consistent cycle of new places and new faces for young John Kerry. He adapted quickly to new surroundings, but friendships usually developed slowly. His circumstances often made him “the new kid on the block.” His heart would forever remain in Millis. No place could stir his emotions and give him a sense of belonging like Millis, Massachusetts. The Bay State was also the home of John Kennedy, a promising new congressman from suburban Boston. Kennedy would later play a big role in influencing Kerry’s political aspirations. The German capital had been ravaged by war and political dissent. It had also become the Kerrys new home. Rosemary managed the domestic front while Richard was often away at meetings throughout Europe. John, meanwhile, was off to boarding school. Nestled in the foothills of the majestic and breath-taking Alps, the Montana Institute would be Kerry’s home for the next seven years. His parents were certainly not poor, but private schooling for John was not in the family budget. However, Kerry’s maternal great aunt, Clara Winthrop, had more than enough money to pay for his education. Much earlier, she had inherited part of the Winthrop family fortune. She was a descendant of John Winthrop, the second governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Montana Institute Zugerberg, in the heart of Switzerland’s Lake Zug region, boasted a sound and challenging curriculum. Studying was not one of Kerry’s favorite pastimes, but he still enjoyed a fair amount of academic success. A good athlete, Kerry was more comfortable on an athletic field then sitting in a classroom. He excelled in various sports, including his passion— soccer. He was also devoted to the church. Kerry served faithfully as an acolyte in the school’s chapel and hoped to someday enter the priesthood. The would-be Catholic priest dedicated several hours each week to personal Bible study and prayer. During the summers, Kerry would leave behind the structured environment of boarding school and join his relatives at the Forbes family estate in Saint Briac. His maternal grandparents, James and Margaret Forbes, had owned the estate for several years. Kerry liked the carefree atmosphere of the Brittany coast town. He had his share of chores, but there was always time for biking, swimming, and rousing games of “kick the can.” The best part, however, was getting to spend time with his family. He loved his parents and siblings very much. Although he was closer to his mother, he had a strong admiration for

72

Chapter Five

his father, a serious man who held his emotions in check. He was genuinely inspired by his father’s work and dedication to the United States. Each year, as the summers gave way to fall, Kerry had mixed feelings about returning to school. He looked forward to seeing his classmates, but was saddened by the prospect of leaving his family. A sensitive child, it was always a bit painful telling loved ones good bye. Towards the end of his scholastic days in Switzerland, Kerry’s father was transferred to the U.S. Embassy in Norway. Shortly thereafter, Kerry found himself back in the United States. His parents enrolled him into the Fessenden School. Located in West Newton, Massachusetts, it was the oldest junior boarding school in the country. Fessenden was where he met and became friends with Richard Pershing. Pershing was the grandson of the famous Army General John J. Pershing. After graduating from Fessenden, Pershing headed off to Phillips Academy. John Kerry made his way to Concord, New Hampshire where he attended Saint Paul’s School. At Saint Paul’s, known for it’s high academic standards, Kerry was considered to be in the minority. For one, his parents were not multimillionaire members of the elite upper-class belonging to all the right clubs. He was also a practicing Roman Catholic at a school founded by the Episcopal Church. Catholic and liberal, Kerry was surrounded by wellto-do Episcopalian conservatives. Despite the overt social dichotomy that existed at Saint Paul’s, Kerry achieved a high degree of contentment. Having a reputation as being selfreliant and serious, he was respected by most of those who came into contact with him. He had a close knit group of friends and became a standout in soccer, lacrosse, and hockey. A good student, Kerry was familiar with the stress of rigorous academics. He was still faithful to the Church, but the idea of someday entering the seminary had faded. Kerry had developed an avid interest in politics. Friend and classmate Danny Barbiero remembers, “John was always talking about global issues. He was only eighteen years old and he knew just everything about politics, particularly civil rights.”1 By and large, Kerry was a conscientious student. He was all business when it came to cracking the books, but amidst the Elvis Presley craze, Kerry’s creative and artistic side was unfolding. He enjoyed acting, but music was more conducive to his style of expression. A talented bass guitar player, Kerry and three of his closest friends formed a band known as The Electras. Rehearsals were about an hour each day and usually contained a variety of popular Presley tunes. The group performed primarily at school functions, but did corral a handful of paid engagements. Britain’s George Harrison, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and Ringo Starr the Electras were not, although they did successfully cut an album that netted several hundred copies.

No Saint John

73

As an idealist, Kerry embraced the importance of helping others. He appreciated the values of equality and protecting individual rights. These were also some of the attributes of the presidential hopeful, U.S. Senator John Kennedy. Kerry had an extremely high regard for the young Massachusetts lawmaker. But on a more intimate level, Kerry received inspiration from John Walker, the first African American faculty member at Saint Paul’s. Walker—the Reverend John Walker, had previously served as the rector of Saint Mary’s Episcopal Church in Detroit. Walker was involved in various pastoral functions including the dormitory ministry. He usually spent the summers in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, or Uganda performing missionary work. Kerry and Barbiero loved to spend occasional evenings listening to Walker talk about racial issues and civil rights. For Kerry, the thought provoking get—togethers were a refreshing escape from the throng of Nixonites embedded in the school’s campus. The Cold War was extending across the globe and America was preparing to elect a new president. A staunch Kennedy man, Kerry’s enthusiasm for politics and world affairs grew stronger. Openly, he discussed going into public service someday. He also became heavily involved in the debate process. Founder of the John Winant Society debate club, Kerry had one time given a speech arguing why Kennedy should be president. He was successful, ambitious, and overtly liberal. But these qualities rubbed some at Saint Paul’s the wrong way. He was seen by some of his foes as a “do-gooder” and a phony. Perhaps good old fashioned jealousy may have played a role in their sentiment as well. Everyone who came into contact with Kerry knew that he would go far in life. One in particular was Kerry’s English instructor, Herbert Church. Church once remarked, “I thought this was a man who might go somewhere. I thought he might very well go into diplomacy. The thing that impressed me always was his very serious idealism. A lot of guys wanted to be head of daddy’s Wall Street firm, nothing wrong with that, but this young guy, you had a feeling he would do something for the world. He was a sincere idealist.”2 In November 1960, John Kennedy, also a sincere idealist, was elected president of the United States. Kerry did well on his college entrance exam and was accepted into Yale. It was the only school he had given consideration to. The future Yale University underclassman was firmly in the Kennedy corner. The summer of 1962, before he entered Yale, Kerry was a volunteer with the U.S. senate campaign of Ted Kennedy. Kennedy was the younger brother of the current president, John Kennedy. He also worked in a large warehouse in Somerville, Massachusetts, loading trucks for a company called First National Stores. During

74

Chapter Five

that same time period, Kerry was dating Janet Auchincloss whom he had met when he was a student at Saint Paul’s. It so happened, Auchincloss was the half sister of the First Lady, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. Through his relationship with Auchincloss, Kerry met his idol, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. On two separate occasions, Auchincloss invited Kerry to join her for a weekend excursion with the President. It was a Friday afternoon and Kerry was looking forward to a relaxing couple of days away from the warehouse. After he had clocked out, he called Janet to tell her he was running late. Then he nearly wrecked the car hurrying to Janet’s home after learning that the president was going to take them sailing. Later that day, Kerry found himself in the middle of Narragansett Bay, joking and laughing with John F. Kennedy. A few weeks later, Kerry spent another memorable afternoon with Janet and their hosts, President and Mrs. Kennedy. This time, it was to have lunch aboard the USS Joseph P. Kennedy and watch the America’s Cup races. Two years earlier, Kerry was promoting Kennedy for President. Now, almost like a dream come true, he was hobnobbing with the President of the United States! William Bundy was the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs during Kerry’s freshman year at Yale. McGeorge Bundy was a White House national security advisor. Both men were uncles of one of Kerry’s roommates, Harvey Bundy. Kerry was impressed by Bundy’s powerful family connections. But it was no big deal to Bundy—that kind of caught Kerry off guard. He was a little astonished at his roommate’s nonchalant attitude. Occasionally, the assistant secretary would arrive in New Haven to check up on his nephew. Kerry, always glad to see him, enjoyed their brief visits and absorbed every word when he talked about U.S. policy towards Vietnam. The president of the Yale Political Union, Kerry was already developing a bad taste for America’s foreign policy. This included the Vietnam War, which he would eventually participate in. His major role in campus politics afforded him the opportunity to be involved in relevant current events. These included civil rights, Kennedy’s New Frontier Program, and the Cuban missile crisis. A successful debater, Kerry refined his technique and won several debates which featured college students from around the country. Vietnam was often a topic that was highlighted at some of the debates. He was able to gracefully acknowledge the opinions of others while respecting their beliefs, but by utilizing facts rather than speculations, Kerry was able to remain confident and stand firmly by his arguments. The summer months were usually divided between working in Somerville and vacationing with family and friends in Brittany. In the fall of 1963, Kerry returned to New Haven to begin his sophomore year at Yale. Featuring two significant events, it turned out to be an autumn that he would never forget.

No Saint John

75

One of his closest friends at Yale was a young man named David Thorne. The two had planned to spend a weekend together in New York at the home of Thorne’s grandparents. Late on a Saturday morning in September, Kerry arrived at the large estate on Long Island’s Great South Bay. Shortly thereafter, he met David’s twin sister, Julia. He was captivated by her beauty and charm. Thorne, herself, was smitten by Kerry’s good looks and pleasing personality. Two months had pasted since Julia and John first met. A crisp and sunny Friday afternoon, Yale was hosting the annual soccer game against Harvard. As anticipated, there was a large crowd on hand to witness the match between the rival schools. Players on the field, including Kerry, were immersed in the contest. The atmosphere was intense and yet festive throughout the stands. A little over fifteen hundred miles away, there was a different kind of intensity. The atmosphere, however, was anything but festive. President Kennedy was in Dallas that afternoon in an attempt to unify southern Democrats. Shortly after arriving from the airport, the president’s motorcade was en route through the downtown area. As well as President Kennedy, VIP occupants of the 1961 Lincoln Continental included Mrs. Kennedy, Texas Governor John Connally and his wife, Nellie. With its top removed, the black limousine had just turned left onto Elm Street and was moving towards the Dealey Plaza area. There were large crowds lining the streets to wish the president well. The car continued slowly down a slight grade just past the Texas School Book Depository. Suddenly, at around 12:30 pm CST, the sound of gunshots echoed throughout the heart of Dallas. From roof tops and utility wires, birds began scattering high into the air. A bullet had struck Governor Connally on the right side of his back near his armpit. It exited his chest before wounding his right wrist and thigh. It was a chaotic and surreal moment in time. Stunned, President Kennedy reached for his head as he slumped towards his wife Jackie. A bouquet of red roses had been violently spattered across the floor boards of the back seat. The tragic scene shifts to Parkland Memorial Hospital where at 1:00 pm CST, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was pronounced dead. News of Kennedy’s assassination sent shock waves throughout the world. America was unable to fully comprehend the nightmare that had just transpired. Confusion and disbelief slowly gave way to sadness and depression as reality of the situation set in. Feeling empty, alone, and devastated, John Kerry made his way off the soccer field with tears streaming down both cheeks. Through the weekend and into the following week, Kerry was almost catatonic. He sat for hours in front of the television watching all of the various news updates. He spent more time than usual in a prayer and meditation mode. As time passed, Kerry as well as the country began to heal.

76

Chapter Five

Kerry continued to be involved in numerous campus activities. Soccer, he undoubtedly associates with that horrific Friday afternoon in November of 1963. But he also has memories of participating in other varsity sports including lacrosse, hockey, and fencing. Eastern establishment aristocrats such as McGeorge and Bill Bundy, George Bush Senior, Nelson Rockefeller, and William Howard Taft were members of Yale’s secret society, “Skull and Bones.” Inducted during his senior year, John Kerry had also become a member. That same year, Richard Pershing and David Thorne were also admitted into the exclusive organization. A political science major, Kerry maintained slightly better than average grades. Although he was a capable and competent student, he has never claimed to be a great scholar. In 1915, Trubee Davison founded the Yale Aviation Club. About a half a century later, John Kerry joined the school’s elite and adventurous organization. A great way to occasionally get away from New Haven for awhile, it was also a neat way to wrap up his college days. Once in awhile Kerry admitted, he would skip classes to go flying. Fred Smith, who recruited Kerry, would normally join him on excursions aboard the small Piper Comanche. Usually short flights, discussions often centered on Kerry’s philosophical thoughts of the world and political aspirations. Having a traditional view, Kerry was always quick to point out a person’s obligation to their country. As graduation approached, the need for more soldiers in Vietnam increased. Tens of thousands of young men were being drafted each month. Understanding the importance of serving his country, Kerry enlisted in Naval Officer Candidate School and was inducted into the United States Naval Reserve. The U.S. Navy was the only branch of service he considered. His hero, John F. Kennedy had served on a patrol boat in the Navy during World War II. Kerry was chosen to give the commencement address during graduation. His oration obviously included thoughts on Vietnam. In his speech, he made reference to his generation and questioned, not the obligation to serve in Vietnam, but why we were in Vietnam. During the summer of 1966, Kerry reported for duty at the U.S. Naval Training Center in Newport, Rhode Island. Four months later, he was commissioned an ensign in the United States Navy. Emulating Kennedy, Kerry wanted to perform his service on a patrol boat. He was sent to Treasure Island, California where he attended the officer damage control course. Following his training in California, Kerry was assigned to the U.S. Fleet AntiAir Warfare Center, where he qualified as a combat information center watch officer. Kerry requested duty in Vietnam. He wanted to either command a patrol crafts fast or a patrol boat river. Neither one of his requests were granted. His first tour of active duty was on the guided missile frigate U.S.S. Gridley. Duty

No Saint John

77

stations included New Zealand and the Philippines. It was not until the early part of 1968 when Kerry would first serve in Vietnam. The U.S.S. Gridley spent four months at a rescue station in the Gulf of Tonkin. Their mission was to retrieve downed pilots. In the middle of February, Kerry received a telegram that his friend and classmate from Fessenden, Richard Pershing, had been killed in combat. Kerry was devastated. In a letter he sent to his parents, Kerry vented about the cruel and senseless war. A volatile period in U.S. history, the 1960’s was also a decade of mourning. Less than five years after the Kennedy assassination, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy had been senselessly gunned down. Kerry was in Vietnam when King was murdered. He was returning to the United States when Kennedy was dying in a Los Angeles hospital. The same month of Kennedy’s death, June 1968, Kerry received a promotion to the rank of lieutenant junior grade. Later that month, he reported to Coronado Naval Base for training on the patrol crafts fast. The PCFs were quick heavily armed fifty foot aluminum boats that were also known as “Swift Boats.” After he completed “Swift Boat” training, Kerry and his crew were assigned various patrol missions within enemy-controlled waters in Vietnam. Kerry and his four man crew patrolled areas along Cam Ranh Bay, Cat Lo, and An Thoi. Early in December 1968, Kerry and his crew encountered a group of Viet Cong unloading supplies just north of Cam Ranh Bay. During a brief firefight, Kerry suffered a minor injury. A small piece of shrapnel had become embedded in the upper portion of his right arm. According to Kerry, he never knew where the shrapnel came from. A concern for the well-being of others and a commitment to duty and service are the responsibilities of all Americans. These principles go far beyond elaborate speeches or simply putting on a uniform. They require taking action to do the right thing. On a mission that took them into a tributary of the Duong Keo River, Kerry and his men left their boat in order to investigate a suspicious area along the shore. Normally, Swift Boat officers were not to leave their vessels unattended. In this case, Kerry made an exception. The crew came across dozens of Vietnamese men, women, and children. Scared and weak, many of them were suffering from malnutrition. Kerry requested permission to take them to a designated life support area. His request was ignored. But as opposed to setting fire to the hooches and moving on, Kerry loaded up the band of displaced civilians and took them with him. He provided them with food and water along the way. He was later reprimanded, but felt comfortable in knowing that he and his crew had done the right thing. There were no locations in Vietnam that were considered safe. But the Cua Lon junction of the Bo De River was particularly dangerous. During the latter part of February 1969, Kerry and his unit found themselves in the middle of an

78

Chapter Five

ambush. They had come under automatic weapon and rocket fire. Their boat was suddenly hit by a grenade coming from a self-propelled grenade launcher. The explosion sent aluminum fragments, shrapnel, and debris in all directions. Kerry had been thrown to the deck of his boat. While he was bleeding from his left leg, he shouted orders to retreat. Still operational, the damaged craft made its way safely to the Gulf of Thailand. Shortly thereafter, Kerry and Company were picked up by a Coast Guard cutter. After receiving adequate medical attention, the young lieutenant junior grade prepared to return to duty. On the final day of February, Kerry and his crew were once again the targets of an ambush. This time, it was along the banks of the Bay Hap River. Kerry was in a tactical command mode in charge of his boat and two others. Their mission was to destroy enemy supplies and bunkers. As the boats came under the fire of small-arms weapons and grenade launchers, Kerry ordered the boats to turn towards the shore and charge the ambush site. He determined that it would be smarter than just sitting in the river and firing back. Again, Kerry violated naval regulation and left his boat. He and his communications specialist Michael Medeiros raced up the shore to assist other crew members in pursuit of the North Vietnamese guerrillas. During the skirmish, ten enemy soldiers were killed. One of them, as he was about to unleash a grenade, was shot by Kerry. There were no American casualties. Hundreds of pages alone could be devoted to Kerry’s distinguished military service. But a detailed oration of Kerry’s entire naval career is not the purpose of this chapter. It is only intended to give a brief example of Kerry’s Vietnam experience. While serving in Vietnam, Kerry was involved in numerous life-threatening situations. On March 13, 1969, a mine exploded near Kerry’s boat. Army Green Beret advisor James Rassman, seated on the edge of the deck, was violently thrown overboard. He swam towards the bottom of the river in efforts to avoid enemy gunfire. When he came up for air, Rassman was near the north shore where he was about to be taken prisoner. Del Sandusky quickly maneuvered the boat closer to Rassman as the rest of Kerry’s crew provided cover. Wounded himself from the mine explosion, Kerry reached over the bow and pulled Rassman into the boat. Moments later, Sandusky managed to negotiate the small craft out of the kill zone. Laid back and lighthearted moments were rare in an environment noted mainly for misery and stress. The spring of 1969 saw an increase in combat intensity throughout the region. Civilian and military loss of life was becoming all too common. Fatigue and frustration continued to rise. Some U.S. servicemen dealt with their emotions by becoming callous. Others numbed themselves with drug use. Still others, including John Kerry, simply struggled to make sense out of all the bloodshed.

No Saint John

79

Kerry did not volunteer for Vietnam so he could go kill a bunch of “gooks” as the Viet Cong were commonly called. Killing other human beings Kerry felt, was often nothing more than a repulsive necessity for survival. He volunteered in part, out of loyalty and a strong sense of obligation. But he also craved the adventure and excitement. Whether his intensions were patriotic or personal, Kerry willfully and faithfully served his country. In January 1970, Kerry was promoted from lieutenant junior grade to lieutenant. Very shortly thereafter, he entered the U.S. Naval Reserve. University of New Orleans history professor Douglas Brinkley summarizes Kerry’s service accurately, “...Kerry inspired both respect and protectiveness in his men...John Kerry displayed the crucial combination of qualities that make for a good leader...he made his authority known clearly but unassumingly; he took a loose, commonsense approach to military rules and obligations; he put his men’s safety far above the pursuit of medals or promotions.”3 Due to his bravery and the actions he took in order to protect his men, Kerry was appropriately decorated by the Navy. He was the recipient of various awards including a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Julia Thorne and John Kerry corresponded regularly via numerous cards and letters while Kerry was away. The couple benefited from each other’s support and strong faith in God. Shortly after Kerry returned, Julia and he rented a small apartment just outside of Boston. Kerry, having serious political aspirations, had his eye on Massachusetts’ third congressional district. He requested and was granted a discharge from the Navy in order to avoid any conflict of interest. Ultimately, Kerry was unsuccessful in his congressional bid. He had very little in the way of funds and his antiwar stance took many by surprise. He supported an all volunteer military and was extremely critical regarding President Nixon and the CIA. However, Kerry did make a big impression on his opponents as well as some of the voters. Kerry’s justified complaint, “Everybody who’s against the war is suddenly considered antiAmerican.”4 Sounds much like the sentiment of the United States during the Bush administration! As spring approached, Kerry began to concentrate more on personal matters. Julia and he had discussed marriage on previous occasions. In late May 1970, at the home of her grandparents, Julia Stimson Thorne and John Forbes Kerry were married. It was a large gathering with two priests officiating the ceremony. One was Episcopalian, Julia’s denomination, and the other was Roman Catholic. The high society event was covered by the press, which included of course, the New York Times. Following the ceremony, the couple flew to Jamaica for their honeymoon. Vietnam, however, amidst the sandy white beaches of Jamaica, still weighed heavily on Kerry’s mind.

80

Chapter Five

Kerry was vehemently apposed to the war in Vietnam. He also made no bones about it. He was not apologetic towards anyone or any group regarding his views. Kerry and like-minded veterans joined an organization known as Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The formation of the group stirred up some controversy and put the Nixon administration on edge. There were many who were grateful for the VVAW and their objectives. Many other veterans, however, resented the anti-war organization and felt that their own military service was under attack. Keep in mind, the VVAW was not condemning any of those who served with distinction and honor. Their purpose was simply to promote peace and assist in bringing an end to the war. John F. Kerry is a power grabbing, trouble making, radical communist. At least, that was how Richard Nixon wanted America to perceive the young war protester. Afraid that Kerry would undermine public support for the war, Nixon did everything he could to discredit Kerry. From Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman to White House counsel Charles Colson, they all fought diligently to dig up dirt on Kerry, but their efforts failed. Kerry had no skeletons in his closet. He was not one of the longhaired bearded weirdoes that Nixon despised. He was in fact, clean-shaven, well-groomed, and eloquent. Credible and calm under pressure, Kerry often spoke with great conviction in his efforts to promote peace and justice. Bring on John O’ Neill. O’ Neill served on a swift boat in Vietnam shortly after Kerry had left. A few members of the Nixon administration had previously seen O’ Neill on a televised press conference. Colson formed a group known as the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace which featured O’Neill as their spokesman. O’Neill had also been recruited to lead the attack on Kerry’s credibility. Branding him a liar, O’ Neill challenged Kerry to a debate. On the last day of June 1971, the two men were featured on The Dick Cavett Show. Rude and arrogant, O’ Neill did everything he could to promote the war while vilifying Kerry. Kerry was relaxed and in control. He was comfortable in knowing that he had the truth on his side. O’ Neill was content in burying his head in the sand as opposed to acknowledging any atrocities had occurred. The VVAW hearings in Detroit which were held earlier, greatly contradicted O’ Neill’s argument. Previously, in January 1971, hundreds of VVAW members descended on Detroit for what was known as the “winter soldier” hearings. Many of them offered testimony that was both shocking and moving. Numerous Vietnam veterans spoke graphically about what they had seen and what they had done. Their emotional testimony included recollections of torture, rape, and murder. It was a somber and yet eye-opening experience for those that were in attendance.

No Saint John

81

Nixon made a futile attempt to label many of the speakers as phonies, and therefore, their testimony would be considered irrelevant. But Kerry countered Nixon’s desperate attempt with profound logic. Kerry concluded, “I don’t think that any man comes back to say that he raped, or to say that he burned a village, or to say that he wantonly destroyed crops or something for pleasure. I think he does it at the risk of certain kinds of punishment...at the risk of the loss of family and friends...We thought we were a moral country, yes, but we are now engaged in the most rampant bombing in the history of mankind.”5 Kerry was arrested one time while a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. It occurred shortly after the birth of the VVAW. Just about a month before the “winter soldier” hearings, Kerry and over four hundred demonstrators were arrested for criminal trespassing. They had been holed up in Village Green, a historic park in Lexington, Massachusetts. State and local law enforcement made their way into the park in full riot gear. They were ready to subdue the angry violent mob. Well, actually, the anti-war protesters were asleep when the police arrived in the wee hours of the morning! They were also a far cry from an angry violent mob. More accurately, the veterans were gentle, well-mannered, and cooperative. After a night “behind bars,” each was fined five dollars and set free. Spring 1971, in the spirit of Martin Luther King, the VVAW took their fight to Washington. Kerry was already scheduled to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Nixon was beside himself. His own soldiers and sailors were protesting in his back yard. In a U.S. government helicopter, Nixon flew over Arlington National Cemetery where the veterans had congregated. While observing the large throng, he contemplated strategies to counter the situation. When VVAW members tried to enter the cemetery, they were turned away. It was a callous and desperate attempt by Nixon to quell the VVAW movement. Kerry, planning to place flowers at Dick Pershing’s grave site, was outraged. Nixon had even authorized the placement of a fence around the Capitol. Later, in a symbolic gesture directed against Nixon, and the war in particular, thousands of veterans threw their medals and ribbons over the fence. Kerry himself has never claimed to be a demi-god with no faults. He has in fact, taken full responsibility for his part in the destruction of villages suspected of harboring Viet Cong guerillas. Kerry did not become a member of the VVAW to make a name for himself. He joined because he genuinely loved his country. He joined because he wanted to help in the cause to end the war. Kerry’s heartfelt testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was dramatic and inspiring. Kerry had clearly made his point, “How

82

Chapter Five

do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Someone has to die so President Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, ‘the first president to lose a war.’“6 The VVAW protests and hearings had planted a seed in bringing the war to an end. In the spring of 1972, Kerry and his wife Julia rented an apartment in Lowell, Massachusetts. Accused of “carpet-bagging,” Kerry was planning to take another shot at Congress. This time, it was in Massachusetts’ fifth district where many of the voters were independent. He defeated State Representative Paul Sheehy in the primary that summer. Nixon meanwhile had widened the war into Cambodia and Laos. While Kerry was campaigning for his own cause, and ultimately the people of Massachusetts, he was adamantly calling for Nixon’s impeachment. That November, Kerry was defeated in the general election by former State Representative Paul Cronin. As what happened in a presidential election decades later, Kerry had been dubbed “unpatriotic” and “too liberal.” Obviously, it worked! He decided then, that the best way he could serve the public was to go into law. Prior to attending law school, Kerry did volunteer fund raising for an international humanitarian organization known as Cooperative Assistive and Relief Everywhere (CARE). Meanwhile, President Nixon was moving closer to an unconditional cease-fire in Vietnam. Shortly thereafter, Kerry entered law school at prestigious Boston College. Just days into his first year of study, Julia gave birth to Alexandra, the couple’s first child. By the time Kerry was preparing for his final year at BC, North Vietnam launched a massive all out invasion on South Vietnam. The United States did not retaliate. Nixon had recently called for a cease-fire and the majority of U.S. troops had returned home. After earning his juris doctors degree, Kerry took a job with the Middlesex County district attorney’s office. It was a comfortable fit for Kerry since he had previously taken a prosecutor’s role against the U.S. government’s Vietnam policy. He had a great deal of success as a member of the district attorney’s office. His career in law was flourishing and his personal life was ideal. Shortly after he moved his family into a larger house in Newton, Julia gave birth to Vanessa. It was New Year’s Eve 1976 and the following year looked promising. Jimmy Carter would assume the presidency bringing about honest and refreshing leadership. Vietnam was over and America was ready to move forward. After resigning from the district attorney’s office, Kerry went into private practice for a brief period. Although it was a successful venture, Kerry’s heart was still in politics. Meanwhile, Massachusetts’ former governor, Michael Dukakis, was planning to re-enter politics and return to the governor’s office.

No Saint John

83

In 1982, Thomas O’ Neill would resign as the state’s lieutenant governor. That left a vacancy in the state’s number two position and John Kerry was interested in filling that void. In the meantime, Kerry’s personal life was no longer ideal. His wife Julia had been suffering from a progressive case of clinical depression. Functioning as best she could, she kept her illness secret, but Julia’s illness was eating away at her marriage and family life. A separation that summer eventually led to a divorce years later. Later, Julia reflected on her marriage, “The dissolution of the marriage was my doing, not John’s. I wanted something else... I had to be on my own.”7 Kerry still had his eyes on the lieutenant governorship. Dukakis was aware of Kerry’s crime busting record and overall success as a prosecutor. His bid to become lieutenant governor however was not automatic. Joining him on the ballot was Evelyn Murphy, a former environmental secretary in Dukakis’ first administration. Also running were two state legislators and one former representative. But in the early morning hours following Election Day, Kerry was declared victorious becoming Massachusetts’ sixty-sixth lieutenant governor. Traditionally a position with few responsibilities, Kerry enthusiastically stayed busy taking on numerous projects. He was able to create a sound political infrastructure with a direct line to Washington. In 1984, due to health problems, U.S. Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Massachusetts) announced that he was leaving the Senate. Kerry, and U.S. Representatives Edward Markey, and James Shannon decided to seek the Democratic nomination for Senate. After narrowly winning his party’s nomination, Kerry defeated Republican Ray Shamie in the general election in November. It was a plus for the Democrats, but they were still the minority party. Kerry’s election victory launched the beginning of a long and successful senate career. Early in his senatorial career, Kerry got his feet wet by butting heads with President Reagan over foreign and military policies. Specifically, Reagan’s staunch warmongering aid to Nicaraguan rebels known as “Contras.” Reagan referred to the Contras as “freedom fighters.” They were actually CIA-funded thugs that had murdered civilians and utilized terrorist tactics to undermine Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. Kerry, along with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, had gone to Nicaragua in order to meet with leaders on both sides. Through Harkin and Kerry, a cease-fire agreement had been reached provided the U.S. stopped supporting the Contras. Reagan wanted nothing to do with the peace negotiation while brushing it aside as a “propaganda initiative.” Harkin and Kerry were later accused of breaking a federal statute prohibiting private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Harkin and Kerry’s investigation found that the State Department was authorizing the use of humanitarian assistance funds to pay Contra drug traffickers. Kerry

84

Chapter Five

also exposed the illegal activities of Army Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North. North had devised a secret network involving the National Security Council and the CIA to provide military supplies to the Nicaraguan rebels. North and members of the Reagan administration also did not have congressional authorization. Vice President George Bush defeated Kerry’s boss Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election. Two years later, Kerry was re-elected to the U.S. Senate. He defeated his Republican foe, business entrepreneur James Rappaport in an election that was anything but close. Earlier that same year, Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army savagely invaded Kuwait. Kerry supported President Bush’s demand that Hussein withdraw from the small oil-rich country. He also supported Bush’s quick deployment of troops to the region. The Massachusetts senator was in favor of taking military action, but had reservations regarding when force should be used. War, he insisted, should be a last resort after all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. In the 1992 presidential election, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton emerged as the winner, denying George Bush a second term. Meanwhile, John Kerry unexpectedly teamed up with John McCain in efforts to investigate MIAs/ POWs and normalize relations with Vietnam. Their mutual project created an unlikely friendship. The two lawmakers, once foes, had become good friends. McCain recalls, “ You get to know people and you make decisions about them...I found him to be the genuine article.”8 The investigative duo were provided access to files, military bases, and prisons. Kerry and McCain concluded however that there was no evidence proving that Americans were still alive in Southeast Asia. That summer in 1995, President Clinton announced that the United States would normalize relations with Vietnam. That same year, Kerry was preparing for his re-election bid. He would face a tough challenge from William Weld, Massachusetts’ two-term governor. Kerry’s personal life in the meantime was on the upswing. He had recently married Teresa Heinz, the widow of Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz. The late senator had introduced his wife to Kerry at an Earth Day celebration in 1990. Heinz and Kerry had not seen each other since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Meanwhile, during the senatorial campaign, Governor Weld admitted that his gross amount of negative campaigning might hurt his candidacy. As it turned out, it did! In November 1996, Kerry was re-elected to the U.S. Senate by an eight percent margin. The new millennium kicked off a series of negative events. The passing of Kerry’s father after a battle with cancer also marked the end of the Clinton era. His mother died two years later at age eighty-nine. Kerry was included on Al Gore’s “short list” for vice president only long enough to learn that Joe Lieberman made the final cut. Obviously, the Y2K presidential outcome was

No Saint John

85

disappointing for Kerry. It was a sad outcome as well for America. Of course, no one will ever forget Tuesday, September, 11, 2001. In November 2002, John Kerry was elected to a fourth consecutive term. He overwhelmingly defeated Michael Cloud and Randall Forsberg capturing eighty percent of the vote. A member of four Senate committees and twelve subcommittees, Kerry’s record speaks for itself. He opposes capital punishment, social security privatization, Bush’s Patriot Act, and outrageous and inappropriate defense spending. Despite the conservative propaganda, John Kerry is not anti-defense. He has consistently voted in favor of military pay raises and adheres to the necessity of a strong defense. An advocate of equality and justice, Kerry supports women’s rights, gay rights, and common sense gun control. He has proposed initiatives to establish a cleaner and safer environment, fiscal responsibility, and appropriate health care for all Americans. In the eyes of John Kerry, health care is a right, not a privilege. Taking a brief look into his background, we can probably all agree that John Kerry is no saint. But no one, I repeat, no one can argue with a straight face that George W. Bush was a better choice for America. As a Christian with a strong faith in God, John Kerry has a generally healthy outlook on life. He does not view the world in the Republican manner, “us versus them.” He puts more emphasis on the similarities we share rather than the differences. Prior to and during the 2004 campaign, Kerry was often criticized for being one of the most liberal members of the Senate. Probably true, and yet, he was exactly what America needed. Being labeled a “liberal” is a compliment one should take pride in. “Liberal” according to Webster’s Dictionary means “broad-minded, favoring individual freedom, generous, progressive, and tolerant.” I am personally very proud of my liberal ideology. To Kerry, who is a proven leader, we should always look forward and embrace change. While campaigning for the presidency, John Kerry shared specific ideas that would improve America. His objectives were designed to benefit all Americans, not just a select few a la the Bush administration. As I touched on earlier, Americans were not interested in Kerry’s ideas for a better America…they wanted meaningless patriotic rhetoric and flag waving!

NOTES 1. Brinkley, Douglas. Tour of Duty (Harper Collins Publishers. New York, New York. 2004) p. 31. 2. Kranish, Michael, Brian C. Mooney, and Nina J. Easton. John F. Kerry (Public Affairs. New York, New York. 2004) p. 27.

86

Chapter Five

3. Brinkley, Douglas. Tour of Duty (Harper Collins Publishers. New York, New York. 2004) p. 230. 4. Ibid. p. 340. 5. Kranish, Michael, Brian C. Mooney, and Nina J. Easton. John F. Kerry (Public Affairs. New York, New York. 2004) p. 135. 6. Ibid. p. 123. 7. Ibid. p. 185. 8. Ibid. p. 268.

Chapter Six

Comparatively Speaking

As the 2004 campaign season was winding down, I felt cautiously optimistic that George W. Bush would soon be out of a job. When Election Day arrived, I voted at a small school near my residence just before the polls closed. Usually I vote as soon as the polls open. But on that particular day, my work schedule was not conducive to voting any earlier. I went straight home to enjoy a cup of hot chocolate and watch the election returns. As the results were beginning to come in, I reflected for a moment on Bush’s many domestic and foreign policy failures. During the ‘04 campaign season, the incumbent president obviously had nothing positive to boast about. My thoughts then turned to the disgraceful spectacle the Republicans put on in September and the debates, in which Bush was no match for John Kerry. Suddenly, I felt a little more optimistic. In 2004, there was an abundance of presidential hopefuls vying for Bush’s job. There were actually about seventy-five in the running. Various political parties were represented including the Democrats who featured thirty-three candidates. Some of the most notable of these included retired Army General Wesley Clark, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, U.S. Senator John Edwards, and U.S. Senator John Kerry. All of these men were qualified to be president of the United States. But then again, anyone with an eighth grade education could have done a better job than George W. Bush. Disenchanted with the Republican establishment, Wesley Clark inevitably turned to the Democratic Party. Although he entered the race late, Clark was one of the top contenders early on. He had very little political savvy and was often under the microscope of the “liberal” media. He finished first in only one primary, and by mid-February 2004, he withdrew from the race. Leading early in the polls was physician turned politician Howard Dean. He had 87

88

Chapter Six

received most of his campaign contributions via the internet and was considered the favorite to become the Democratic nominee. But after finishing a weak third in the Iowa Caucuses, Dean never recovered. For about a month, it was one agonizing primary loss after another. Undoubtedly, Howard Dean will forever be remembered for the “screech” he ended a speech with in Des Moines. Often criticized for being a trial lawyer, John Edwards was a strong advocate for causes involving the common man. He had respectful finishes in most of the primaries leading up to March, including a win in South Carolina. But by Super Tuesday, with the race essentially over, John Edwards formally withdrew his candidacy for president. By mid-March 2004, U.S. Senator John Kerry secured enough delegates to win the Democratic nominee. Kerry finished with all but a handful of delegates. It was the first time since 1980 that a presidential nominee selected a campaign rival to join him on the ticket. On George W. Bush’s fifty-eighth birthday, John Kerry announced that John Edwards would be his running mate. Both idealists, Kerry and Edwards shared similar views regarding the issues and the future of America. The cast of characters was set and the campaigns were picking up steam. An “axis of evil” themselves were Bush’s three top strategists during the campaign. They included senior adviser Karl Rove, adviser Karen Hughes, and campaign manager Ken Mehlman. Bush’s cronies had three campaign objectives utilizing two strategies and one really big wish. Retaining the White House was obviously the top prize. Their other goals included maintaining control of the House and Senate. Their strategy was twofold, attack John Kerry and highlight George W. Bush’s first term “accomplishments.” The one wish they all counted on was that the American voters were still clueless. The Bush team, not surprisingly, took the low road throughout the campaign. With plenty of money and an enabling media, Bush and Company attacked Kerry politically and personally. They created a boat load, or perhaps we could say, a “Swift Boat” load of negative campaign ads filled with a variety of lies and distortions. Insinuations floated about that the “Massachusetts Liberal” was somehow less, if at all, American because of his personal connection to France. Kerry was depicted as a “flip-flopper” due to his stance on the war in Iraq. And of course, no surprise here, the GOP claims that all Democrats are weak on national security and terrorism. But one of the more popular ploys was the formation of a veterans group designed to publicly lie about Kerry’s service in Vietnam. Known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they claimed to be an “independent” organization with no ties to the Bush campaign. In reality, they were a Right Wing band of Bush supporting Kerry haters.

Comparatively Speaking

89

After failing to fulfill his obligation with the Air National Guard, Bush moved on to establish himself as a failure in the business world. As the Texas governor, he did everything he could to drive the Lone Star State into the ground. His poor judgment and lack of leadership led to an incompetent Presidency. Four more years of the Bush regime had the makings of a Stephen King movie. Invoking the memories of Nine-eleven and reminding patriotic God-fearing Americans about the “War on Terror” were at the centerpiece of the Bush campaign. Certainly Bush scored points with the voters over the capture of Saddam Hussein and the first round of Iraqi elections. Of course, rallying the masses by emphasizing national security and defense was a key component of the campaign. Bush claimed that he was planning to build on his first term “accomplishments” to create a safer world. Although it was a genuine and honorable endeavor, the Kerry campaign was by no means perfect. There was some occasional dissent among the campaign hierarchy. Kerry would at times become frustrated and discontent. Kerry was reluctant at the prospect of “going negative.” He was more concerned with sticking to the issues as opposed to initiating personal attacks against Bush. Kerry himself denounced attacks on Bush’s military service record. Campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill was staunchly against stooping to the level of the Bush campaign when it came to personal attacks. Other members of the campaign team concurred, but sought the need to step up the pace when it came to rebutting some of the Bush campaign claims. A prime example could be found in the fraudulent lies issued by the Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth.” If the Kerry campaign was guilty of anything, it was guilty of giving too much credit to the American intellect. The Kerry camp either responded slowly or not at all to some of Bush’s attacks. There was little need to waste time responding to phony ads filled with blatant lies. The American public could see right through them anyway. Besides, America wanted to hear about the issues and plans to rebuild the nation. At least, these were Kerry’s thoughts. But former Clinton aide James Carville could see the writing on the wall. He advised Kerry to shake things up a little and bring in a new strategy consultant. CNN “Crossfire” co-host Paul Begala was summoned to assist with strategy and communications. The former Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart also joined the team in efforts to bring energy to the campaign. The unnecessary war in Iraq was one of the primary issues during the campaign. Obviously, we could not turn back the clock and erase Bush’s mistake. But Kerry did have plans to rectify the situation by internationalizing the operation. An abundance of domestic concerns were also on Kerry’s campaign plate, but again, the American voters were more concerned about Bush’s powerful “go it alone” rhetoric than Kerry’s detailed plans to reform health

90

Chapter Six

care, education, and foreign policy. The pundits’ message became, “Wrong and strong...beats bright and right.”1 An example of Senator Kerry’s optimistic view of the American intellect can be observed in his 2003 book, A Call to Service. In it he states, “Americans expect their elected officials to have a constructive solution to every national problem. More to the point, Democrats cannot truly hold President Bush responsible for the vast, phony Potemkin village of his nice sounding but empty domestic policies unless we hold ourselves responsible for articulating our policies on ‘their’ defense and foreign policy issues...I will present a three hundred and sixty degree view of where America is today, and I will articulate it in a language that speaks to everyone instead of just preaching to the choir.”2 About a week before the third anniversary of Nine-eleven, the Republicans converged on New York City’s Madison Square Garden for the Republican National Convention. A disgusting, sleazy, and shameful spectacle, the convention featured blatant audacity, exploitation, character assassination, and ridicule. There were also protesters in Union Square Park conducting vigils dedicated to those who have died or will die because of Bush’s war. The only bright spot was U.S. Senator John McCain. He reminded the partisan crowd that the Republicans do not have a monopoly on national security and patriotism. The usual assortment of speakers was on hand with glowing praises for Bush. It was ludicrous that they were actually describing George W. Bush. Outrageous remarks were made incorporating terms such as “compassion,” “leadership,” “steadfast,” “strength,” and “safer world.” From behind the podium on the convention’s fourth day, New York Governor George Pataki bellowed, “America did not choose this war. But we have a president who chooses to win it.”3 Not true, but we did have an arrogant little man who chose to make war with Iraq. Now, because of George W. Bush, we live in a world that is far more chaotic and less safe! Relatives of some World Trade Center victims were on display to invoke memories of Nine-eleven. Turncoat Zell Miller, called upon to deliver the keynote address, was the convention’s primary attack dog. “John Kerry was anti-defense and would be a weak President if elected” Miller charged. Kerry had previously voted against wasteful Pentagon spending. But he did not vote against specific weapons systems used for the “War on Terror” as Miller claimed. The 2004 Republican National Convention was demeaning, embarrassing, and profoundly irritating. But there are no words to accurately describe the repulsive spectacle that transpired on opening night. Hundreds of delegates paraded about the convention floor mocking America’s military. The dele-

Comparatively Speaking

91

gates wore band-aids displaying small purple colored heart shapes. Primarily, the Band-aid Brigade of Buffoons was making fun of John Kerry’s service to his country while questioning the legitimacy of his military decorations. But their actions were also degrading to all U.S. veterans and those who currently serve. Ironic that John Kerry was considered a traitor for speaking out against a war and George W. Bush was hailed as a hero for starting one! Election Day was a mere eight weeks away when the GOP wrapped up their convention in the Big Apple. By then, the Democrats’ gala event at Boston’s Fleet Center had become all but forgotten. Their convention concluded in July where U.S. Senator John Kerry accepted his party’s nomination for president. The festive atmosphere included speeches invoking hope, optimism, diversity, and unity. Outside, protesters gathered to support the president and his pro-war policies. There were also a number of anti-war activists who opposed the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. They wanted the Democrats to do more towards finding a resolution to end the occupation and bring the troops home. An array of the usual speakers was featured throughout the four day event. During the proceedings, a memorial service was conducted to honor the victims of Nine-eleven. Much of the rhetoric during the convention focused on John Kerry, America’s future, and our relationship with the rest of the world. There were a few subtle, yet well deserved jabs at the Bush administration. Considering his pathetic performance, the Democrats were exceedingly benevolent to the president. Illinois state senator and U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama was chosen to deliver the keynote address. The charismatic Hawaii native was articulate and eloquent as he spoke about America’s perceived cultural division. God, he said, “is worshipped in the blue states, gays live in the red states, and we are all one people.” Many of the pundits believed that too much emphasis was placed on Kerry’s service in Vietnam. This might possibly be a valid and fair assessment. But there was certainly an appropriate amount of attention given to his Senate career and his plans to benefit America if he were elected president. Some analysts however felt as though social issues, such as gay marriage, were watered down in efforts to attract swing voters. War, it was emphasized, should be a last option, not a first choice. Several weeks later, the Republicans wrapped up their convention in New York. That fall, America witnessed three presidential debates, one vice presidential debate, and the Boston Red Sox first championship since 1918. The debates revealed clear differences between the two candidates, not just clear differences on the issues, but also in regards to character, professionalism, and stature. On the surface, it would appear that Kerry held an advantage going into the debates. He obviously outmatched Bush in all of these areas.

92

Chapter Six

But despite his disadvantage, Bush was in relatively good shape. He enjoyed a slight lead in most of the polls, and he was after all, the incumbent. Also, let us not forget, he was still the master of low expectations. For John Kerry, the bar had been raised. For George W. Bush, the bar had been all but eliminated. The University of Miami hosted the first of three presidential debates on the final day of September. Jim Lehrer of The News Hour moderated the one hour and thirty minute event which focused on foreign policy. Both candidates were asked eighteen questions and allotted two minutes to answer each question. The Bush people were salivating over the “two minute rule.” They denounced Kerry as a windbag incapable of limiting his responses to a hundred and twenty seconds. But in actuality, it was Bush who was left with egg all over his face. While Kerry was generally crisp and to the point, Bush was often groping for phrases to fill up the two minute period. Following the first debate, First Lady Laura Bush was openly frustrated over her husband’s pitiful performance. She was comforted, however, by convincing herself that on that particular night, he was “not himself.” But in fact, the president was exactly himself; he was arrogant, irritable, and flat. He was an embarrassment to the presidency, the United States, and the handful of allies we still had. A bulge in the back of Bush’s jacket was rumored to be a listening device in order to receive coaching during the debate. Hard to imagine our beloved “Dubya” would resort to unethical tactics! A record of failure on the international front, foreign policy was considered the President’s strong suit. If this was his strong area, that alone should have alerted the voters that it was time for Bush to go. It was Senator Kerry who possessed leadership skills and a solid grasp of the issues relating to foreign policy. Energetic, knowledgeable, and confident throughout the debate, Kerry needed to remind Bush who Osama bin Laden was. Iraq he explained, had no weapons of mass destruction, no connection to al Qaeda, and was not an imminent threat. Bush looked positively foolish trying to defend his war. He was also unable to present an effective postwar plan. In contrast, Kerry outlined a plan to initiate troop withdrawal by July 2005. The two candidates differed sharply on how to deal with North Korea’s nuclear aspirations, but Kerry pointed out that North Korea had developed at least four nuclear weapons on Bush’s watch. Convincingly, John Kerry had won the first debate. The debate and its immediate aftermath was Kerry’s moment in the sun. His performance had quickly dispelled any thoughts that he was flippant and weak. According to instant polls, Kerry was much smarter than Bush and better at expressing himself. Bush supporters struggled mightily to convince themselves that the debate was actually a draw. The Republican spin-masters jumped on Kerry’s

Comparatively Speaking

93

“global test” comment. They took the actual meaning out of context by insinuating that the U.S. would become subservient to foreign policy makers under a Kerry presidency. They also neglected to mention that Kerry went on to say that as President, he would never yield the right to preempt if necessary to protect the country. On the other side of the coin, post-debate polls deemed Bush more believable and likeable. That sounds like the ultimate oxymoron, Bush believable. Give me a break! Scowling and smirking his way through the debate, he looked anything but likeable. Bush was also considered tougher and better to deal with Iraq. How ironic that is, considering the fact that it was George W. Bush who created the mess we have in Iraq. There is no doubting that Bush is trigger happy and stubborn, but trigger happy and stubborn is a far cry from tough. Cowardly, Bush has sent thousands of troops into an unnecessary war. Up to this point, over five thousand had died in vain performing Bush’s dirty work. Entertainer and Wesley Clark supporter Madonna Ciccone neatly summarized, “Our greatest risk is not terrorism…but a lack of leadership.”4 President Bush had faced off against Al Gore in a series of debates four years earlier. With that in mind, one might have thought he would have fared better against Senator Kerry. Vice President Cheney also had experience with debates at the executive level. In 2000, in the Vice Presidential debate, Cheney squared off against U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. On October 5, 2004, Cheney and Kerry running mate John Edwards met at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland for the one and only Vice Presidential debate. The debate, moderated by Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service, received heightened interest due to polls showing an extremely tight race. The debate focused on various issues ranging from the war in Iraq to gay rights. The two candidates differed sharply over the war, the war on terror, and health care. Shortly after the debate concluded, and the dust had settled, polls indicated a draw. CNN and NBC declared Edwards the winner. ABC indicated that Cheney had won the debate. But even the smooth talking Vice President had difficulty keeping a straight face as he described the Iraq war through rose-colored glasses. Three days following the Vice Presidential debate, Bush and Kerry met in America’s heartland for round two. The debate, hosted by Washington University in Saint Louis, featured a town-hall style format. Charles Gibson of ABC News and Good Morning America moderated the ninety minute event. Audience members asked the candidates various questions ranging from stemcell research to the war on terrorism. Not surprisingly, the war in Iraq was the dominant topic. In vain, Bush continued to defend his decision to invade Iraq despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. On that specific issue, Kerry vehemently insisted that the President was unwilling to

94

Chapter Six

face the truth. Throughout the debate, however, Bush demonstrated a personable, albeit, unnatural demeanor. His trademark scowls and smirks had apparently been placed in temporary storage. Kerry presented himself in the usual manner, serious and relaxed. Poll numbers similar to those following the first debate, indicated another Kerry victory. From the Gateway to the West, the two candidates journeyed west for a final showdown. Less than three weeks before Election Day, Bush and Kerry met in Tempe, Arizona for the final debate of 2004. Arizona State University hosted the event where moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News posed various questions that focused exclusively on domestic concerns. Both candidates outlined their plans and gave their opinions on an array of issues including the economy, education, homeland security, health care, and religion. Gallup instant poll numbers scored the debate: Kerry-52% and Bush-39%. Kerry had again outmatched Bush and claimed another victory. The post-debate analysis however quickly changed course. During the final days leading up to the election, the media focused entirely on John Kerry’s reference to the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney. Bob Schieffer had asked both candidates whether they believed homosexuality was a choice. Kerry had responded tastefully that Mary Cheney was born a lesbian and, therefore, her sexuality was not a choice. Although Mary Cheney is openly gay, the media and Republicans alike, pretended to be outraged by Kerry’s remark. Their “outrage” was nothing more than a political ploy. None of these same people came to Mary Cheney’s defense when homophobe bigot Alan Keyes called the Vice President’s daughter a “selfish hedonist.” Suddenly, Kerry stating that Mary Cheney was “born a lesbian” is somehow “out of bounds.” Instead of focusing on issues discussed during the debates or Kerry’s 3-0 sweep, the media was more concerned about turning a non-issue into an issue. The truly outrageous moment of the last debate was Bush denying he ever said he was not worried or concerned about Osama bin Laden. But Cable News Network video footage proved that Senator Kerry was right! The state of Florida was the controversial eye of the political storm in 2000. Tragically, the Presidency was determined by a U.S. Supreme Court that was motivated by politics and ideology. The wishes of the GOP apparently superseded the will of the people of Florida. The 2004 election was also not an exercise in democracy. It was, in fact, an election that featured massive and grotesque voter disenfranchisement. To put it bluntly, the election was rigged. It was rigged by the Republicans in order to produce a favorable outcome for Bush. Voter fraud and intimidation occurred in various Democratic strongholds throughout the country. Primarily, the Republicans concentrated

Comparatively Speaking

95

their efforts in the key battle state of Ohio. The race boiled down to whoever won the Buckeye State, won the national election. As it turned out, there was an unbelievably large discrepancy between the exit polls and the official vote tallies in Ohio. The exit polls conducted by CNN and Zogby International projected John Kerry winning the state of Ohio. Throughout the campaign, Republicans often spouted, “John Kerry is a man who will say and do anything to get elected.” On the contrary, it was in fact, George W. Bush who said and did anything to get elected. Bush’s primary man on the ground was Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell was Ohio’s secretary of state and co-chairman of the Bush/Cheney re-election committee. Ohio’s election irregularities and illegal activities were choreographed and sanctioned by Blackwell. He was for all practical purposes, the “Karl Rove” of Ohio. The Republicans, not surprisingly, resorted to a number of dirty tricks in order to steal the election. These are the same hypocritical Republicans that constantly profess values and morality. Heavily Democratic wards were targeted in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. These precincts in each city were allocated a specific number of voting machines to accommodate hundreds of thousands of voters, but some of these precincts were actually short the required number of machines. In other cases, hundreds of voting machines were not available until an hour before the polls closed. This created long lines in which voters had to wait for several hours. Fewer machines available during the morning and noon rush hours also prevented many from voting before work or at lunchtime. In contrast, there were no voting machines missing or put into place late in any of each city’s traditionally conservative suburbs. The Grand Old Party’s unscrupulous acts went far beyond voting machine irregularities. Before the election, the Republican National Committee hired a consulting firm to register voters in key battleground states. The firm, known as Sproul & Associates, was caught destroying all of the voter registration cards completed by Democrats. In Lake County Ohio, letters were mailed to newly registered voters stating that those registered by the Kerry campaign or the NAACP were ineligible to vote. There were various other letters sent out as well. One was claiming that due to “increased voter turnout,” Kerry voters would have to wait until the day after the election to cast their ballots. Another letter stated that if anyone in their family had a criminal record, they would not be permitted to vote. Franklin County Ohio used a touch-screen voting system called Danaher Control’s ELECTronic 1242. Nearly a hundred of these machines “malfunctioned” on Election Day. One Franklin County precinct in particular

96

Chapter Six

counted 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 for Kerry. But only 638 people in that precinct voted. Walden O’Dell, CEO of Diebold Election Systems supplied Ohio with a vast number of electronic voting machines. An avid supporter of President Bush, O’Dell once stated in writing that he was committed to delivering Ohio’s electoral votes to the president. The most audacious tactic used by the GOP involved an “up close and personal” means. Thousand of Right-Wing activists from around the country were positioned in various urban areas in order to intimidate likely Kerry voters. Known as “challengers” or “poll watchers,” their mission was to profile and then challenge first-time black voters and anyone else that appeared to be progressive. If they were successful, the voter’s ballot would be placed in a “provisional” status to either be counted later or discarded. In some cases, challengers would simply harass voters as they waited in line to cast their vote. These before mentioned accounts of misconduct and illegal behavior demonstrate a corrupt administration’s desperation and determination to retain the White House. George W. Bush and the GOP faithful were not about to let democracy and honesty stand in their way. Now, who was it that would do anything to win? Entering the campaign, Bush’s strategy involved appealing to and energizing his base. Little attention was given to swing voters. Considerably less partisan, Kerry targeted voters that were disenchanted with the direction the country was headed. By the time Election Day arrived, Bush had a slight lead in the national polls. Voter turnout was at an all time high as over one hundred million ballots were cast. As the late evening hours approached, America remained in suspense as the outcome was very much in doubt. Shortly after Pennsylvania entered the Kerry column, Bush captured Florida’s twenty-seven electoral votes. Both candidates still remained shy of the necessary two hundred and seventy needed to win the presidency. In the early morning hours of November third, the verdict came in, “NBC projects Ohio for Bush.” Devastating and heartbreaking, it was as if the nation had once again, been kicked in the gut. In the official results, Bush received 286 electoral votes (51%) and Kerry received 251 electoral votes (48%). Kerry decided to spare the country a long drawn out legal battle over the outcome in Ohio. Dignified and gracious even in defeat, Kerry was the man George W. Bush could only hope to be. Just before noon, Eastern Standard Time, Senator Kerry called the President to concede. Early that afternoon in Boston, John Kerry delivered a concession speech in which he emphasized the necessity to come together as one nation. He thanked his friends, relatives, and supporters throughout the country. In addition to Bush’s solid Republican base, there is evidence that indicates he was a relatively popular president. He did in fact receive almost four million

Comparatively Speaking

97

more votes than John Kerry. Bush appealed to voters that were concerned mostly with national security and morality. Many Americans called upon George W. Bush to protect the country and provide moral inspiration. Sure, that makes perfect sense. Look to the failure that let America down his first term. Re-elect Bush despite his incompetence, lack of leadership, and unethical conduct. Bush and Kerry did have some things in common, however: Recipients of prestigious private secondary educations and both attended Yale University. They are bound by their lifelong membership in the Skull and Bones Society. Although Bush was a chicken hawk who did not go to Vietnam, both served in the military during the Vietnam War. Beyond these similarities, the two men are considerably far apart regarding ideology as well as capability. The following comparison will reveal not only the differences between George W. Bush and John Kerry, but more of the President’s long list of failures. As mentioned, Bush and Kerry both served in the military during the Vietnam War, but their experiences were nothing alike. Bush received preferential treatment to obtain a coveted slot in the Texas Air National Guard. Despite not having attended Officer Candidate School, he received a direct commission to the rank of second lieutenant and was approved to attend flight training. To his credit, Bush did successfully complete flight school and earn his wings. He declined to volunteer for overseas duty. He was suspended from flight status due to insufficient performance and failing to take the annual flight physical. From May 1972 through April 1973, George W. Bush was absent without leave. Shortly after he joined the United States Naval Reserve, John Kerry was accepted into and completed Officer Candidate School. Following Naval OCS, he was commissioned an ensign in the U.S. Navy. He attended and successfully completed a damage control course before spending his first tour of duty in New Zealand and the Philippines. Kerry had initially requested to perform active duty in Vietnam on a patrol crafts fast. In 1968, after he completed more training, his first request was granted. Kerry went on to honorably serve two tours of duty in Vietnam. Involved in combat on multiple occasions, Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. On the abortion issue, Bush and Kerry have more in common than most might believe. Kerry has at least been forthright in his pro-choice stance. Bush on the other hand has used abortion as a wedge. Despite his pro-choice statements in the past, Bush realized early on in his campaign for president that if he was going to be successful, he would have to court the Christian Right. Thus, bring on Christian Coalition member Ralph Reed. A newly appointed adviser to the Texas governor, Reed coached Bush on exactly what he needed to say in order to come across as a lifelong pro-life advocate.

98

Chapter Six

Staying with the Ralph Reed game plan, Bush imposed various federal restrictions which eliminated vital scientific progress in the area of stemcell research. He did, however, allow funding up to a certain point. Viewing stem-cell research as the “destruction of life,” Bush claimed that this limited funding would create a balance between ethics and science. Thus, he has stated that he will not increase spending beyond seventy lines of stem-cells. There are two problems with this. One is, the stem-cells were not the result of abortions and they were going to be destroyed anyway. The other problem is, there were actually only ten to twenty stem-cell lines, and they were all contaminated. The Kerry plan involved lifting Bush’s federal restrictions in order to appropriately fund stem-cell research. The stem-cells in question could not evolve into human life and were earmarked for destruction, anyway. Thus, there was no ethical dilemma. Neglecting the materials and technology that could lead to medical breakthroughs would be an injustice. Kerry wanted to utilize every available resource to find cures for various afflictions including Alzheimer’s disease and spinal cord injuries. The Kerry blueprint for stemcell research offered hope. The Bush plan offered inaccurate information and meaningless rhetoric. For the “Pro-Life” president, capital punishment is viewed in a matter-offact type of manner. Bush willingly defends contaminated stem-cells, but he will not hesitate condemning someone to death. He still proudly boasts the most executions ever by any governor in U.S. history. With the exception of extreme cases of terrorism, John Kerry opposes the death penalty. Kerry supports legislation to impose a moratorium on all federal executions. The advantage goes to Kerry on this one. The term “No Rights,” accurately describes the Bush policy when it comes to Gay Rights. Bush opposes gay marriage, gays adopting or becoming foster parents, and gays serving in the military. He also opposes hate crime legislation that protects gays. Bush does not take a firm position on civil unions and will not denounce the act of employment and housing discrimination. He claims to not know if sexual orientation is a choice. Bush supports the Boy Scouts bigoted exclusion of gays. There are also a few other things regarding Gay Rights that Bush supports. He supports the Defense of Marriage Act, the Marriage Protection Act, and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He also supports the multitude of homophobic hate groups infesting our country. Bush talks about tolerance, but his policies speak otherwise. Bush and Kerry view marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Beyond this, the two political adversaries part company. Kerry opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. A foe to the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act, Kerry believes it is

Comparatively Speaking

99

up to the states to determine their own laws regarding marriage. A proponent of civil unions, Kerry supports extending domestic partnership benefits to gay couples. He supports adoption rights for gay men and lesbians. The Federal Hate Crimes Law, he advocates, must be extended to include the gay community. He also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and legislation to ban housing discrimination. Sexual orientation, Kerry understands, has no bearing whatsoever on a person’s ability to serve in the military. Appropriately, John Kerry rebukes the very same gay bashing hate groups that endorsed Bush for president. Hands down: Kerry outdoes Bush on this one. As a strong ally of the National Rifle Association, Bush has little concern for common sense gun control. He utilizes the typical gun owner’s mantra: No new gun laws, keep guns out of the wrong people’s hands, hold people accountable, create tougher penalties for those committing gun crimes, and of course, law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms. Yet these law-abiding citizens are not always responsible. Too often, an innocent child is accidentally killed because a “law-abiding” adult in the home did not properly secure one of his firearms. “Enforce the gun laws already on the books,” Bush has often proclaimed. He has always been quick to criticize Bill Clinton for weak enforcement of current gun laws, yet he himself has fallen behind on prosecuting people who have lied on background checks. Bush begrudgingly supports instant background checks, but opposes waiting periods of any duration. Regarding assault weapons, Bush has flip-flopped on this issue. He has claimed that it would be good to extend the assault weapons ban. But loyal to the NRA, he switched his position and opposed the ban. He claimed that Congress was not going to move to extend the assault weapons ban anyway. He does however support the banning of foreign “high-capacity” clips. He opposes mandatory trigger safety locks and favors granting gun manufacturers immunity from civil lawsuits. He supports concealed-carry and staunchly opposes the Brady Bill. Gun owner, hunter, and former law enforcement officer, John Kerry, adamantly supports the ban on assault weapons. He is a staunch proponent for the prevention of unauthorized use via smart gun technology. An advocate for the enforcement of current laws relative to firearms, Kerry has sought out ways to strengthen those laws when appropriate. As an opponent of the right to carry legislation, Kerry vehemently supports mandatory trigger locks. Rightfully so, Kerry will not hesitate to stand up against the gun thugs of the National Rifle Association. There are a few problems with Kerry’s position on gun control. He too believes that so-called “law-abiding” adults have the right to own firearms. He does not advocate stricter penalties for crimes committed with the use of

100

Chapter Six

a firearm. He also supports instant background checks which eliminate any substantial waiting period. But in spite of these shortfalls, John Kerry clearly out-duels George W. Bush when it comes to gun control. Bush’s loyalty to the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies was evident in his health care policies. While the drug companies spend more money on advertising than research, health care costs continue to rise. According to the National Census Bureau, the number of Americans without health insurance has increased by approximately six million during Bush’s presidency. There are approximately fifty million Americans without health insurance. Health insurance premiums are rising ten times as fast as wages. Bush continues to implement tax breaks while millions of Americans struggle to pay for health insurance for their families. He adamantly opposes having a national health care system that would provide universal coverage for every American. He also opposes the importation of less expensive prescription drugs from Canada. He claims to be a proponent of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that could potentially benefit millions of uninsured children. Bush signed into law the Medical Savings Account. The Medical Savings Account benefits the wealthy, does nothing to expand needed care to the uninsured, and drains millions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury. He also signed the Medicare Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. This encourages seniors to leave traditional Medicare and join private plans that have no cost controls or guaranteed benefits. It also caps funding of traditional Medicare, prevents the importation of less expensive drugs, and blocks the federal government from negotiating for discount prices. The end result of the Improvement and Modernization Act is a multi-billion dollar windfall for drug manufacturers. Bush also enacted the Medicare Drug Benefit Law which puts a greater financial strain on middle and lower income seniors. Bush also proposed changing Medicaid from an entitlement program to a block grant program. This change would result in denial of coverage to many of those covered by traditional Medicaid. Health care is not a privilege, but a right for all Americans. This is the view that Senator John Kerry subscribes to. Kerry supports the importation of less expensive prescription drugs from Canada and promotes the inclusion of all prescription medication under traditional Medicare. He also supports the expansion of Medicaid in order to cover more uninsured low-income Americans. He adamantly opposes the Medicare Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. He supports tax credits for small businesses and their employees for health insurance. Kerry has implemented an initiative that will allow all Americans to have access to the same program that federal employees enjoy.

Comparatively Speaking

101

He has implemented a plan via the Children’s Health Insurance Program that will cover over ninety percent of America’s children. Kerry understands that mental illness can be just as debilitating as physical illness. He advocates reducing the stigma of mental illness by increasing awareness. He believes wholeheartedly in ending discrimination by requiring full mental health parity. But there is a downside to Kerry’s health care plan. Kerry opposes a single-payer universal plan and supported the president regarding the Medical Savings Account. All things considered, Kerry trumps Bush in the health care arena. Fortunately it failed, but one of Bush’s domestic initiatives was his attempt to privatize Social Security. This would have created severe cuts in disability benefits while the securities industry would have been able to profit from billions of dollars in payments. This would have eliminated Social Security as we know it. It would have moved from a safety net to an investment venture. Moving Social Security into private accounts, Bush’s own economic team estimates, would have added an additional five trillion dollars to the debt. Adamantly, John Kerry opposes privatizing Social Security. Kerry voted to pass the 1993 deficit reduction plan which created a small surplus in the Social Security program. The revenue from the deficit reduction plan went exclusively into the Medicare trust fund. Kerry also opposed any attempts by the Bush administration to tap into the Social Security program in order to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. On Social Security, John Kerry is clearly better than Bush. Bush consistently gives lip service to the No Child Left Behind Act, calling it the “cornerstone” of his administration, yet he neglects to adequately fund it. He supports efforts to privatize education through the use of vouchers. Bush proposed eliminating all federal funding for the “Reading is Fundamental” program. He has failed to provide adequate funding for Head Start. He has also proposed budget cuts for vocational education and various after school programs. The Bush administration has recommended funding cuts under Title IX which could eliminate hundreds of thousands of athletic opportunities. He spent more for Pell Grants, but this was due to the fact that more people qualified. A proponent of charter schools, Bush opposes affirmative action in higher education. However, to his credit, Bush appropriately understands that admission should be based on a student’s merits, not on his or her particular race. Kerry supported the No Child Left Behind Act, but maintains that school districts must be provided the resources necessary to meet the standards set by the program. Kerry staunchly opposes vouchers recognizing that they deplete public schools of adequate resources and support. Vouchers, Kerry

102

Chapter Six

insists, spawn inequality and a lack of accountability. He supports funding aimed at reducing class size in order to maximize learning. He sponsored the Early Childhood Development Act and co-sponsored the Right Start Act promoting affordability for child care and Head Start. Kerry also sponsored a bi-partisan compromise on education reform via the Public Education, Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act. He introduced a resolution to establish an international education policy. This program would potentially enhance national security, further U.S. foreign policy, and strengthen America’s economic competitiveness. The Massachusetts senator voted against educational savings accounts and against spending seventy-five million dollars for abstinence education. He voted not to terminate federal funding for school districts that deny students their right to voluntary prayer. Kerry supports the development of charter schools viewing them as a part of public education. He supports national education standards and has proposed an educational trust fund designed to provide school districts with appropriate funding. Capital for the trust fund would come from rolling back Bush’s tax cuts earmarked for the super rich. In regards to America’s public education, John Kerry receives the higher marks. In fact, Kerry sported a better report card than Bush regarding the issues which impact America. Kerry’s policies do not infringe upon the rights of others, discriminate, or endanger society. John Kerry envisions an allinclusive America that promotes tolerance and equality. While some of his policies generally promote bigotry and injustice, George W. Bush’s primary concern has always been the well-being of America’s wealthiest!

NOTES 1. Thomas, Evan. Election 2004 (Public Affairs. New York, New York. 2004) p. 101. 2. Kerry, John. A Call to Service Viking Press. New York, New York. 2003) p. 21. 3. Hastert, Dennis. Republican National Convention Columbia Broadcasting Station. New York, New York. 2004. 4. Ceaser, James W. and Andrew E. Busch. Red Over Blue (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lanham, Maryland. 2005) p. 91.

Chapter Seven

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

Conservatives often enjoy using derogatory terms to describe John Kerry and other members of the Democratic Party. Their creative list includes various expressions such as “Tree-Hugging Liberal,” “Tax and Spend Liberal,” “Radical Anti-War Peace Activists,” and my favorite is the always popular, “Bleeding-Heart Liberal.” Those crazy tree-hugging liberals want to impose silly regulations to protect the environment, preserve our wildlife, and prevent poisonings caused by harmful chemicals. Those loony tax and spend liberals want to maintain a civilized society by having a sound infrastructure, civil service jobs that protect us, and community development. Those wacko anti-war peace activists understand that going to war is a serious venture that must receive careful consideration. They know that a strong military is crucial to deter aggression and wage war only when it is necessary. And finally, those flaming bleeding-heart liberals do more than talk about compassion—they practice it. A progressive in his own right, Mark Twain often quipped, “Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.”1 This is essentially the same sentiment the Bush administration had towards the environment. Since polls display widespread support for a healthier environment, it was necessary for Bush to talk a good game when it came to environmental protection. During his first term, Bush touted his allegiance to the environment whenever the opportunity arose: “Our forests are treasures that must be preserved for future generations.”2 During a speech at Sequoia National Park in May 2001, the president laid it on thick: “When men and women walk into a setting like this, we must walk with care…This is our responsibility as citizens, but more than that, it is our calling as stewards of the Earth. Good stewardship of the environment is not just a personal responsibility; it is a 103

104

Chapter Seven

public value…Washington has sometimes relied too much on threat and mandate from afar, when it should be encouraging innovation and high standards from the people closest to the land.”3 The phrase “talk is cheap,” and the word “hypocrite” came to my mind as I read through the transcript containing Bush’s remarks at Sequoia National Park. Not to mention, I had to slip on a pair of boots as I read through the entire text. It was getting deeper and deeper. The president’s record on the environment clearly demonstrated that his true allegiance was to the industrial community. In siding with industry, Bush rolled back regulations, ignored science, suppressed information, broke promises, changed rules, failed to enforce the law, and manipulated documents. The president did, however, have some legitimate environmental accomplishments—two of them. One is the non-road diesel rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2003. The non-road diesel rule greatly decreases pollution caused by bulldozers, backhoes, tractors, trains, boats and various other off-road diesel-powered systems. Bush’s other accomplishment concerning the environment was to simply follow-up on a handful of President Clinton’s environmental initiatives, one of which was cleaning up the Hudson River. Some areas of the river were grossly contaminated by a toxic chemical known as polychlorinated biphenyls. Just hours after he was inaugurated in 2001, Bush directed chief of staff Andrew Card to begin delays in pending regulations initiated by the Clinton administration. Shortly after that, the rollbacks began. Scientific evidence was simply ignored in order to suffice Bush’s political agenda. A good example pertains to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Bush administration claimed that oil and natural gas exploration and development would have minimal effects on the wildlife. Bush’s allies in the lead industry pushed to increase the lead poisoning standard to ten micrograms per deciliter of blood. In 2003, EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley issued a draft warning the public about the hazards of asbestos, pulverized glass, and lead. Bush’s own Council on Environmental Quality altered the draft’s wording by deleting cautionary statements from the document. As well, he did not fulfill numerous 2000 campaign pledges including his promise to fully fund maintenance requirements for our nation’s national parks. Our “environment-friendly” former president broke his campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide emissions. In 2003, the Bush administration proposed a rule that would lower the level of mercury emissions. It was called the Interstate Air Quality Rule. The Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee protested the new rule, but of course, to no avail. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that ninety-five percent of industry’s violations of

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

105

the law were exempt from potential prosecution due to Bush’s new rules. An example of Bush’s document manipulation can be seen in the global warming arena. A statement in an EPA report on global warming read as follows: “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”4 By the time the Bush administration got done with it, it read like this: “The complexity of the Earth’s system and the interconnections among it’s components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose it’s causes and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future.”5 The former president received lots of help deciding what regulations to eliminate. Lobbyists representing the industrial community presented Bush with a “hit list” of environmental health and safety regulations to hoist onto the chopping block. On occasion, Bush attempted to disguise some of his policies which affect the environment. The hydrogen-powered fuel cell is a case in point. In 2003 Bush proposed spending just over a billion dollars to develop a pollution-free hydrogen-powered vehicle. Bush received much praise from environmental advocates. A closer look reveals his actual motive. The hydrogen, energy experts have determined, would be produced by using pollutants such as coal, gas, and oil. In the short term, air pollution would increase significantly as certain industries would benefit monetarily. Once the system is in place, hydrogen-powered systems may only have a minimal impact on air quality. George W. Bush repealed more environmental progress during his first eight months in office than Ronald Reagan did in eight years. Before Labor Day 2001 had arrived, lobbyists admitted that industry got every change they asked for. Like Lola in the musical Damn Yankees, whatever industry wants—industry gets. He views our natural resources as commodities to convert into cash. Corporations that share his sentiment contribute significantly to illnesses, deaths, and the overall destruction of the environment. Protecting our natural resources promotes sound economic policy. The Bush administration, however, did not ascribe to this notion. President Bush dropped the ball on the War on Terror, but he had been steadfast in his War on the Environment. If it is good for the environment, it is also good for the economy. John Kerry understands that sound environmental policy is not anti-business. Kerry developed an outline that potentially protects the environment and creates jobs. Industry and science can work together to reduce foreign oil dependence by creating new ways to increase fuel efficiency. For example: Develop renewable sources that will decrease dependence on fossil fuels. Promote hydrogen-powered systems that utilize these renewable sources.

106

Chapter Seven

Establish incentives for industries that expand their use of environmentallyfriendly sources such as ethanol. Redirect federal dollars towards employment opportunities that specialize in cleaning up the environment. Contrary to the former Bush administration, Kerry acknowledges the importance of preserving our environment and protecting our health. He does not disregard or manipulate science in order to promote his political agenda. His policy decisions regarding the environment are based on unbiased scientific findings. Utilizing a genuine common sense approach, Kerry promotes a healthy balance between nature and industry. If elected president, Kerry vowed to immediately reverse Bush’s rollbacks affecting clean air laws. He pledged also to fully fund environmental law enforcement agencies while promoting the enforcement of existing laws. He initiated the Global Climate Change Act in efforts to adequately address global warming. Kerry understands that America must work with the international community to address environmental concerns affecting the entire world. Bush’s policies and decisions clearly indicate that he is no friend of the environment. The former Vice President’s energy task force is one of the most prominent indications that the Bush administration did not care about the environment. It is despicable that our national energy policy was written in secret by the vice president and lobbyists representing America’s polluting industries. To that I say shame on them and shame on those that supported President Bush’s environmental and energy policies. There is no doubt about it. When it comes to environmental concerns and energy—that “Tree-Hugging Liberal” blows Bush out of the water. George W. Bush’s policy decisions pertaining to most of the issues were geared towards benefiting the wealthy. His policies regarding the economy were no exception. As a champion for America’s super rich, Bush’s economic policy can be summarized in two words—tax cuts. His own economic team declared that these tax cuts would stimulate the economy and create over five million new jobs. Ronald Reagan, also a strong advocate of the wealthy class, initiated tax cuts to “stimulate economic growth.” It worked: the rich did get richer! Bush’s net job loss reached approximately one million by the end of his first term. Meanwhile, Bush was pushing to extend his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and make them permanent. An increase in the minimum wage had a snow ball’s chance in hell under the Bush administration. Bush claimed that he would cut the deficit in half by the year 2010. Yet he approved record deficits, an unnecessary immoral war, and tax cuts. He turned a $280 billion surplus into a $550 billion deficit. Although he proposed that Congress limit spending to less than four percent for all programs except defense and homeland security, Bush and Congress had been on a spending

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

107

frenzy. He outspent every U.S. president since the Great Depression. His budget cuts had an ill effect on various programs including veterans’ health care, child care, law enforcement, education, and the environment. The Corporate Tax Law Bush initiated, financially rewards companies for outsourcing jobs. He has pushed for reforms to reduce “frivolous” lawsuits against big businesses. He proposed an increase in tax benefits associated with medical savings accounts while encouraging small businesses to “pool” their resources for better insurance opportunities. George W. Bush is a proponent of free trade; however, his administration also faced charges of protectionism over steel tariffs which were ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. An advocate of the working class, John Kerry promised to repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead of promoting welfare for the wealthy, Kerry implemented a plan to utilize the funds to provide health coverage for the uninsured and supplement middle and lower income families. Tax cuts make sense for those that need them, but not for those who do not. Kerry has fought to protect increases in the child tax credit and the reduced marriage penalty. He proposed the State Tax Relief and Education Fund to lessen the burden on individual states. Funding for this will prevent tuition increases and cutbacks in education. The Bush administration accused that “Tax and Spend Liberal” John Kerry of voting three hundred and fifty times for higher taxes. This is another example of Bush’s many lies. During Kerry’s twenty year senate career, he has voted to raise taxes—but not quite three hundred and fifty times. For example, during the Clinton administration Senator Kerry voted for a 4.3% gasoline tax, but not fifty cents per gallon as Bush claimed. He also voted to raise the tax on Social Security. But it was for couples making $144,000 or more per year and the purpose was to help pay for Medicare. He also voted to raise taxes on individuals making $144,000 or more per year. Kerry voted for higher taxes less than a dozen other times. Some of these votes were to increase funding for health research, education, and environmental protection, just to name a few. These numbers hardly add up to three hundred and fifty. The Bush administration’s calculations were created by adding all of the votes that were included in a package that pertained to only one issue. Also, several dozens of Kerry’s votes were to maintain current tax rates, not decrease them. These votes were considered to be votes for “higher taxes.” John Kerry developed a plan to cut Bush’s deficit in half within four years. He also drafted a budget which outlined various spending proposals. Kerry’s deficit reduction and spending initiatives would not be feasible without additional money. Some tax increases therefore would be necessary to cover the

108

Chapter Seven

costs. However, much of the revenue would be generated by allowing the top two percent wage earners to pay their fair share. Kerry supports closing tax loopholes that provide incentives to corporations that outsource jobs. Like Bush, he is a proponent of free trade, but desires a review of all current U.S. trade agreements. Kerry supports an increase in the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. He supports the concept of equal pay for equal work regarding women in the workforce. Kerry also pledged that he would fight to restore the millions of jobs lost due to Bush’s economic policies. His detailed and lengthy plan involved creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, investing in new energy, and restoring technology. It would be difficult to speculate on whether or not taxes would go up via a Kerry administration. Various factors would have to be taken into account such as the balance of power in Congress. Due to Bush’s policies, taxes would inevitably have to increase. Bush subsidized his tax breaks for the wealthy through the Social Security Trust Fund and by borrowing from Japan, Taiwan, and Communist China. Eventually, this money will need to be paid back. Chances are good that the burden for these loans will fall on America’s working class. All things considered, Kerry edges out Bush when it comes to the economy. The United States Commission on Civil Rights concluded that George W. Bush does not practice what he preaches when it comes to civil rights. He has not exhibited leadership on essential civil rights issues and his actions have not coincided with his rhetoric. George W. Bush has in fact received failing grades in four areas examined by the commission. These include civil rights enforcement, elimination of entrenched discrimination, protecting the rights of disadvantaged groups, and promoting access to programs for underserved populations. The USA Patriot Act mentioned in chapter two exemplifies President Bush’s failed record regarding civil rights. Some interesting similarities can be seen in Adolf Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933 and George W. Bush’s Patriot Act of 2001. Like Bush and the neo-cons, Hitler and the Nazi Party came into power legally. The Nazis were primarily funded by wealthy industrialists that were anticipating various favors including tax breaks and legislation to weaken workers’ rights. In February 1933, a fire destroyed the Reichstag, Germany’s Parliament. Communists were blamed for the incendiary, but there were indications that the Nazis were in some way involved. Hitler and the Nazi Party did in fact have the most to gain from the destruction of the Reichstag. They claimed it was the beginning of terrorism and that the safety of Germany was at risk. The Nazis then removed all of the Left-Wing repre-

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

109

sentatives in the Parliament that were considered to be soft on Communists. They then voted to bestow dictatorial power to Hitler. Before the Nazi-controlled Parliament voted on the Enabling Act, Chancellor Hitler had given a speech promising to use restraint, end unemployment, and promote peace with England, France, and the Soviet Union. All of this could not be accomplished unless Parliament granted him the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act in short, permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. Hitler and the Nazis had convinced the public that suspending their liberties was for the good of the Homeland. Accepting this provision was the patriotic thing for all good God-fearing Germans to do. Speaking on the elimination of the German democracy, Germany’s Reichmarschall, Hermann Goering explained, “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”6 That sounds awfully frightening to say the least. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft speaking on behalf of the Patriot Act stated, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.”7 That too, sounds terribly disturbing. Ironic how the Bush administration touted freedom and democracy abroad, yet they compromised civil liberties at home. The Bush administration had little regard for the separation of church and state. Bush created an office designed primarily to integrate religious groups into federally financed social services. The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced concerns regarding Bush’s plan in respect to the Constitution. Primarily, faith-based organizations benefit financially from the government, but receive immunity from compliance with federal civil rights laws. The national energy policy that evolved out of Cheney’s secret energy task force does not take into account the impact that it may have on human rights. The Bush administration routinely looked the other way when it came to dealing with corrupt and repressive governments. Financial gains made by these abusive governments may exacerbate the existing repression their citizens already face. Bush’s failures on human rights go far beyond his strategy on energy development. Let us not forget interrogation methods used on detainees at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. George W. Bush vehemently claimed that the use of torture is contrary to U.S. laws and values. Torture, Bush has maintained, is never an option.

110

Chapter Seven

Former President Bill Clinton was often chastised for his bewilderment over the definition of the word “is.” Apparently, President Bush had some difficulty with the definition of the word “torture.” We are already well aware of detainees at Abu Grhaib and Guantanamo Bay that have been subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. Since the War on Terror began, the United States government has violated the rule of law and international standards of decency. Bush himself has disregarded laws by claiming that they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution. He is a proponent of altering the Geneva Convention in order to allow abusive interrogation methods with legal impunity. Additionally, Bush administration attorneys created a 2004 Pentagon memorandum arguing that President Bush should have powers to authorize the use of torture in the name of national security. Discrimination has no place in a nation that was established on the principle of freedom from persecution. In an America that is culturally and ethnically diverse, we must respect diversity while acknowledging our similarities. Americans have rights as well as responsibilities and everyone should have opportunities to succeed. This is a brief synopsis of John Kerry’s take on America’s civic culture. Senator Kerry’s record on fighting to eliminate discrimination, economically empower the disadvantaged, and promote an all inclusive environment speaks for itself. The White House often claimed that as president, John Kerry would have worked to weaken the USA Patriot Act. I wholeheartedly hope that this would have been the case. The Patriot Act clearly could have benefited from a good overhaul. As it turned out, the Bush administration was right about Senator Kerry. His goal, however, was not to abolish the Patriot Act altogether, but instead, scale back provisions in it that were unconstitutional. Our national security should not be dependent upon having to forfeit our civil liberties. In short, if the terrorists cause us to abandon our principles, and therefore, disrupt our way of life—then they win. Unlike George W. Bush, who is supposedly strong on national security, John Kerry has no intention of giving in to terrorism. Provided it would be a Christian-based system of government, many conservatives have no qualms with the process of merging the church with the state. It is widely known that Christian Fundamentalism permeated the Bush White House. Likewise, members of the Religious Right were never timid about dictating policy to the Bush administration. Uninformed Christians view the separation of Church and State as a form of hostility towards Christianity. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The establishment clause in the first amendment in the United States Constitution clearly states, “Congress

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

111

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”8 In other words, separation of church and state does not prohibit religion, it in fact, promotes religious freedom. Separation protects the public from religious tyranny and protects religion from government interference. A secular government represents all citizens equally. John Kerry firmly adheres to the Constitution and believes that affairs of faith and affairs of the State must remain separate. There is no excuse for the inhumane treatment of another human being. We are well aware of the atrocities that were committed at Abu Ghraib and other U.S. detention facilities throughout the world. All of the perpetrators involved should be held accountable. These perpetrators include those on the ground that did the dirty work all the way up the chain of command to the Bush administration. In committing these heinous acts, the Bush administration not only defied international law, but opened the door for other nations to do the same. Needless to say, many human rights groups across the globe were outraged by the Bush administration’s antics. About a dozen legislators including John Kerry, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Delaware Senator Joe Biden were the first to condemn the Bush administration and call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. When it comes to the civil rights of America’s citizens, Kerry clearly trumps Bush. In regards to human rights abroad, both Senator Kerry and President Bush could do a better job. A prime example can be seen in the plight of the Degar Christians in the Central Highlands region of Vietnam. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam considers the Degar people, also called Montagnards, to be ethnically unrelated to the rest of the Vietnamese people. Over the years, the Montagnards have been subjected to imprisonment, torture, sterilization, and genocide. Although relations between Vietnam and the United States have improved in recent years, Kerry has been reluctant to promote the Vietnam Human Rights Act, Senate Bill HR-2833. This bill would have potentially countered the Vietnamese government’s oppression of the Montagnards. In looking out for American economic interests, Kerry claimed that the Bill was counterproductive to enhancing relations with Vietnam. President Bush, also a strong advocate for normalized relations with the small Southeast Asian country, signed a bi-lateral trade agreement initiating a friendly relationship with the Vietnamese government. Unfortunately, he has neglected to demand human rights protection as a condition of our relationship. Ironically, it was Vice President Cheney who kept bellowing that “America would get hit again” under a Kerry presidency. Yet, it was the Bush administration’s lack of appropriate funding and poor execution that put our nation at an enormous risk of being attacked. Because of George W. Bush’s

112

Chapter Seven

policies, America and the rest of the world is less safe. To put it bluntly, President Bush seriously dropped the ball in regards to homeland security. Members of the Nine-eleven Commission published a report card revealing Bush’s grades pertaining to their recommendations. The president received one A, twelve B’s, nine C’s, twelve D’s, five F’s, and two Incompletes. One of the F’s was in funding for homeland security. An independent task force created by the Council on Foreign Relations recently concluded that America continues to be extremely vulnerable. Former Inspector General of Homeland Security Clark Ervin despairingly charged that the Department of Homeland Security is dysfunctional, poorly managed, and inadequately funded. The term “pork barrel” suddenly comes to mind! Clark noted, “To continue to underfund homeland security is effectively to draw a bull’s eye on the nation.”9 Other experts, including former National Security Council members, have concurred with Clark’s assessment. Instead of looking out for the safety of the American people, the Bush administration was more concerned with handing out million dollar cash bonuses to senior executives. And of course, Bush’s cronies continued to rake in the money via lucrative no-bid contracts. Spending money on tax breaks for the wealthy and an illegal war obviously leaves less funding for important matters such as homeland security. No one would argue that New York City remains a primary target for future terrorist attacks. Yet shockingly, New York is ranked forty-ninth in per capita spending for homeland security. Vice President Cheney’s home state of Wyoming spends seven times more on homeland security per person than the state of New York. To make matters worse, the city of New York alone has approximately five thousand fewer police officers than before Nine-eleven. Deficiencies in homeland security are not simply a matter of inappropriate funding. Weak presidential and departmental leadership combined with a lack of coordination between Washington and state governments have also contributed to inadequate homeland security. First responders throughout the country are undermanned, untrained, and under equipped. Our borders, ports, airports, and infrastructure all remain vulnerable targets. Fire, police, and emergency medical personnel across the nation are not prepared for chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. The necessary manpower, training, and equipment are not available. Only ten percent of America’s fire departments have the capacity to respond to a building collapse. There are only enough radios for half of the personnel on each shift. Just thirty-three percent of all firefighters are equipped with breathing apparatus. Local law enforcement agencies do not have access to routine terrorist watch

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

113

lists. Most of the nation’s largest cities do not have the necessary detection equipment to analyze hazardous material. First responders in different agencies are not equipped with the technology to communicate with each other. Every year, millions of people enter the United States. About a half a million of these people cross our borders undetected. Border security and President Bush’s immigration policies have some serious flaws. Along the five thousand mile Canadian border, there are approximately one thousand border patrol agents. Along the Mexican border, which is two thousand miles long, there are nearly ten thousand agents. Something is wrong with this picture. According to the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, al Qaeda maintains cells and personnel throughout Canada. Our northern border should be receiving the same amount of attention as our border with Mexico. Inappropriate use of personnel is not the only problem. Border security is not utilizing enough up-to-date technology including cameras, sensors, radar, and satellites. Upon taking office, President Bush promised he would address immigration. He did not succeed in passing any immigration reform. His policies regarding immigration generally amounted to a xenophobic charade of empty promises. His guest worker program, for example, would not have created any way to promote undocumented workers into legal residency status. Many immigrants that are working and paying taxes have not been put onto a path to legal residency. The Bush plan simply ignored family sponsored immigration backlogs. Meanwhile, many counterfeit passports and visas slip through the cracks because they are not properly authenticated by the Immigration and Naturalization Services. Only about five percent of undocumented people identified as potential “sponsors of terrorism” have been deported. It is relatively easy to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United States aboard a cargo ship. This is because only about five percent of all containers arriving at U.S. ports are completely inspected. With the assistance of Tom Cochran, a nuclear physicist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, ABC News conducted a test in order to check the reliability of port security. The test consisted of depleted uranium that was shipped from Jakarta, Indonesia to the Port of Los Angeles. The container was sent from one of the most active al Qaeda “hot spots” in the world. Screeners in Los Angeles failed to detect the pseudo uranium. Depleted uranium has a similar radioactive signature as the highly enriched uranium used for nuclear weapons. Passengers, carry-on luggage, and baggage are too often improperly inspected at America’s airports. Ironically, under certain circumstances, a handgun could

114

Chapter Seven

pass through the screening process easier than a set of fingernail clippers. A federal airport security test that was sanctioned by the Bush administration revealed some very alarming statistics. The percentages of various weapons smuggled onto aircraft were as follows: handguns-thirty percent, simulated explosives-sixty percent, and knives-seventy percent. Forty-eight percent of all prohibited items passed through the screening process. Additionally, fortyeight percent of the investigators were either able to secretly board aircraft or had access to the tarmac. Although some improvements in these areas were made, there were still some gaping holes in airport security. The Transportation Security Administration was created shortly after the federal airport security test results were published. The TSA is a component of the Department of Homeland Security and is the responsible agency for America’s transportation systems. The TSA also oversees the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program and the Federal Air Marshal Program. Armed pilots and aircraft cops are valid deterrents to hijackings. But one of the most significant problems with the FFDOP is that each pilot is required to keep his or her handgun in a lockbox. This eliminates quick easy access during a hijacking attempt. Problems exist within the Air Marshal Program as well. Air Marshals are supposed to be anonymous, yet they are required to dress in black, pre-board and sit in first class, and ask for the “Air Marshal discount” at hotels. President Bush, our former “tough and able” Commander-in-Chief never missed opportunities to spew out meaningless rhetoric. He often proclaimed that his top priority was protecting the American people from terrorism; yet, he failed to utilize his executive powers or support legislation to mandate regulatory requirements to protect America’s infrastructure. This is not at all surprising. Eighty-five percent of our nation’s critical infrastructure is controlled by the private sector which included big Bush campaign contributors. Legislation requiring chemical plants to move towards safer chemicals and technologies was blocked by the Bush administration and the chemical industry. The Bush administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fought hard against additional security regulation involving nuclear power plants. Various safety proposals that would affect the rail system were ignored by the Bush administration because of opposition from the industry. President Bush even supported the private water utility industry’s efforts to take over public water companies. Like other private sector companies, private water companies would most likely be resistant to reasonable security standards. A successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be devastating. It could destroy thousands, perhaps millions of lives, cripple our economy, and terror-

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

115

ize the entire nation. This chapter refers to only a few examples of the gaps that exist in homeland security. The Bush administration’s failures pertaining to our nation’s security matters go far beyond the pages of this book. Bush’s lack of leadership and marginal support of national security have left the United States wide open for another catastrophic terrorist attack. Undeniably for sure, George W. Bush proved himself to be incapable of defending America! Fortunately, more tax breaks for the wealthy were not a part of John Kerry’s homeland security strategy. He did however develop a plan which addressed critical areas pertaining to America’s security. These areas included funding, resources, communication, intelligence, and a health initiative. Kerry’s plan for defending America was affordable via rolling back Bush’s tax breaks for the well-heeled, using funds already earmarked for homeland security appropriately, and utilizing volunteers provided by the Community Defense Service. John Kerry is not an advocate of opening firehouses in Iraq and closing them in Illinois. Laying off thousands of police officers throughout the nation is simply unacceptable. The Kerry plan allowed for the hiring of approximately one hundred thousand new firefighters and police officers. Fully recognizing the need to create a sound homeland security program to defend America, Kerry looked to combine common sense approaches along with innovative ideas. He proposed a new fund for firefighters in the memory of Mychal Judge, the New York City Fire Department chaplain, who was killed tragically on Nine-eleven. He also proposed restoration of the disheveled Community Oriented Policing Services Program. The Mychal Judge Memorial Fund and the COPS Program were designed to enable fire and police departments across the country to function at full capacity. These civil service agencies would have received the necessary manpower, equipment, and training to respond to any emergency including a terrorist attack. Kerry had drafted a plan making homeland security the primary mission of the National Guard as well as AmeriCorps. John Kerry understands that protecting America is the most basic responsibility of the commander in chief. All of the resources available, he believes, must be utilized in order to successfully protect the American Homeland. First responders must be able to communicate with each other as well as share critical information with state and local officials. Senator Kerry understood the importance of creating the technology that would make this a reality. The bureaucratic divide that currently exists complicates the efforts of federal agencies working with state and local agencies regarding intelligence collection and analysis. Kerry strongly believes in simplifying the bureaucracy in order to focus explicitly on domestic intelligence. Using a common sense approach, Kerry proposed an intelligence gathering system that targets

116

Chapter Seven

specific terrorism suspects. It is indeed paramount that the American people are protected from various types of attacks. Kerry’s health initiative includes developing a wide spectrum of antidotes, using a real time detection system to pool patient data, and improve training in order to respond to a surge of patients. Funds for homeland security should be allocated on the basis of risk. Under a Kerry Presidency for example, the state of New York would not be ranked forty-ninth in per capita spending. Based on a risk analysis, New York would be at or near the top in per capita spending. The Federal Emergency Management Agency under Kerry’s leadership could be transformed into an organization that not only concentrates on recovery-related functions, but prevention and preparedness functions as well. Rehearsals would be conducted that simulate real disasters. Urban areas would all be equipped with carefully designed evacuation plans. Kerry envisions a future where America’s borders are appropriately patrolled with agents that utilize state-of-the-art technology. He believes we must move quickly to implement the action plan agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico “smart border” proposal. Inspectors at foreign ports must be in place to examine all containers that are bound for U.S. ports. All airport employees must receive extensive background checks. All of the cargo entering commercial aircraft must be thoroughly inspected by qualified personnel. An appropriate amount of custom inspectors at foreign airports must be on hand to detain potential terrorists. The federal government under Kerry’s helm would play an intricate role in protecting our critical infrastructure. Not only in regards to regulation, but in funding as well. Following the tragic events that occurred on Nine-eleven, much of the world joined together in a profound display of empathy and support for the people of the United States. Nine-eleven left George W. Bush with a golden opportunity to attain global cooperation on international security. President Bush was poised to establish himself as a leader and legitimate statesman in regards to foreign policy. Shortly after Nine-eleven, the United States successfully toppled the Taliban. Over three hundred Taliban and al Qaeda members had been captured. Some key officials including Mohammed Atef, Osama bin Laden’s chief military advisor, had been killed during U.S.-led air strikes. The President was focused on Afghanistan and hunting down Osama bin Laden. Initially, things looked promising. The new leader of the free world wasted little time squandering his favorable position. Bush quickly broke with traditional American foreign policy in favor of a unilateralist and imperialist foreign policy that challenged the norms of international relations. He fanned the flames of terrorism

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

117

throughout the world, undermined America’s leadership, and fueled global instability. Bush went so far as to deliberately disregard treaties initiated by his predecessors, mock the United Nations as “irrelevant,” and launched a preemptive war against Iraq. Claiming to preserve American sovereignty, President Bush refused to sign onto various treaties that promoted human rights, protected the environment, and curbed terrorism. Some of these treaties included the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, and the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty. Due to the Bush administration’s policy regarding these and other treaties, America is less secure. Additionally, George W. Bush actually cares very little about the sovereignty of the United States. If it conflicted with trade agreements that promoted Bush’s control over the World’s resources, George W. Bush would have hesitated to surrender America’s sovereignty. President Bush made no efforts to strengthen, expand, and then lead international alliances to combat tyranny and oppression. Instead, he arrogantly turned his back on our allies that did not support his plans to invade Iraq. He did not exhaust all of the diplomatic means available regarding the situation in Iraq. Then he ignored the intelligence analysis revealing that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear weapons program. Bush and his administration had convinced themselves that the Arab world would fall into line and support an American attack on Iraq. The Iraqi people would welcome the American presence and view their occupiers as “liberators.” Iraq would become a new democratic state and set an example for the Arab world. President Woodrow Wilson warned about the dangers of trying to impose governments on other nations. George W. Bush turned a country with tenuous ties to terrorism into a breeding ground of jihadists. Now, Iraq is in the midst of an all out civil war and Osama bin Laden remains at large. Iraq, Iran and North Korea complete the triad of Bush’s “axis of evil.” The “axis of evil,” Bush concluded, is any nation that violates human rights and possesses weapons of mass destruction. But the president failed to include U.S. supported countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. India and Pakistan are also exempt from being a part of the “axis of evil.” In reality, the phrase “axis of evil” is a term used to stigmatize countries the Bush administration is contemplating military action against. After speaking to a staunch hard-core neo-con, a Washington insider concluded that after Iraq, Bush will go after Iran and Syria, and finally, North Korea. Asinine power-crazed neo-cons had no reservations with this scheme. In May 2002, Under Secretary of State

118

Chapter Seven

Michael Bolton even suggested that the United States add Cuba and Libya to the list of countries for America to invade. Despite being overwhelmed with his failures regarding Iraq, President Bush did contemplate using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz. This tactic would coincide of course with another regime change. In regards to Iran and North Korea for that matter, Bush acknowledged that all options were open. The Bush administration also considered using nuclear weapons against North Korea. North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Il offered to freeze North Korea’s nuclear program in exchange for normalizing economic and diplomatic relations with the United States. President Bush rejected the offer and refused to conduct bi-lateral negotiations with the North Korean leader. He claimed that multi-lateral talks involving China, Japan, Russia, and both Koreas would then be disrupted. Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both Bush and Kerry have taken a primarily pro-Israeli stance. Adherence to this position has exacerbated frustration within the Arab community. Bush has endorsed all the demands of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and in 2002, he called for the removal of Palestinian President Yasir Arafat. Meanwhile, Israeli aggressors continue to target Palestinians and Arab terrorists persist in attacking Israelis. Both Israel and Palestine have been guilty of human rights violations in a dispute over territorial rights that has lasted more than a half a century. At any rate, the Bush administration contended that the rights of the Palestinians cannot occur within an independent state, anyway. Senator Kerry admits some ambivalence regarding Israeli’s security fence. He sees it as a roadblock for potential peace, but also a legitimate form of self defense. Regarding China and Russia, Bush generally maintained a lukewarm relationship. Tensions did exist between the United States and the two other world powers, but they eased somewhat towards the end of Bush’s first term. Both nations were considered allies in the war against terrorism, and Russian President Vladimir Putin himself denounced the Nine-eleven attacks. Initially, President Bush got off to a rough start. His withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which Russia regarded as the cornerstone of its relationship with the U.S. drew harsh criticism from each of the two countries. Evidence in 2001 revealed the Bush administration’s callous attempt to spy on Chinese President Jiang Zemin. That same year, Bush expelled dozens of Russian diplomats suspected of espionage. Moscow then responded by expelling several U.S. diplomats stationed in Russia. Clearly, Bush’s deceitful tactics went far beyond America’s borders. His decision to maintain a long-term military presence in Central Asia was contrary to the agreement he made with President Putin. Another agreement

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

119

Bush made with Putin and then reneged on was to gradually reduce nuclear warheads. Russia’s leaders became incensed after the U.S. announced that excess warheads would be put in storage, not destroyed. George W. Bush’s “cowboy” image and his “you are either with us or against us” brand of diplomacy were the cornerstone of his failed foreign policy. As polls have shown, Bush’s failure to consider public diplomacy within the realm of his public policies has alienated many. The word “diplomacy,” for all practical purposes, was considered taboo within the Bush White House. As well, the President claimed to promote freedom throughout the Middle East, but his rhetoric was viewed by the international community as false and hypocritical. This is because, as mentioned earlier in this book, many of Bush’s explanations regarding his foreign policy decisions were in fact, false and hypocritical. President Bush’s destructive militaristic and unilateralist policies have only increased America’s negative standing throughout much of the world. Referring to Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere, the Bush administration often proposed “regime change” for the betterment of the world. Obviously we should have started with a regime change in Washington in 2004. In comparison to the coarse, turbulent, and isolationist foreign policy of the Bush administration, Senator John Kerry offered a foreign policy that was just, resolute, and progressive. As president, Kerry pledged to create a new era of alliances and restore America’s reputation. America would rejoin the community of nations, respect international institutions and international law, and resume multilateral engagements. Kerry also held a strong belief in promoting America’s interests and values abroad. Utilizing collective security was paramount to maintaining sound national security, but in spite of the Bush propaganda, John Kerry never once suggested turning the security of the United States over to any other nations. Waging a war, he stressed, must be for legitimate reasons. Kerry’s “global test” that Bush often made reference to was simply Kerry’s admission that America’s legitimacy in the world depends upon America’s honesty. America’s honesty will in turn create stronger alliances. In his book, The New War, Kerry stresses the importance of using a multilateral approach to foreign policy. The book not only outlines steps to combat terrorism, but other forms of international crime as well. It is critical, Kerry maintains, for all of the governments that fight global crime to communicate with each other and share information. Kerry’s foreign policy agenda included several key initiatives. Implementation of these initiatives would have taken place within the first one hundred days of Kerry’s presidency. Kerry would have begun by repairing America’s relationship with the United Nations and traditional U.S. allies. He planned to appoint a presidential envoy

120

Chapter Seven

to the Islamic world and convene a summit of world leaders to discuss an anti-terrorism agenda. He was also prepared to appoint an ambassador to the Middle East. His “short list” included former Secretary of State James Baker and former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Kerry’s fundamental strategy pertaining to Iran and North Korea was to increase diplomatic efforts in order to avoid a nuclear confrontation. When confronting these, as well as other selected nations, Kerry would have stressed the necessity of putting all the issues on the table. Some of these issues would have included areas such as human rights, economic sanctions, and nuclear disarmament. Both Bush and Kerry subscribe to the policy of a “one-China” State, provided the integrity of Taiwan’s democracy is not jeopardized. They also see the benefits of tapping into China’s influence over Pyongyang in order to quell North Korea’s nuclear aspirations. Although Senator Kerry has been outspoken against the political oppression in Russia, he understands the critical nature of having sound U.S.-Russia relations. Russia, he also concluded, could be a primary energy source that would reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil. John Kerry regrets that he voted in the affirmative regarding Senate Joint Resolution 46. In essence, the resolution granted the president the authority to use the military as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Kerry also regrets trusting George W. Bush to have made the right choice after the resolution was signed into public law. Invading Iraq, let us not forget, was not Bush’s only course of action. Saddam Hussein was already contained, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and sanctions were in place. John Kerry has always maintained that we engage in a war when we have to, not because we want to. War should be a last resort. John Kerry knew that as president, he would have inherited an escalating civil war in Iraq. He also knew that there was no “magic bullet” to remedy the Iraqi crisis. Public opinion revealed that many Americans perceived Kerry’s plan for Iraq to be fundamentally the same as Bush’s. To some extent this may be a true assessment. However, let us be mindful of the fact that it was George W. Bush who was the chief architect of the war. It was George W. Bush who lied to the American people to promote the war and it was George W. Bush who took America into the calamitous quagmire in Iraq that we must now pay for. The cost in lives and human suffering alone has been devastating. If nothing else, John Kerry offered an alternative to George W. Bush and his failed management of the war. Kerry did not envision a democracy in Iraq. His objective instead was to bring about a stabilized Iraq. Kerry recognized that troops and financial assistance from other nations would be necessary to accomplish this. Not

The Compassionate Conservative and the Tree-Hugging Liberal

121

impossible, but this would have been difficult in lieu of the fact that Bush had already alienated much of the world. Kerry’s plan also included federalizing Iraq by employing power-sharing arrangements among the Kurds, Sunnis, Shi’as, and Shiites. He also planned to appropriately fund the war and fully equip the American Forces. This was just one of many areas the Bush administration grotesquely neglected. Senator Kerry may not have had all the answers when it came to international affairs, but he clearly had a better foreign policy than Bush. Frightening as it is, foreign policy was supposedly Bush’s strong suit. Certainly not every detail of each and every issue has been covered in this, as well as the preceding chapter. After weighing both candidates on some of the most critical issues, it is clear that John Kerry was unquestionably better for America. Many on the right including author and avid Bush supporter John O’Neill claim that John Kerry was in fact, “Unfit for Command.” Interesting that it was their candidate, George W. Bush, who betrayed the American people, violated the Constitution, and committed multiple war crimes. It is their candidate who epitomized arrogance, recklessness, and incompetence. Yet it was John F. Kerry who was considered to be unfit for command—Go figure!

NOTES 1. Ayres, Alex. The Wit and Wisdom of Mark Twain (Harper & Row Publishers. New York, New York. 1987) p. 244. 2. Office of the Press Secretary. President Bush Promotes Healthy Forests in Arizona White House Press. Washington, District of Columbia. 2003. 3. Office of the Press Secretary. George W. Bush: Remarks at Sequoia National Park, California White House Press. Washington, District of Columbia. 2001. 4. Devine, Robert S. Bush Versus the Environment (Anchor Books. New York, New York. 2004) p. 178. 5. Ibid. 6. Gilbert, G. M. The Psychology of Dictatorship (The Ronal Press Company. New York, New York. 1950) p. 117. 7. Boston Globe. Critics Aid Terrorists, AG Argues (Associated Press. Boston Massachusetts. 2001) p. A1. 8. Rossum, Ralph A. and G. Alan Tarr. American Constitutional Law Saint Martins Press. New York, New York. 1995 p. 197. 9. Ervin, Clark Kent. Open Target (Palgrave Macmillan. New York, New York. 2006) p. 227.

Chapter Eight

Boneheaded America

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”1 This chapter explains how this book came to be. It also reveals why George W. Bush served two terms. After sharing a portion of my manuscript with my close friend Jason Peel, he uttered a rather profound statement that befits George W. Bush’s America. He simply said, “If you close your eyes to avoid seeing the things that are bad, then you can pretend they aren’t really there.” My incentive for creating this work involved various factors, but the reason that America was cursed with the likes of George W. Bush as commander in chief involved only one factor. These factors, which mark the pinnacle of this book, will be unveiled in the latter portion of this chapter. Until then, however, a little housekeeping is necessary in order to bring a few facts to light. If John Kerry was in fact, “unfit for command,” does that mean that George W. Bush was? That is just too funny …George W. Bush…fit for command! I am laughing so hard right now I can barely catch my breath. Pardon me while I take a moment to wipe the tears from my eyes. Clearly it is easy to see the irony and humor in the thought of Bush’s own fitness for command. However, his destructive and pathetic presidency was anything but a laughing matter. Just after Kerry captured the Democratic nomination, the RightWing attack machine went into overdrive. Organizations such as the Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were formed explicitly to create ads distorting Kerry’s military record as well as demonize him for his anti-war protestations during the Vietnam War. A Republican funded group founded by John O’Neill, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth masqueraded as a “five-two-seven” within the United States tax code. Keep in mind; this is the same John O’Neill who persecuted Kerry in the early 1970’s for his activism against the war in Vietnam. O’Neill collaborated with long time friend and author Jerome Corsi in creating a con122

Boneheaded America

123

troversial book entitled, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. A predominantly fictional piece of obscurities, O’Neill and Corsi employ lies and character assassinations attacking not only Kerry, but other Vietnam veterans as well. Above the water line their book appears to be an adequately structured vessel, but a closer look of the aluminum hull reveals some holes in O’Neill and Corsi’s Swift Boat Book, Unfit for Command. For the sake of brevity, I will cite just a few examples. In Unfit for Command, O’Neill challenges Kerry’s credibility while making serious accusations relating to his service in Vietnam. But he goes far beyond simply questioning the legitimacy of the documentation pertaining to Kerry’s military career. Among other slanderous statements, he claims that all of Kerry’s medals were fraudulently obtained. O’Neill, in fact, devotes nearly half of Part I to discrediting the circumstances for which Kerry was awarded his medals. Hardly anyone questioned, by the way, the legitimacy of Bush’s decision to illegally invade Iraq. George W. Bush, we already know, did not serve in Vietnam as Kerry did. He did not fight for his country as Kerry did. He did fight, however. He fought diligently to stay out of Vietnam. Ironic how O’Neill accuses Kerry of lacking moral courage while giving a free pass to George W. Bush, the poster child for cowardliness. The incident for which John Kerry was awarded the first of three Purple Hearts occurred in the early morning hours of December 2, 1968 at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam. For starters, O’ Neill conveniently neglects to mention that Kerry volunteered for a special mission that would send him to a considerably dangerous area. A brief description of the morning in question maintains that Kerry and his crew were aboard a “skimmer” when they opened fire on Viet Cong guerrillas that were on shore. After Kerry’s M-16 jammed, he bent down to retrieve another weapon as a piece of shrapnel entered his left arm above the elbow. O’Neill claims that Kerry ineptly fired a grenade launcher and in doing so, he caused his own injury. He also insinuates that it was self-inflicted, and Kerry was essentially faking his injury. One of the witnesses in the area was William Schachte, the officer who commanded the operation, but was not on Kerry’s boat. O’Neill makes no mention of Schachte’s 2003 interview in which he described the situation as a firefight and that Kerry had been hit. In 2004, during the time Unfit for Command was written, Schachte claimed that he was physically aboard the skimmer that Kerry was on. In reality, Patrick Runyon and William Zaldonis were the only two men aboard the skimmer with Kerry. Runyon also recalled that no grenade launcher had been fired during the incident. Louis Letson claimed that although he treated Kerry’s wound, the documentation was signed by Jess Carreon, a corpsman who was present at the time. Letson and Kerry’s commanding officer, Grant Hibbard, both

124

Chapter Eight

maintain that Kerry’s wound was minor and self-inflicted. Yet the “scratch” and the circumstances were somehow severe enough that Hibbard apparently approved the citation authorizing Kerry’s Purple Heart. Regardless of the severity of the wound, keep in mind that Kerry volunteered for this duty, served his country, and risked his life in doing so. This is more than we can say about George W. Bush who spent the war soaking up the spirits back in the States. Close to three months following the conflict at Cam Ranh Bay, Kerry and his caravan were cruising along the Dam Doi River when a rocket-propelled grenade struck the port side of their boat. The grenade’s explosion sent hot shrapnel into Kerry’s left leg. The small and resilient craft bore some significant damage, but managed to navigate into the Gulf of Thailand. Shortly after entering the safer waters of the Gulf, Kerry and Company were picked up by a U.S. Coast Guard Cutter. Kerry was treated on the offshore ship and returned to duty. He was awarded his second Purple Heart for the injury he sustained during that action. O’Neill goes beyond just questioning the severity of Kerry’s wound. He actually implies that Kerry’s wound was not caused by hostile fire. If it did happen, O’Neill begrudgingly charges, it would have been the first and only time during Kerry’s service in Vietnam. Robert Hildreth who was aboard another swift boat in the area claims that rifle and rocket fire never occurred. He also reports that there was no damage to any of the swift boats in the area of operation. O’Neill neglecting to mention that there were actually six boats in the flotilla implies that Hildreth’s boat was the only other vessel on that particular mission. It therefore gives the impression that Hildreth’s boat was next to Kerry’s and thus, Hildreth could see exactly what was happening in regards to PCF-94. O’Neill also makes no reference to Kerry’s engineman Eugene Thorson. Thorson also received a Purple Heart for shrapnel that entered his right arm, but since Hildreth claims there was no hostile fire, maybe Thorson was just faking his injury as well! A few hours after Kerry was treated for his injury, he returned to duty. He still carries the shrapnel in his left thigh. This is because Kerry was anxious to return to the men in his crew that he fought with. Removing the shrapnel would have meant surgery, and thus, time off from duty. It is hypocritical of Hildreth to say the least. A few days before the firefight that injured Kerry and Thorson, Hildreth himself was injured just after a mine exploded near his boat. During the rocket and small-arms fire that ensued, Hildreth sustained minor shrapnel wounds to the left hand and shoulder. The “scratches” that Hildreth endured merited him a Purple Heart. Being the target of Viet Cong-led ambushes was all too common for the sailors of Coastal Division Eleven. Kerry and the crew of PCF-94 had grown

Boneheaded America

125

weary of their role as sitting ducks. Just sitting in the open water and directing fire towards the riverbanks seemed to accomplish very little. Frustrated by this, Kerry often thought hard about ways to win an ambush. On the final day of February 1969, Kerry confronted the enemy in a most unorthodox manner. During an ambush along the Dong Cung Canal, Kerry beached his boat in an effort to not only catch the Viet Cong guerillas off guard, but to take the fight to them. His courageous act proved to be successful. One Viet Cong insurgent had been killed while the others fled. Just moments later, Kerry, and the two other boats that accompanied him that day encountered a second ambush. They were only the length of a few football fields upriver when the attack began. While gunfire erupted and rockets shelled the small flotilla, Kerry turned ninety degrees and headed directly towards the ambush site. As they reached the shoreline, the swift crew shockingly realized that they were face to face with a heavily armed Viet Cong guerilla. A loaded B-40 grenade launcher with a shape charge on it was aimed right at them. But unable to engage his weapon in time, the man panicked and ran away from the river. Kerry surmised that he was running for vantage ground where he would be able to make another attempt at killing the Allied Forces. Without hesitation, and an M-16 in hand, Kerry jumped off the boat to pursue the enemy combatant. As gunfire and smoke filled the air, radioman Mike Medeiros and forward gunner Tommy Belodeau followed Kerry off the boat. Kerry tracked the enemy soldier down a narrow trail where they came upon a small lean-to. Seeing that the man was poised to fire, Kerry shot and killed him. All of the U.S. forces including the members of PCF-94 received recognition for their actions on that particular day. The crew’s skipper, John Kerry, was awarded the Silver Star. Bronze Star recipients included Tommy Belodeau and Mike Medeiros. Del Sandusky, Fred Short, and Eugene Thorson were awarded Navy Commendation Medals with Combat V Devices. The recommendation to award Kerry the Silver Star for valor came from the Division Commander, George Elliott. A portion of the citation reads as follows: “For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division Eleven engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents…with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy…The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission.”2 Kerry, O’Neill claims, showed only ordinary courage and that the circumstances for which he was awarded the Silver Star were nothing extraordinary. He proclaims that Kerry’s tactical judgment was poor and he risked his men’s

126

Chapter Eight

lives to obtain medals and personal glory. O’Neill emphatically states that these are not the attributes expected of a U.S. president. Kerry’s actions on that particular day did not warrant a Silver Star and were not reviewed via normal channels. The spot report was, according to O’Neill, false and incomplete. He also maintains that Kerry was awarded his Star only two days after the incident. O’Neill claims that it was all an elaborate plan in which Kerry preplanned the mission. Kerry’s premeditated tactic would result in medals for selected individuals. Kerry supposedly calculated it right down to who might get Bronze Stars and who would probably receive Navy Commendation Medals. O’Neill claims that Kerry did not beach his boat immediately, but instead, continued a few yards downriver before it was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Then, after coming ashore, Kerry left his boat to chase a wounded Viet Cong before shooting him in the back. O’Neill was right about one thing here. The Viet Cong insurgent had been slightly wounded after Tommy Belodeau grazed him in the leg. This, however, was just seconds after Kerry had beached the boat. Although O’Neill acknowledges that the insurgent was in possession of a grenade launcher, he insinuates on more than one occasion that the grenade launcher was not loaded. He also claims that the spot report never mentioned that the man was wounded. O’Neill also gives the impression that the Viet Cong insurgent was practically an innocent child. O’Neill claims that Kerry’s political life has revolved around the events of February 28, 1969 and that Kerry has chastised his opponents for having less meritorious service. This is simply not true. Kerry has on occasion promoted his own military accomplishments. No one will deny this. But belittling his adversaries was not consistent with his principles. However, while having to defend his own military service, Kerry had often been the target of much chastisement and ridicule by members and allies of the Bush administration. How ironic this is, considering Bush’s AWOL National Guard service and Vice President Cheney’s five deferments! John Kerry’s courageous actions during Sealords Mission 270 were anything but ordinary, and to say that Kerry was only seeking personal glory in a secretly premeditated tactic is not only bogus, but an insult to the men he served with. Kerry’s initiative and tactical judgment resulted in a highly successful mission which resulted in no U.S. or Allied casualties. Per Kerry’s commanding officer George Elliott: “We were trying to pay tribute to Kerry and the others for going above and beyond the call of duty. The Silver Star is always a big deal.”3 The Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt was more than satisfied with Kerry’s actions, “The devastating result…in which PCF [Patrol Craft Fast] teamed with (regional forces) accounted for 10 KIA…[is] considered outstanding.”4 Contrary to

Boneheaded America

127

O’Neill’s misguided thought process, these are exactly the attributes expected of a commander in chief. But apparently we are better off with a Commanderin-Chief who will think nothing about risking the lives of thousands of U.S. troops in an illegal and unnecessary war for his own personal glory! Kerry’s actions were, in fact, reviewed through the appropriate channels which began with Elliott and ended with Zumwalt. O’Neill actually ignores the original citation signed off by Admiral Zumwalt by pretending that it never existed. The actions on that particular day, which Zumwalt reviewed, were also verified by William Rood, the commander of PCF-23. O’Neill makes no mention whatsoever of Rood, a key eyewitness to the events that occurred during the mission. Rood has confirmed that the spot report was accurate and complete. Also, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star on March 6, 1969, six days following the Sealords Mission, not two. Regarding the insurgent with the grenade launcher, O’Neill makes some rather ludicrous distortions. References are made on several occasions about a lone, wounded teen in a loincloth trying to flee. At least O’Neill did not make reference to a lone, crying toddler in a diaper trying to crawl away! To begin with, the man’s age was irrelevant. Are we supposed to conclude that an adolescent with a grenade launcher is somehow less threatening than an older adult with a grenade launcher? Some of the Viet Cong guerillas had fled from the area, but the man targeting Kerry and others were far from alone. There were numerous Viet Cong fighters still firing from behind the spider holes and from the opposite riverbank. The spot report, contrary to O’Neill’s argument, did state that the man had been wounded prior to Kerry’s pursuit. It also stated that he was running with a weapon to a better vantage point. Witnesses including Rood, Medeiros, and Charles Gibson also confirmed that the grenade launcher was in fact loaded. The apparel the man wore was typical Viet Cong fashion. And finally, a most critical point, the entry wound along the side of the man’s chest and the exit wound in his back verified that he was turning to fire the grenade launcher. He was not, as O’Neill contends, shot in the back! A disgrace to the U.S. Navy and member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann provided the opening quotation for the introduction to O’Neill and Corsi’s book. In it he states, “I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust-all absolute tenets of command.”5 Admiral Zumwalt awarded Kerry the Silver Star for his devotion to duty, courage under fire, outstanding leadership, and exemplary professionalism. Kerry displayed keen judgment in deciding not only how to confront the enemy, but in initiating when and where to beach the small flotilla to wage the assault. Evidence

128

Chapter Eight

that he was a trusted member of Coastal Division Eleven was displayed by the fact that he was assigned the duty of officer in tactical command. He was also entrusted with a new arrival for riparian indoctrination. His reliability was represented by establishing control along the river while anticipating a second ambush. Kerry’s loyalty can be seen in his ability to make sure his crew was fully trained and prepared for various scenarios that they might encounter. Sadly, while O’Neill, Hoffmann, and other Swift Boaters calculatingly vilify and mock John Kerry, they also dishonor all who served in Vietnam. Meanwhile, they enabled one George W. Bush to run roughshod across the globe while making a mockery of the American people! Here is just another quick follow-up on Kerry’s Silver Star. Kerry, per Admiral Zumwalt, was not originally going to be awarded the Silver Star. Wanting Kerry to be honored appropriately, Zumwalt considered awarding Kerry the Navy Cross. In order of precedence, the Silver Star is followed by only the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross. Zumwalt opted with the Star because it could be processed expeditiously, and therefore, quickly lift morale. Just something to ponder…how many of the tenets of command does George W. Bush live by? I rest my case! In the midst of the Vietnam War, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott praised Kerry’s conduct. During Kerry’s 1996 senate campaign, Elliott stated that “Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.”6 As recently as June of 2003, Elliott reaffirmed his admiration for Kerry, “I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that…It was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush…”7 In 2004, O’Neill and the Swift Boat Klan coerced Elliott into denigrating John Kerry. Elliott signed an affidavit which condemned Kerry’s actions in Vietnam and suggested that he did not deserve the Silver Star. He also participated in a lie-filled SBVT sponsored television ad in which he said, “John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.”8 About a week following the Democratic National Convention, Elliott grew a conscience and corrected himself. He stated that he regretted signing the affidavit and that Kerry did indeed deserve the Silver Star. An apologetic Elliott: “It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I’m the one in trouble here…I knew it was wrong…In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.”9 A mine along the Dong Cung Canal detonated beneath swift boat number three during a personnel transport mission just before Saint Patrick’s Day 1969. In addition to stalling the engines, the explosion lifted the small craft a few feet into the air before it plummeted back into the water. The shock waves knocked Army Lieutenant Jim Rassman overboard. He had been sit-

Boneheaded America

129

ting in the pilothouse aboard the tub that was directly behind PCF-3. Rassman swam deep into the cool waters to avoid the sniper fire that was coming from both banks. Kerry was in the lead boat during the explosion which threw him violently against the bulkhead door. When he heard shouts of “man overboard,” he looked over the stern and saw Rassman struggling to swim towards the flotilla. At this point, he was several yards behind the small fleet. As the boats made their way back to rescue him, Rassman swam directly towards Kerry’s craft. Kerry reached over the bow and pulled an exhausted Rassman into the boat. For his actions during that mission, Kerry received a Purple Heart, his third. He was also awarded the Bronze Star, although Rassman recommended him for the Silver Star. O’Neill claims that Kerry’s wounds were not worthy of a Purple Heart and his actions were nothing close to Bronze Star material. However, Kerry himself admitted that the shrapnel to his left buttock was due to an accident earlier in the day. The Purple Heart was awarded to him for the contusion to his right forearm. Although he did not suffer the loss of his entire arm, it was still due to enemy aggression! O’Neill makes reference to the spot report written by Kerry, but he fails to mention that there was enemy fire. Eyewitnesses including Rassman, Robert Lambert, and Del Sandusky have verified that there was a significant amount of enemy fire. Larry Thurlow also claimed that there was no enemy fire from the riverbanks. He himself had been awarded the Bronze Star and knew very well that there was enemy fire. It was a part of the narrative included in his citation! Thurlow claimed that his Bronze Star was only for assisting those aboard PCF-3. If that was actually the case, which it was not, then Kerry’s Star was also deserved for rescuing Rassman. Robert Lambert, Bronze Star recipient as well and not even close to being a “John Kerry fan,” stated that Thurlow may have been too distracted during the incident to notice. Lambert, during that time, was busy trying to suppress the enemy fire that O’Neill and the other swift boaters claim was not there. Alfred French and George Elliott admitted that they actually had no first hand knowledge of the events that day, but instead, relied on what other swift boaters had told them. Van O’Dell also acknowledged under questioning that he had no proof that Kerry lied in his spot report. Wayne Langhofer and Jim Russell, who were not on Kerry’s boat, have acknowledged that there was indeed enemy fire. All of this information is backed up by the bullet holes in the boats and the U.S. Navy task force. O’Neill’s fabrication that Kerry was “fleeing” the area was actually Kerry’s rescue of Rassman. Regarding Kerry’s service in Southeast Asia, O’Neill lays the claim that Kerry did not serve two tours in Vietnam. O’Neill does not consider Kerry’s service on the USS Gridley as an actual “tour in Vietnam.” He also implies

130

Chapter Eight

that Kerry’s executive officer, James Kelly, was in full agreement with the premise of Unfit for Command. O’Neill neglects to mention that Kelly was very impressed with Kerry and his men respected him a great deal. Kelly also acknowledged that Kerry’s overall duty was outstanding. He also admitted that Kerry was worthy of his decorations and put his own life at risk while serving in Vietnam. He also noted the confidence he had in Kerry’s intellectual and leadership abilities to be president of the United States. Regarding Kerry’s assignment in An Thoi, O’Neill claims that Kerry was constantly whining about not having volunteered to perform duty in such a dangerous area. The problem Kerry actually had was being transferred to Cat Lo shortly after arriving at An Thoi. He was simply frustrated with the sudden change in the operation order. Also, O’Neill claimed that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas 1968. According to James Wasser and William Zaldonis, they were in the river along the border of Cambodia and Vietnam. The left bank, per Wasser, was Cambodia and to the right of them were the shores of Vietnam. From the statements made by Wasser and Zaldonis, it would have been perfectly logical that they went through Chau Doc before cruising up the Hai Giang River which passes into Cambodia. When he makes insinuations regarding Kerry’s alleged “war crimes,” O’Neill cites William Franke, a man who did not even know Kerry in Vietnam. O’Neill’s objective here is to paint John Kerry as a cruel, erratic war criminal with no regard for human life. It was true that in January 1969, one of Kerry’s crew members had accidentally and inadvertently killed two noncombatants while on patrol one night. Kerry, as O’Neill might want us to believe, did not call for their execution. During that same incident, Kerry and his crew had also rescued two civilians. It is certainly worth mentioning that during the tragic event, it was pitch-black and the lights on their boat were not working properly. After Kerry had given his gunner orders to fire a warning shot, confusion ensued. This resulted in the firing of all guns on board. The late William Buckley, Jr. gave the commencement address at the United States Military Academy in June of 1971. Two months earlier, Kerry had given his notable testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War were targeted by Buckley throughout his speech to the newly commissioned officers. He also used the forum to promote his own ideology of cultural division. A hawk to say the least, Buckley was incensed when he learned that President Nixon was planning to go to China in efforts to end the war. Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War no doubt played a significant role in influencing Nixon’s decision. A tip of the cap goes to President Nixon on this one. Every day, Americans were dying on Vietnamese soil because of the high-level logistical support

Boneheaded America

131

provided by China. Kerry, during his foreign relations testimony, was not attempting to dishonor America’s armed forces as Unfit for Command claims. He was simply bringing facts to the forefront regarding an unjustified war. During an interview in August 2004, retired Army General Tommy Franks stated that the evidence verifies that Kerry knew what he was talking about. This has also been confirmed via some of these who actually served with Kerry including Eugene Thorson and Drew Whitlow. Both Kerry and O’Neill display considerably different ideologies. Kerry felt compelled to serve his country, and in doing so, he witnessed the realities of an unjust war. Upon returning home, he also felt a burning desire to assist in bringing an end to the war. He was sickened by the suffering and the unnecessary loss of lives. O’Neill, on the other hand, had a more simplistic view. He appealed to the hardcore military traditionalists who are bound by loyalty and protectionism despite the circumstances. In other words, America’s might makes us right! After all has been said and done, however, I can say with much confidence that I appreciate both John Kerry and John O’Neill’s service to our country. At the same time, however, I wanted to delve a little more into some of the discrepancies I observed while reading, Unfit for Command. I telephoned Mr. O’Neill at his law office in Houston in the spring of 2007 and asked him if I could send him a handful of questions via facsimile. Responding to my request in a generally polite manner with a relaxed tone of voice, Mr. O’Neill agreed to answer my questions. The following are the questions that I posed to Mr. O’Neill: Regarding the circumstances surrounding Kerry’s first Purple Heart; Why did you not mention that William Schachte witnessed the firefight during the incident? Schachte attested to this in a 2003 interview. Did you know that Schachte was lying when he said that he was on the same skimmer that Kerry was on? Why did Grant Hibbard approve Kerry’s Purple Heart if he questioned the circumstances involving Kerry’s injury? Regarding Kerry’s Purple Heart number two; did you know that Robert Hildreth was lying when he said there was no enemy fire? Eugene Thorson received a Purple Heart as well for the injuries he sustained during the firefight that Hildreth said was not there. Regarding the circumstances surrounding Kerry’s Silver Star; do you really think that Kerry’s actions (keen judgment in knowing where and when to confront the enemy, trustworthy attributes as seen in his commander’s eyes so as to appoint him OTC, reliability of establishing control along the river with anticipation of a potentially devastating second ambush, loyalty to his crew which he personally trained and kept abreast of the situation at all times, and the confidence Admiral Zumwalt had in his devotion to duty,

132

Chapter Eight

courage under fire, leadership skills, and exemplary display of professionalism) were unworthy attributes of a potential commander in chief? I wonder after noting his first term of failure, how many tenets of command George W. Bush displays! Why did you not make a reference to William Rood, who was an eyewitness to the events that led to Kerry’s Silver Star? Were you aware that witnesses Rood, Medeiros, and Charles Gibson knew that the grenade launcher carried by the Viet Cong insurgent was indeed loaded? Were you aware of the fact that Kerry shot and killed the Viet Cong insurgent in the side of the chest as he was turning to fire? Forensics noted that the round from Kerry’s M-16 exited from the man’s back. In other words…he was not shot in the back! What methods did you use to convince George Elliott and James Kelly (who admired and respected Kerry in Vietnam) that Kerry was unworthy to be president? Regarding Kerry’s third Purple Heart and Bronze Star; why did you not interview Robert Lambert, Del Sandusky, and James Rassman regarding their witness to the enemy fire coming from both riverbanks? Larry Thurlow received a Bronze Star during the same incident that Kerry received his Bronze Star, yet Thurlow insisted that there was no enemy fire. However, “enemy fire” was included in the narrative portion of Thurlow’s citation! Van O’Dell admitted that he had no proof that Kerry lied in his spot report…Jim Russell and Wayne Langhofer acknowledged that there was indeed enemy fire. Are you aware of the fact that William Franke did not even know John Kerry in Vietnam? And finally I must ask…How well do you know Karl Rove and how much of a role did he play in the origins of Unfit for Command? The response I received from Mr. O’Neill regarding my questions pertaining to portions of Unfit for Command was simply no response whatsoever. However, I was not ready to just give up and assume that he had no intention of answering my questions. Three days after I sent my questions to his office in Houston, I called Mr. O’Neill to see why he did not respond. Our phone conversation was very brief to say the least and his relaxed tone of voice was not evident as it had been during our first conversation. His opening statement was somewhat cordial, “I appreciate your thoughts and [obviously] you disagree with my thoughts.” As he continued on, his voice became more and more surly, “Your questions were not worth my time…William Schachte… was there on that boat…there was no enemy fire!” A week after speaking to Mr. O’Neill, I contacted Karl Rove’s office in the hope that he would tell me his role in the production of Unfit for Command. Mr. Rove did not respond. Accurate, informative, and entertaining, this book was primarily created to be cathartic. It allows my readers, as well as me, the opportunity to vent. I have outlined here the motives that account for the production of this book, emo-

Boneheaded America

133

tional and observational. Emotionally, I obviously felt deflated upon learning that Bush had won the 2004 election. My mind seemed to be overflowing with shock, disbelief, frustration, and anger. America had selected “Dubya” over John F. Kerry. “It must be a mistake,” I thought to myself. It was like a kick in the teeth. After failing domestically, internationally, legally, ethically, and morally, throughout his disastrous first term, the majority of the American people apparently decided that George W. Bush deserved a second term! Visual observations, literary research, and occasional encounters with Bush supporters also inspired me to write this book. The following story is just one example. Shortly before the 2004 election, I was driving through Springfield on my way home from work. It was a cold autumn afternoon, but the cool air was not nearly as cold as the encounter I was about to experience. As I was driving along, I noticed a small retail business on the east end of town. It looked like a friendly little “maw and paw” type of establishment. My curiosity compelled me to stop and have a look-see. I learned quickly that it was anything but friendly. The first item that caught my eye was a t-shirt hanging near the doorway. The second item I spotted was an NRA emblem on the glass countertop next to the cash register. Then my eyes scanned back to the t-shirt. Depicted on the front of the shirt were the horizontal blue, white, and red stripes of the French flag. The highlighted words under the flag read, “John Kerry for President…of France!” I immediately thought to myself, “How typically sleazebag Republican—the NRA emblem was bad enough!” Then I spotted the shop owner behind the counter. As I pointed to the French flag shirt, I asked him politely if he sold any items that were as equally unflattering to President Bush. Suddenly, a look came across his face as though I had just committed blasphemy. Then, as he began to reach for something under the counter, he uttered, “We do not have anything negative about our president…President George W. Bush, in this store!” Perhaps he was reaching for a rifle to exercise his Second Amendment rights. Not wanting to stick around and find out, I grabbed my car keys from my pocket and headed out the door. Driving throughout America’s Heartland, I inevitably caught brief glimpses of gut-wrenching Bush/Cheney 04 bumper stickers. I would think to myself, “I cannot believe these people are that stupid…were they in some sort of a vacuum during ‘Dubya’s’ first term? Do they not remember his multitude of failures and atrocities?” Similar thoughts would enter my mind upon noticing yard signs that demonstrated home owners’ loyalty to Bush’s imperialistic presidency. When the opportunity manifested itself, I would often confront Bush supporters. I had to find out what made these people tick. Why would anyone be foolish enough to support George W. Bush?

134

Chapter Eight

One morning on my way to work, I spotted a man fueling up his SUV that “proudly” displayed a “Dubya 04” on the back bumper. I was going to stop for a cup of coffee, anyway, so I figured it would be an ideal time to question the man. I asked him what was so appealing about George W. Bush. His reaction to me was priceless. The look on his face said, “How dare you to question my motive for supporting President Bush!” Unable to come up with an answer, he instead turned his back to me and remained silent. A woman at a local grocery store parking lot was getting out of her car when I questioned her. Her car was decorated with a variety of bumper stickers verifying her support for “Dubya.” I recall that her car was large, but not at all ostentatious. It looked fairly old and typical for someone of the working class. The only response she could muster was, “He has character.” Then, off she went to do her shopping. “He has character?” I thought…sure…George W. Bush has character and East Saint Louis, Illinois is the world’s number one vacation spot. The contents of this book have already revealed Bush’s “character,” so we certainly do not need to rehash that. The woman at the grocery store was either delusional or just plain stupid. Besides boasting about Bush’s morality, and I use the term loosely, many Bush loyalists claimed that “America is safer” if George W. Bush remains president. One individual in particular was on his way into the local mall when I asked him to fill me in regarding his devotion to Bush. The car that he had just gotten out of was, of course, adorned with the all too familiar Bush bumper sticker. He stopped abruptly, glared at me over the top of his wire rimmed glasses, and uttered, “Bush will keep us safe…national security!” We already covered how our former fearless leader has dropped the ball on national security, so we certainly do not need to go down that road again! None of the people I confronted could point to any Bush accomplishments. None of these people dared to mention things like the war in Iraq, the economy, or social issues. Noticing all of the Bush promotional garbage was enough to gag a maggot. It seemed as though the entire country was pulling for Bush to retain the White House, but in addition to much of the general public, the media was doing their part to promote the Bush and Cheney team as well. It was a barrage that came from numerous directions: radio talk show hosts, television talk show hosts, televangelists, columnists, various news outlets, you name it. Like cockroaches at a cheap motel, they were everywhere you turned. They dominated the airways day and night. The radio alone was saturated with conservative slime. Some of the most prominent conservative creeps, just to name a few, included Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Gordon Liddy, Alan Keyes, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Ken Hamblin, David Horowitz, Roger Hedgecock, Oliver North, Laura Ingraham,

Boneheaded America

135

and of course, Lars Larson. Certainly there are more, but this is a good sample that verifies my point. With the exception of WMAY’s Jim Leach, even the local talk shows were on the conservative bandwagon. Most of my encounters with the general public all shared one common element, that would be, conservatives do not receive enough air time on radio and television. Despite the many times I have heard this, it still catches me off guard a little. It also reminds me of the pot calling the kettle black. We already touched on how much conservatives are “oppressed” via the radio medium. Now, let us take a brief look at some of the slime that currently, or at one time or another, hosted their own television talk shows. Some of these also perform double duty by hosting their own radio talk shows: Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Laura Schlessinger, Tucker Carlson, and Glenn Beck. Conservatives are not on radio and television enough? Who are they trying to kid? Although many could certainly use a good kick in the pants, bashing televangelists is not the primary purpose of this section. I have always had a great deal of respect for people of faith. I appreciate their devotion to God and their efforts to spread His Word. I do however have a bone to pick with some televangelists and various other members of the clergy. Specifically, my problem is with those that promoted President Bush’s agenda of bigotry, hate, and intolerance. Hypocrites such as the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, and Ted Haggard quickly jump to the forefront of my mind. One Sunday morning shortly before the 2004 election, I tuned in to a local channel “Gospel Hour.” I figured I could absorb a few inspirational tidbits as I was getting ready for church. As I was walking out of the bathroom, I thought that maybe one of my cats had stepped on the remote and changed the channel. It sounded like we were suddenly tuned into “Comedy Central.” I do not recall his name or affiliation, but as I was headed towards the television, I listened to the minister ranting and raving about George W. Bush’s “morality, character, and leadership.” As I approached the TV, my jaw dropped as he continued on about how important it was that America “re-elect” Bush. At first I thought perhaps it was some sort of misguided joke. I was fuming so much I remember, it took me three attempts to dial their “Prayer Line” number to give them a piece of my mind. I had to ask them why they were endorsing Bush’s immoral, incompetent, and arrogant presidency. The woman I spoke to responded only with, “We will pray for you.” I said, “Better yet…I will pray for you!” Meanwhile, conservative columnists were busy spewing out their propaganda in magazines and newspapers throughout the country. When they were

136

Chapter Eight

not praising “Saint George” or bashing John Kerry and John Edwards, they were whining about all of the “liberal media bias.” The authors of several books in many cases, these disciples of hate included such notables as Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, Rich Lowry, William Buckley, Jr., Tony Blankley, Phyllis Schlafly, George Will, and David Limbaugh. Let me take a moment here and compose myself…there are plenty more… Bernard Goldberg, Brent Bozell, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer, Maggie Gallagher, Michelle Malkin, Armstrong Williams, Bill Bennett, Mary Katharine Ham, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. It would almost be sacrilege to leave out Matt Drudge and The Beltway Boys featuring Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke. There are many more, but I will leave it at these and hopefully my nausea will go away soon. All I can say now is thank goodness there are at least “a few” RightWing columnists out there to stand up against the liberals and be a voice for the conservative viewpoint! Television media outlets were dutifully onboard the Bush bandwagon as well. This was especially evident with Rupert Murdoch’s impeccably “fair” and always “balanced” Fox News Channel. The Fox line-up included a host of flag-waving Bush-worshipping warmongers featuring Brit Hume, John Gibson, Bill Kristol, Neil Cavuto, Tony Snow, Brian Kilmeade, Steve Doocey, E.D. Hill, and the Fox News Sunday mouthpiece, Chris Wallace. In short, if you were seeking objective journalism, you would have been sadly disappointed. But if you were looking for patriotic-laced opinions and sermons, Fox News would have more than adequately fulfilled your needs. Irena Briganti’s unprofessional and irrational thought process confirms the Fox mentality, “Given the choice, it’s better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al Qaeda.”10 Let us also not forget some Right-Wing strategists and political analysts such as Tucker Bounds, Danny Diaz and Kevin Madden. A few local media personalities were also doing their part to promote the Republican agenda. WMAY talk show host Don “One-Eyed Jack” Jackson and WICS TV’s Mark Hyman were two of the most vocal. Everyday, central Illinois could begin as well as end their day with a healthy dose of RightWing propaganda. A gun fanatic and fireworks merchant with a passion for violence, Jackson would kick off each morning with the popular One-Eyed Jack Show. Jackson, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, usually picked topics that centered on guns and how fortunate America was to have George W. Bush as our president. Not as colorful as “One-Eye,” Hyman was commissioned as a hit man for the conservative NBC affiliate Sinclair Broadcasting. He presented nightly commentaries following each evening’s local news broadcasts. Stone-faced

Boneheaded America

137

and composed at all times, Hyman’s mission was twofold; bash liberals and defend Bush’s policy of the day. I think at this point it is worth mentioning again…it seemed as though the entire country was pulling for Bush to retain the White House! I always use quotation marks for the words “re-elect,” “re-elected,” and “re-election,” when I refer to Bush’s 2004 victory. This of course is because he was not elected in 2000. He was appointed by the United States Supreme Court. But he was, in fact, elected president in 2004. Why? What compelled America to send this incompetent and reckless administration back for another four years? Before I reveal the one and only cause for Bush’s “re-election,” let me provide some of the reasons that the pundits came up with. As I debunk each one of them, the answer will become evident as to why Bush won and how he pulled it off. Voters pulled the lever for Bush because John Kerry was a first-rate flipflopper who would have done anything to be president. This hypothesis might have some credibility if it was true. To begin with, John Kerry is not the only politician to change his mind on a complex issue. Secondly, if we compare Kerry and Bush by using a “flip-flop-o-meter,” George W. Bush takes the prize. In fact, “Dubya” flip-flopped more during his first term as president than Kerry did in twenty years in the Senate. Let us take a moment and look at a few of Bush’s blatant flip-flops. Just a week after the September 2001 attacks, Bush vowed to capture Osama bin Laden…dead or alive. In March 2002 he said that bin Laden was not important and his capture was no longer a priority. The media and the public afforded Bush every opportunity to change his mind yet Kerry was branded a “confused, out of control, flip-flopper” who would turn America over to the terrorists. Also in March 2002, Bush insisted that a Homeland Security Department was unnecessary because it would contribute nothing to the war on terror. Three months later he claimed that a Department of Homeland Security was vital in order to protect the American people. In May 2003 Bush said we had found Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In September 2003 he said we did not find Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In the spring of 2004, the war on terror was winnable. On August 30, 2004, Bush said the war on terror was unwinnable. The next day it was winnable again. Bush claimed to support the military, and then proceeded to slash defense funds. Bush said we must not aid terrorists, and then he lifted trade sanctions on Pakistan. Pakistan then sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. And this was our national security guy who would protect us from the terrorists? Bush claimed that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were one in the same, and then claimed there was no evidence that Hussein was involved in the

138

Chapter Eight

Nine-eleven attacks. Bush opposed the establishment of an independent NineEleven Commission. After considering the potential political ramifications of that decision, he decided to support it. He also prohibited members of the Ba’ath Party to participate in the new Iraqi government. Shortly thereafter he turned a hundred eighty degrees and rescinded that decree. Right about now I feel like a scorecard might be in order to help me keep track of President FlipFlop. Hang in there. I just want to touch on a few more. Nation building, Bush was adamantly against, then became the architect of the largest nation building scheme since World War II. He opposed campaign finance reform, and then supported it. He said he was pro-choice before opposing a woman’s right to choose. Bush promised to force OPEC to lower prices, and then refused to lobby OPEC leaders. Bush supported the assault weapons ban, then later he was against it. He promised not to raid Social Security, and then diverted more than one trillion dollars in Social Security funds for other purposes including, tax breaks for the wealthy. Bush was a proponent for immigration reform, and then he was against it. So I guess we could say he voted for immigration reform before he voted against it! Now that we have dispelled the Kerry flip-flopper myth, let us look at some of the other “explanations” that led to Bush’s victory. Bush and his Republican cronies painted Kerry as a ruthless, out of control, flip-flopping traitor who would do anything to be president. Unfortunately, many Americans bought into this crap as well. Kerry would do anything to be president? Was it not President Bush who lied in order to take us to war? Even Bush knew full well that every president in U.S. history who was seeking re-election during a war, won. It was George W. Bush who sent our troops needlessly into harm’s way in order to get “re-elected,” not John Kerry. The real trifecta for Bush involved invading Iraq in order to a) avenge Saddam Hussein, b) control the Iraqi oil, and c) assure his own “re-election.” How utterly ironic it is that “Dubya” was the one who was playing the morality card! There were other “reasons” that contributed to Bush’s “stunning win” besides Kerry’s so-called reputation as an immoral terrorist sympathizing flip-flopper. Kerry was also considered an untrustworthy, over-intelligent, know-it-all who could not deliver a clear message or theme. Unlike “Dubya,” Kerry did not have that wholesome “down to Earth-manly-regular guy” persona which apparently energizes many. Kerry’s supposedly clumsy campaign was highlighted by his poor VP selection and a multitude of unfair negative ads directed at President Bush. Poor George…everybody is always picking on him! At this juncture, we have reached the culminating point of Blood on Their Hands. This is where I will reveal the one and only reason for which George W. Bush was granted a second term. Although they may make for good

Boneheaded America

139

conversation around the water cooler, the so-called explanations I debunked previously had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush’s “re-election.” I think I will let George give me a hand with this. George, I was pleased to learn during our brief conversation, is a former Bush supporter. It was in the spring of 2007. I was taking my usual route to work which included a quick stop to get fuel and some “go juice.” A large cup of cappuccino always kicks off the day nicely. As I pulled into the service station, I caught a glimpse of “Bush/Cheney ‘04” on the back window of a shiny red compact. My heart sank as it always does whenever I notice one of these vile bumper stickers. As I often do, I felt the need to confront the driver of the car. Fuel and cappuccino aside, I waited patiently nearby for the driver to return. I guess you could call me a “bumper sticker stalker!” “Excuse me,” I said politely as the driver approached. “My name is Forrest Redd…” “Well…I’m George…what can I do for you?” he responded cordially with an inquisitive look. As I was pointing at his back window I said, “Would you tell me about…” Oh yeah,” he interrupted. “That. Well…I…uh…” I jumped in as he was pulling a pack of smokes from his shirt pocket, “Are you proud of this? Don’t you feel…?” Then George jumped in, “Dumb…stupid…a little shame to be honest with you…” Bingo! Tell him what he won, Johnny! George got it right! George W. Bush was given four more years in the Oval Office to continue to drive America into the ground because of America’s stupid, deranged, and masochistic voters. The ’04 election results had nothing to do with John Kerry’s so-called stuffy, intellectual, know-it-all demeanor. “Re-electing” George W. Bush was without question the ultimate atrocity in the history of American politics. Members of the fifty-one percent club that handed Bush his “mandate” can also share in the innocent blood he has spilled. I am not an investigative reporter nor have I taken any courses in journalism. But even I was able to easily witness the failures, the lies, and the propaganda that defined George W. Bush’s tragic first term! “John Kerry wants to ban the Bible! He wants a bill to be passed allowing gay couples to marry! He even suggested eliminating the military!” This is the kind of shameless rhetoric that flowed consistently out of the Bush Camp during the ’04 campaign. Repeat the message again and again and again. The “liberal” media will have a field day with it and the general public will more than likely sign on to it. Foolish Americans, too lazy too think for themselves, will eat it up. A quote I ventured upon by Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels is eerily similar to the Bush administration’s game plan, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”11 The numbers were astonishing evidence of how gullible, stupid and narrow-minded most Americans are. Voters viewed Bush more favorably than

140

Chapter Eight

Kerry regarding; honesty (70%), religious sincerity (91%), morality (80%), clear stand on the issues (79%), taxes (57%), and ability to fight terrorism (86%). Voters felt that the Kerry campaign ran too many negative ads about Bush. How about we look at these numbers? During the campaign, Bush ran 49,050 negative ads, Kerry piled up a whopping 13,336 negative ads. Many felt that Kerry was too intellectual. Have an intelligent president? Hey, that’s a novel idea! Some voters were under the impression that Kerry could not communicate his message effectively. No, they were too stupid and lazy to listen to and analyze his message. Kerry, many thought, picked a bad running mate. Please people, get real. Do you really want me to go there? Was not Bush’s running mate a five-time deferred, corporate con artist, and war criminal? Enough said! Kerry was also thought to have radical ideas which were not good for the country. Like supporting and defending the Constitution and using the military appropriately! Please forgive me, but I simply cannot resist. Welcome Alex Trebek as we peek in on a portion of Jeopardy! “This ‘Buckeye State’ lost over 200,000 jobs during “Dubya’s” first term, but still felt Bush could handle the economy better than John Kerry.” What is Ohio?” “Good…select again.” “Thanks Alex, I’ll take ‘American Tragedies’ for $100.” “The answer is…He consistently butchers the English language while living among us in this, the nuclear age…or shall we say…’New-Q-Ler’ age.” “Brian…” “Who is George W. Bush?” “Correct…Go again Brian.” “Tragedies for $200.” “The answer is…He claimed that the pundits ‘misunderestimated’ him.” “Brian…” “Who is George W. Bush?” “Yes…Brian…pick again.” “Tragedies $300.” “The answer is…When he threw darts at a map of the world one of them landed on Iraq. Canadians everywhere are grateful that none landed on our neighbors to the north or he might have launched a preemptive attack on Montreal!” “Rick…” “Who is George W. Bush?” “Right!” “Pick again.” “Thanks Alex, I’ll stay with tragedies for $400.” “He was the mastermind behind the Nineeleven attacks.” “Brian…” “Who is Saddam Hussein?” “No, sorry…Rick.” “Who is Mohammed Atta?” “No…Daniel.” “Who is Dustin Hoffman?” “Oh no…bin Laden…bin Laden…who is Osama bin Laden? But all good guesses, because if George W. Bush would have told the American people that it was Dustin Hoffman…well…probably half the country would have believed him!” “OK, Rick…you had the last correct response…” “I’ll finish off ‘American Tragedies’ $500.” “White House officials including Karl Rove were counting on these…in order for George W. Bush to be ‘re-elected.’ President.” “Brian…” “What are the gullible stupid American people?” “Correct…nice job!” Hey, I am not going to take all the credit for this Jeopardy skit. I recently finished reading an excellent book by the talented author, Al Franken, so maybe a little of his satire just rubbed off on me!

Boneheaded America

141

Numerous times, George W. Bush blatantly slapped America in the face. But the ultimate slap in the face came when his nightmarish first term was winding down and he told a group of reporters that he could not recall making even one single mistake. Former WMAY conservative talk show host Pamela Furr would no doubt concur with Bush’s sentiment. I was listening to her nine to noon segment one day as I was cruising down the highway. Her topic that particular day was “America’s greatest presidents.” When she got to America’s fifth greatest commander in chief…can you guess who she picked? I almost wrecked the car before I managed to veer back onto the road! Another time more recently, Furr was using her show as a forum to bash U.S. Senator Barrack Obama. I had to call in and remind her that although Senator Obama might be inexperienced, he is ten times the man George W. Bush is! I also reminded her about “number five’s” numerous failures and atrocities including his status as a bona fide war criminal. “War criminal?” she vehemently responded, “name one.” “Give me your fax number,” I countered, “I’ll send you a list!” The fax I sent Miss Pamela enclosing George W. Bush’s war crimes include, but are not limited to the following: Knowingly and willfully lied to Congress and the American people regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (Title 18 United States Code Section 1001), Declared preemptive war against Iraq without justification (Violation of the Geneva Convention), Violation of the Geneva Convention (US Military Code on War Crimes Section 2441), Violation of the 1996 War Crimes Act to include conspiring to commit torture (Title 18 United States Code Section 2340) and committing acts contrary to the Geneva Convention regarding detention and treatment of prisoners including the use of torture (Title 18 United States Code Section 113C). An eerie reminder of the German SS, is the paramilitary mercenary group Blackwater USA. Founded by former Navy Seal and so-called Christian Erik Prince, Blackwater had been hired by the Bush administration as a supplement to add “shock and awe” to George W. Bush’s bloodbath in Iraq. Beyond the arm of the law and the reach of legitimate authority, Blackwater has been given free reign to unleash indiscriminate and wanton violence throughout Iraq. One thing for sure, George W. Bush is not responsible for the fact that he was a two-term president. He may be guilty of various high crimes and misdemeanors that deserved impeachment and imprisonment, but he is certainly not at fault for being “re-elected.” Those responsible for this atrocity are the dimwitted members of the fifty-one percent club—stupid American voters. As my friends Sue Ellen Kunz and Mindy Waller would say, “You can’t fix stupid.” Sadly as well as ironically, the big loser of the ’04 election was not John Kerry; it was us…the American people!

142

Chapter Eight

NOTES 1. Santayana, George. The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress (Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York, New York. 1905) p. 82. 2. Brinkley, Douglas. Tour of Duty (Harper Collins Publishers. New York, New York. 2004) pp. 294-295. 3. Ibid. p. 294. 4. Kranish, Michael, Brian C. Mooney, and Nina J. Easton. John F. Kerry (Public Affairs. New York, New York. 2004) p. 104. 5. O’Neill, John E. and Jerome R. Corsi. Unfit for Command (Regnery Publishing. Washington, District of Columbia. 2004) p. 3. 6. Kranish, Michael. “Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry.” The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004: A1. 7. Kranish, Michael. “Heroism and Growing Concern about War.” The Boston Globe, 16 June 2003: A1. 8. Kranish, Michael. “Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry.” The Boston Globe, 6 A ugust 2004: A1. 9. Ibid. 10. Johnson, Peter. Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship USA Today, 14 September 2003. 11. Goodman, Amy. The Exception to the Rulers (Hyperion. New York, New York. 2004) p. 251.

Chapter Nine

The Perfect Scapegoat

Imagine for a moment that you have been in a job for the last four years that you are emotionally and intellectually incapable of performing. In that time you have piled up one failure after another and left a mess that your employer will never recover from. You have broken the law, violated company policy, piddled away funds, and made a mockery of the entire company. Your numerous lies have adversely affected many. Your poor decisions have cost people their lives. You swagger about sporting an attitude of arrogance and contempt. Those who have questioned your authority are always met with resistance. A flippant remark of some sort is normally your response to those you have hurt. Confrontations often conclude with an offhanded comment you believe to be clever along with one of your trademark smirks. However, you have a couple things going for you. Those in the public relations department support you and mistake your stubbornness and recklessness for strength. You also dress appropriately for the position you hold. As your contract with the firm is winding down, you have the audacity to go to your employer and ask that your contract be extended for another four years. As crazy as that sounds, your employer says “yes!” This scenario should sound sickeningly all too familiar. It neatly mirrors President Bush’s good fortune. Bush’s employer, we, the American people apparently felt some sort of perverse desire to renew his contract. Bush then demonstrated his gratitude to us by twisting the knife that he had already plunged into our backs during his first term. The president’s first term featuring corruption and incompetence rolled over into his second term without skipping a beat. The Bush administration’s deceitful, manipulative, and immoral conduct spread like wildfire. Bush’s stupid and stubborn “stay the course” strategy for Iraq continued to result in the deaths of dozens of U.S. troops on a monthly basis. 143

144

Chapter Nine

I guess we have come to the part where I scoot my chair away from my computer, shake my head in disgust and say, “I told you so America!” What did you Bush supporters think was going to happen during “Dubya’s” second term? Did you think he was suddenly going to acquire some morality? Did you think he was going to magically grow a backbone and display some leadership? I just worked myself up into a frenzy…I am hyperventilating right now! Stupid masochistic Americans made their bed, but unfortunately, all of us had to sleep in it. America had spoken. The clear message was quite simply, “We want more of the same, we want more heartache, please rub our noses in it. We want Bush and the Republicans to continue to drive our country into the ground. Although President Bush’s actions display the contrary, we believe that he is indeed, ‘a man of God,’ because that’s what we have been told by the talking heads. In spite of Bush’s lack of strength and his inability to lead, we believe that he is best suited to protect us from the terrorists, because that’s what we have been told by Right-Wing propaganda artists such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh,, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly.” George W. Bush’s second term was much like his first…failures, atrocities, lies, needless bloodshed, and no exit strategy for Iraq. From Hurricane Katrina to the quagmire in Iraq, President Bush’s pathetic portfolio was packed full of failures. Not only was the Bush administration ill-prepared for the hurricane that ravaged the Gulf Coast in August 2005, but it was clueless regarding how to respond to the storm’s aftermath. The day before Katrina struck; Bush erroneously announced that all preparations were in place. Then following the devastation that claimed over fifteen hundred lives, displaced thousands, and cost tens of millions in damage, Bush insisted that no one had anticipated the breach of the levees. This was in fact, not true. Bush, his Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown, and newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had been warned about the condition of the levees via experts at the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center and by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. The Bush administration’s lack of initiative and lukewarm response to the disaster was clearly evident. Now, more than two years later, areas along the Gulf Coast including several parts of the Big Easy have not only been without assistance, but they have gotten worse. Two primary factors contributed to this, the residual affects of Katrina such as contamination and erosion of the health sector and lack of federal funding. Early in 2006, President George W. “Tough on Terrorism” Bush endorsed the takeover of six of America’s major seaports. The deal, which was secured in March, gave the United Arab Emirates’ state-controlled Dubai Ports World total control of U.S. ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York, and Philadelphia. Shortly thereafter, however, after public and Congressional pressure, Dubai sold their American seaport operations to U.S. based

The Perfect Scapegoat

145

American International Group. One of three countries in the world that recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the United Arab Emirates was also the home of two of the Nine-eleven hijackers. The UAE was also a primary financial transfer point for al Qaeda as well as a logistical transfer site for shipments of nuclear components to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. President Bush’s reauthorization of the Patriot Act included of course, provisions that allow him to exercise executive privilege. In regards to illegal wiretapping for example, Bush claimed that despite the requirements of the law, his wartime powers granted him special status to ignore the warrant law. Whether or not we are at war, no one including the president is above the law. Bypassing the use of warrants to intercept and monitor international phone calls is a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment. Suddenly a quote once attributed to Benjamin Franklin comes to mind, “Those who would sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither.” On immigration reform, even some members of President Bush’s own party have voiced harsh criticism. The Bush plan allows illegal immigrants to have “guest worker” status via a three year work visa. One of the problems with this “amnesty,” as some have called it, is that it absolves immigrants from having to take the necessary steps to legalize his or her status. Bush also enabled the corporate world by not imposing sanctions on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. On NBC’s Today Show, March 29, 2006, co-host Matt Lauer was discussing President Bush’s difficult and rough going 2005 with Republican strategist Mary Matalin. After speaking about the “progress” Bush made during his first term, Matalin went on to declare, “We have a robust economy that’s recovering.”1 That sounds like typical Republican spin. It also makes no sense whatsoever when you think about it. If the economy is so “robust,” why does it need to recover? Let us take a brief look at this “robust” economy. From the day Bush first took the Oath of Office until just before the 2006 mid-term elections, jobs in the following industries were reduced by some rather substantial percentages: apparel manufacturing-50%, textiles-43%, communications equipment-43%, electronic components-37%, computers-30%, electronics and appliances25%, telecommunications-25%, paper products-20%, furniture-17%, and motor vehicles and parts-12%. Unemployment was at around nine percent. Bush took us from the largest surplus ever to the largest deficit ever. Offshore outsourcing and production reduces U.S. export capability and this also contributed to Bush’s “robust” economy. At one point during “Dubya’s” second term, television talk show host Chris Matthews commented that President Bush was loosing his credibility. Matt Lauer wondered what Bush needed to do to get back on track. Republican strategist turned political analyst Patrick Buchanan felt as though the

146

Chapter Nine

president was not getting the support he needed. Losing his credibility? Get back on track? Not enough support? I am scratching my head. When was Bush ever credible? When was he ever “on track?” As far as support, Bush enjoyed more than he deserved. Forty percent approval rating is a healthy amount of support for a war criminal who desecrated the Constitution, broke federal and international laws, and summoned thousands of U.S. troops to die in vain for an unjust war. As the mid-term elections were inching closer, the president spent much of his time at black tie fundraisers. In the interim, he continued to trample America via his domestic agenda. Bush continued his push to “overhaul” Social Security, deny gay people rights, and divide the country with erroneous statements about an ongoing war against people of faith. I vividly remember watching him smirk as he signed the repeal of Habeas Corpus to deny people their due process. He reduced Medicare and funds earmarked for Katrina to pay for his war, fought hard against reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, and solved the problem of rising fuel costs with suggestions such as, “Don’t buy fuel unless you need it!” He also assisted in easing one woman’s burden by telling her that her struggling to make ends meet via three jobs was “uniquely American.” Thank you Mr. President for all your help! Mired in a shameful array of indictments, resignations, appointments, and poor policy decisions, the Bush White House was in a virtual tail spin. Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury on five charges related to leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements, and two counts of perjury. Others that were under investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald included Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General John Ashcroft who had resigned earlier due to health problems, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and Bush senior advisor Karl Rove. House majority leader Tom Delay was indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. Secretary of State Colin Powell had warned Bush about the dangers of Iraq in which the insurgency was growing, sectarian bloodshed was mounting, and our troops had been placed in a no-win situation. He stressed that the elections in Iraq would not solve the problem. Powell also boldly reminded the president that the dysfunction and division within his own administration was affecting his ability to act as a decisive commander in chief. Shortly following their informal meeting, Bush, citing only that he wanted “a change” asked for Powell’s resignation. Suddenly Secretary Powell had become one of those war critics that would not be tolerated. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge resigned because of “personal matters,” but there was some speculation that he was also frustrated with the

The Perfect Scapegoat

147

Bush administration’s financial support for homeland security. FEMA Director Michael Brown resigned in disgrace because of his bungled response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster. U.S. District Judge James Robertson resigned in protest of Bush’s unauthorized domestic spying program. Commerce Secretary Don Evans also abandoned ship due to his displeasure with the Bush administration’s tactics, and National Park Service Director Fran Mainella resigned in frustration because the Bush administration was pushing for more recreation and less conservation at our national parks. Bush’s long time confidant Condoleezza Rice was selected to replace Powell as Secretary of State; a move that some questioned due to her lack of experience. But questioning any of Bush’s decisions was of course considered taboo. Big mouths Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh claimed that Democrats questioning Bush’s appointments of Rice as well as Alberto Gonzales were “racists.” Those in the Hannity and Limbaugh circles consider anyone who questions their beloved “Dubya” to be racist or anti-American. After considering former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, Bush appointed federal appeals judge Michael Chertoff to head the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik withdrew himself as a nominee due to some controversy regarding his background. Iraq War hawk Paul Wolfowitz took the helm at World Bank Group despite opposition from some including Nobel Prize winner and former chief economist Joseph Stiglitz. Upon the resignation of the esteemed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, Bush appointed federal appeals judge John Roberts to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court. Known for his disdain for the United Nations, Bush selected of all people, John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The president took it upon himself to bypass Congress with his appointment and then he accused them of using tactics to delay the vote. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff appointed Coast Guard Vice Admiral Thad Allen to the top spot at FEMA replacing the beleaguered Michael Brown. John Roberts moved up to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of William Rehnquist. Bush then appointed his pal and former Texas lottery commissioner Harriet Miers to fill the new vacancy. Another embarrassing appointment by Bush, Miers had no experience in judicial proceedings or constitutional law. Bush then looked to Samuel Alito who was later confirmed to fill the Supreme Court’s vacancy. A wacko Right-Wing nut job to say the least, Judge Alito supported Bush’s domestic spying, argued that a federal ban on machine guns violated the Constitution’s commerce clause, and supported the strip search of a ten year old girl who had not committed a crime. An unnecessary as well as an illegal venture, the war in Iraq was a colossal failure. Looking at ideological factors, strategy, and implementation, it was the Bush administration’s greatest atrocity. The war, Bush’s secret “enhanced

148

Chapter Nine

interrogation” facilities, and the murder of civilians in Haditha and Mahmudiyah at the hands of U.S. servicemen, are an insult to democracy and all that America is supposed to stand for. The majority of the U.S. troops in Iraq however have served heroically and represented the best of America. Nothing even remotely close to that could be said about George W. Bush. This is what you voted for America; arrogance, incompetence, and a misguided sense of reality. In March 2003, just before the preemptive attack on Iraq, Bush told televangelist Pat Robertson, “We’re not going to have any casualties.”2 It’s no wonder that “Dubya” considered catching a big fish off the coast of Kennebunkport, Maine in June of 2003 as his best moment as president. That sounds about right! Seriously, I am not making this up. In the spring of 2006, Bush told the German newspaper, Bild am Sonntag that his finest hour since taking Office was when he caught a seven and a half pound perch while vacationing at the Bush family estate. In a desperate attempt to maintain their hold on Congress, Bush and Company invited various talk show hosts to meet at the White House to discuss a strategy for the mid-term election. Less than a half a dozen accepted the president’s invite. The “filthy five” that were in attendance included Neal Boortz, Mike Gallagher, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Medved. Among other talking points, Bush told his guests that the war on terror must be presented to their listening audiences as “right versus wrong.” If the war on terror was perceived as “Christianity versus Islam,” Republicans were screwed. Meanwhile, as the blood of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children was dripping off of his cold slimy hands, “Dubya” presumptuously continued to criticize opponents of the war. By this point, just days before the election, Bush’s mantra, “stay the course” had become old hat. Everyone including once-proud Bush supporters were getting tired of hearing it. Bush’s new plan regarding his same tiresome line was to dupe the American public. In a response to George Stephanopoulos’ comment regarding the “stay the course” strategy for Iraq via ABC’s This Week, Bush stated, “We’ve never been ‘stay the course,’ George.”3 Please…give me a break. Just how stupid did he think the American people were? Well, hang on a second; perhaps Bush was well aware of just how stupid the American people were. After all, they not only bought into everything else he uttered over the years, they renewed his lease at the White House in 2004! By the time Election Day arrived, nearly three thousand U.S. troops, over twenty-five hundred coalition service members, and over a half a million Iraqi civilians had been killed. Most polls were showing that Bush’s approval rating had dipped to around thirty-three percent. While Bush was more concerned with his legacy than the American people, many GOP Congressional members were hoping that they had distanced themselves enough from the president to

The Perfect Scapegoat

149

retain their seats. Long ago the Iraq War had become not only Bush’s albatross, but a referendum on his presidency. “Not too worry Mr. President, don’t forget how gullible the American voters are!” I can imagine Karl Rove now blabbing these very words as he plants his hind end into one of the Oval Office’s large leather chairs while fiddling with his Blackberry, “…and besides, we have always been successful at utilizing the perfect scapegoat…the media. Blaming the media for all our troubles has always worked in the past…so relax George…forget those silly little poll numbers, we’ll be fine.” If I received five dollars every time I have read about or listened to conservatives whining about the “liberal” media I could probably buy a yacht…a large one! Let us not kid ourselves; the media has long been a whipping boy for the Republicans. And as such, the media is the Bush administration’s perfect scapegoat. If they do not promote Bush’s agenda or fail to report the “good news” coming out of Iraq, the media is conveniently labeled “biased.” One of Bush’s campaign themes in ’04 was taking “personal responsibility,” yet every time the administration and the GOP look for an escape route for their troubles they point to the media. Stupid Americans have bought into this time and time again. Bush and his henchmen have on more than one occasion been known to scold various media outlets for their coverage of the war. Laura Bush has also joined in on the fray. The First Lady has claimed that the failures in Iraq are not because of her husband’s leadership, planning, or execution of the war. It is, she has insisted, the media’s fault. She has argued that all the wonderful “progress” in Iraq is not being reported, and therefore, the war efforts have been impeded by the “liberal” media. How about this for a spin? Right-Wing columnist Rich Lowry has claimed that because the media was so rough on Bush, the president was forced to act irresponsibly, and therefore, this cost U.S. troops their lives and tainted America’s reputation. Despite pleas from the Right, Election Day would belong to the Democrats. Apparently, even a few “intellectually challenged” Americans came to, got on board, and declared, “We’ve had enough!” It was an historic day in which the Democrats were elected the majority in both chambers of Congress and Nancy Pelosi would become the nation’s first woman Speaker of the House. Nevada’s own soft-spoken Harry Reid was chosen to replace Bill Frist as the new Senate Majority leader. The GOP suffered a net loss of twenty-two representatives and six senators. Some of the most prominent bad blood that Congress was fortunate to be rid of included Senators Rick Santorum, Jim Talent, and George Allen. Just days before the election, GOP faithful, including loud mouth Sean Hannity, were spewing out their usual nonsense by making pronouncements that the voters would prove the “liberal” media wrong. This is a good example

150

Chapter Nine

of GOP logic and spin. Quite simply, it worked like this; the media reported poll numbers that demonstrated a bleak outlook for Bush and the Republicans. The media also covered the reality in Iraq. Now, spin this around in a mixer for awhile, pour it into a bowl, and lo and behold, you have media bias. It has been a fool-proof recipe for the conservatives for a long time now! The day following the election, as Republicans were licking their wounds, the beleaguered and embattled Donald Rumsfeld was booted from his top spot at the Pentagon. For several months, military officials and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had been calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Former CIA director and Texas A & M University President Robert Gates was preparing to step in as the nation’s new secretary of defense. President Bush had already discussed his plan with Gates just two days prior to the election. The resident’s final decision to nominate Gates, however, was dependent upon how the Republicans would do in the election. The official White House position stated that “new leadership” with a “new direction” was all that was needed at the Pentagon. The actual reasons that led to Rumsfeld’s demise were traits that he shares with the president and vice president; lack of leadership, the handling of the war, and incompetence. Rumsfeld’s situation was pretty pathetic when you think about it; someone could actually be too incompetent to work for George W. Bush! Or perhaps Rumsfeld’s long overdue resignation had nothing to do with his competence at all. Maybe it was another case where the “liberal” media was picking on him too much and therefore he was forced to act irresponsibly! The passing of former President Gerald Ford marked the end of another tragic year under King George’s rule. Four days following the death of President Ford, deposed dictator Saddam Hussein was executed for the murder of countless numbers of his own people. Although Hussein was no longer a factor, America was not the least bit safer. Hussein’s execution did however provide the Bush administration with a symbolic victory of sorts. As well, loyal supporters of the president desperate to point to some kind of Bush achievement claimed that it was a “major accomplishment” in the War on Terror. Throughout his failed presidency, President Bush has enjoyed favorable treatment from the media. In the aftermath of the tragic events that occurred on nine-eleven, President Bush’s job approval rating was above ninety percent. Through November 2001, the president sustained an approval rating above eighty-five percent. Media outlets were all over this. In fact, the media actually teamed up with the Bush administration to sell the war. In their efforts to enable Bush, the media towed the line and reported select information that was approved by the Bush administration. It was the media that assisted the administration in misleading the American people. Instead of calling the Bush administration on their lies and distortions, they rolled over and remained

The Perfect Scapegoat

151

silent. When Bush launched his illegal attack against Iraq, it was the media that touted him as a hero and boasted about his nearly eighty percent approval rating. Helping to subdue the reality of American bloodshed, the media also dutifully neglected to televise flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq. Yes, the media has indeed covered the progress made in Iraq. Bush was again hailed as a hero during the Iraqi elections. As the media ignored the fact that the war was blatantly unjust, they ranted and raved about how Bush had impressively established a bona fide democracy in the heart of the Arab world. While drastically underreporting the violence in Iraq, the media boasted about Iraq’s improved infrastructure, schools that had been built, and reconstruction of the Iraqi medical system, including the construction of the Basra Children’s Hospital. The media also extensively covered the Bush administration’s directives that led to the capture or killing of senior al Qaeda members and the prevention of two known terrorist plots to attack America. Before Senator John Kerry had barely finished his concession speech, media outlets were falling all over themselves declaring that the election was a decisive “mandate” for Bush’s agenda. It was, in fact, the narrowest victory for a sitting President since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Many of these outlets included The Wall Street Journal, The New York Sun, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Time Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, and CNN. The media was also much kinder to the president than to Senator Kerry during the ’04 campaign. Bush’s enabling lapdog media did not challenge the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads lying about Kerry’s service record. Only a few states carried the ads, but the media’s extensive coverage promoted the swift boat group’s agenda and allowed them relatively unchallenged credibility. While the media extensively covered Kerry’s so-called “flip-flops,” Bush’s inability to make decisions were simply considered to be “policy changes.” The Bush administration’s mantra that “al Qaeda wanted Kerry to win” was a recurring theme in the media’s coverage of the campaign. The media often played into Bush’s hand by caricaturizing Kerry as “unlikable” and “out of touch.” The media had a field day parroting the Bush administration’s claims that Senator Kerry was “the most liberal member of the Senate.” The media went wild over an innocent yet flattering comment that Kerry had made about the vice president’s daughter during one of the debates, but gave Bush a pass when he denied that he ever said he was not concerned about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. While the media was extensively covering Kerry’s war record and assisting the GOP in mocking him, George W. Bush was given another free pass. When the media did finally get around to touching on Bush’s dismal and dishonorable service record, most of the focus was on Dan Rather and CBS’s

152

Chapter Nine

handling of allegedly forged documents pertaining to Bush’s fitness for flight status. Assuming for a moment that the documents were indeed forgeries, their content was still accurate. No one at the White House, including Bush’s communications director Dan Bartlett, questioned their authenticity. But while Bush’s service record was essentially forgotten, the GOP and the conservative media establishment vehemently called for Rather’s head on a platter. The GOP successfully turned a non-issue into an issue. Suddenly the story had become Dan Rather’s fitness as a broadcast journalist. It was as though Rather had personally barricaded himself in his basement for days until he created forgeries that would pass mustard. A few months following the controversy that many referred to as “Rathergate,” Emmy and Peabody award winning journalist Daniel Irvin Rather resigned from CBS. Instead of going to bat for him, executives at CBS and Viacom Chairman and CEO Sumner Redstone dropped the ball and let Rather down. In June 2005, media outlets throughout the country went into a virtual frenzy over Senator Dick Durbin’s comments regarding the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba. The veteran U.S. senator from the Land of Lincoln found himself in an awkward lose-lose situation. Had he not apologized for his remarks, he would have been branded “unpatriotic” and of course, “anti-troops.” An apology would have meant that he was not only anti-American and against the troops, but weak and indecisive. After caving into criticism from the GOP’s complicit media and various lawmakers, Durbin chose the latter. Durbin’s comment that granted conservatives an opportunity to act “outraged” is noted here: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime-Pol Pot or others-that had no concern for human beings.”4 The conservative media attack and spin machine had a field day trashing Durbin. Most of the slanderous rhetoric came by way of columnists, talking heads, and bloggers. But the “mainstream” corner of the conservative media and a few on the left weighed in as well. Bill Kristol of FOX News and the Weekly Standard called upon Durbin to step down as Minority Whip. Kristol’s comment, however, was considerably mild compared to most of the over zealous hack-job comments. Durbin was characterized as a “traitor who wanted to coddle the terrorists.” Accusing him of comparing American soldiers to Nazis, Durbin was derided with quaint little references such as “Turban Durbin… a man who is on the same side as the terrorists,” “traitor,” “freedom hater,” “terrorist-abetting leftie,” and “the inspiration for terrorists.” As well, some lawmakers on the Right called for the Senate to censure him. In short, Senator Durbin had

The Perfect Scapegoat

153

become the conservatives’ newest boogeyman in the GOP’s long and relentless War on Decency. Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed when I learned about Senator Durbin’s apology. I was hopeful that he would have stood his ground, fired back at the critics, and denounced the Bush administration. Imagine Karl Rove apologizing for saying that liberals wanted to “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”5 The New York Yankees would pack up, turn to the west, and move to Hannibal, Missouri first. Neo-cons of the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove do not apologize. They say or do whatever they please. If we the public take offense…too damn bad! The point Senator Durbin was making was conveniently overlooked by the conservative media. The story was not about the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the war with emphasis on prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay. Instead, it was a story about what Durbin had said about Guantanamo Bay. Durbin’s message was extremely clear; the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay must be in accordance with the law. Durbin’s reference to Nazis, Soviets, and the like, was by no means intended as a comparison to America’s military. He was simply illustrating the point that regardless of whom the perpetrators are, torture is torture and should not be condoned, sanctioned, or practiced by the United States. Torture is not, or at least should not be, a component of American values! Categorically, most of Durbin’s critics fall into the “shoot first, ask questions later” crowd. This is the typical Neanderthal-type thought process of many on the Right. A study via Seton Hall University revealed that approximately fifty percent of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have committed no hostile acts against the United States or her allies and have no ties to any terrorist organizations. Less than ten percent are classified as suspected al Qaeda members. Those on the right are convinced that “enhanced interrogation techniques” are justified on the grounds of military necessity. Under President Bush’s selfasserted authority, prisoners at Guantanamo may be incarcerated indefinitely while being subjected to any treatment devised. They may also be denied access to legal counsel without the protection of the Geneva Convention. Article 2 Section 2 of the International Convention Against Torture clearly states, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”6 In case there is any question, the United States has been a member of this body since April 1988. Senator Durbin’s comment was not designed to antagonize or inspire terrorist organizations as some on the Right have claimed. That is just pure Republican propaganda. Terrorists that have no regard for human life were not going to be any more energized after Durbin’s comment than they were before. Durbin was actually defending the principles for which America stands.

154

Chapter Nine

It would behoove those who were condemning Durbin to take a good look at themselves. Offering concern and dissent as Durbin did was not in anyway unpatriotic or anti-American. In fact, it was the right thing to do. Durbin is not the villain here. More than likely, his flag-waving thoughtless critics are the ones who symbolize anti-Americanism. It never ceases to amaze me how gullible and pathetically stupid many Americans are. “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”7 How about, fool me multiple times and I keep falling for it every time! For a long time now, this is exactly what much of America has been doing. The predominantly conservative media proclaims, the “liberal” media this and the “liberal” media that. Most Americans slop it up and sadly believe that the media are for the most part, a liberal conglomerate with a left-wing agenda. Imagine the brass, woodwind, and percussion sections within a band insisting that they are in fact, not part of the band. This would of course be ludicrous. They are the band! My analogy, as rudimentary as it is, is similar to how the conservatives within the media operate. Right-Wing media personalities consistently bombard listeners and readers with rhetoric that references the media as some sort of villainous subhuman entity to which they have no connection. Like the musicians that repudiated their band membership, these Right-Wing media hounds are the media!

NOTES 1. National Broadcasting Company. Today Show (New York, New York) 29 March 2006. 2. Cooperman, Alan. “Bush Predicted No Iraq Casualties, Robertson Says.” Washington Post, 21 October 2004: A09. 3. American Broadcasting Company. ABC’s This Week (New York, New York) 22 October 2006. 4. Meinert, Dori. “Durbin Apologizes: Senator Sorry about His Remarks on Guantanamo.” The State Journal Register, 22 June 2005: 4. 5. Cohen, Richard. “Rove isn’t the Real Outrage.” Washington Post, 14 July 2005: A25. 6. United Nations General Assembly. International Convention Against Torture And other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (New York, New York) 10 December 1984. 7. Thomas, Cal. “Will They Fool Us Twice?” Washington Times, 3 October 2001: A17.

Chapter Ten

More of the Scapegoat

Unfortunately, many Americans are under the impression that the “media” consists of Left-Wing newscasts and opinions via ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. How often have we had to endure hearing the phrase, “Clinton News Network?” The media, plural form of medium, is any agency that produces communication; the sharing of ideas and information. The media are comprised of various agencies such as television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the internet. Therefore, as referenced in the previous chapter, televangelists, talk show hosts, and columnists all fall under the media umbrella. But apparently, many of these communication cohorts including the clan at Fox believe that they are entitled to some sort of “exempt” status when it comes to their membership among the media! Unfortunately, the media today are not, as previously mentioned, organizations that promote “the sharing of ideas and information.” The media are instead a monopoly of big business propaganda that promotes the conservative cause. In portions of this book I have used the term “conservative media.” I use this term because the media do, in fact, have a conservative bias. I have often heard people at social or business gatherings complain about the “liberal” media. These complaints are most prevalent in the military circles I have been associated with. I have often wondered where they were getting their information. What could they possibly be reading, watching, or listening to that gives them this misguided impression of the media. We in the general public are constantly bombarded by conservatives’ baseless whining about the “liberal” media. If the media were truly liberal, why do we consistently hear about liberal bias within the media? There are a few factors that contribute to the public’s belief in the liberal media myth. Obviously one of these factors involves the American intellect. As noted previously, much of America is gullible, uninformed, and frankly, 155

156

Chapter Ten

just plain stupid. The Conservatives’ well-oiled media machine does not miss an opportunity to bellow their mantra, “liberal media bias!” If they repeat it enough, people will believe it. That is, if they are gullible, uninformed, and stupid! Promoting the liberal media myth is the cornerstone of the conservative playbook. The myth serves three primary purposes; it hides conservative bias when it would otherwise be evident, makes the public sympathetic to the conservative cause, and insinuates that liberals are the bad guys. In addition to spewing out “liberal media bias” rhetoric, the conservative media machine is not opposed to flashing outright lies. It was the media moguls that created “Communists for Kerry” and then claimed that the small group fully supported “Comrade Kerry.” Remember hearing about the departing Clinton administration’s vandalism of the White House and looting of Air Force One? Neither one happened! It was a nasty lie courtesy of the Republican National Committee, but it sure got a lot of attention. In a speech delivered by Vice President Gore during the 2000 campaign, he made reference to the dangers of toxic waste sites, and in particular, a waste site near Toone, Tennessee. Gore noted, “I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing…I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee—that was the one that you didn’t hear of. But that was the one that started it all. And it all happened because one high school student got involved.”1 After the media finished tweaking his comment, Gore had been quoted as saying, “I was the one who started it all!” Who will ever forget that Gore claimed to have invented the internet? This was another media lie. Gore simply said that while he was in Congress, he was a strong advocate for promoting the creation of the internet. That is indeed a far cry from, “I invented the internet!” The existence of a “liberal media” is commonly accepted as fact among many Americans. For conservatives in particular, belief in the myth reinforces what they think they already know about the media. It arouses their patriotic benevolence and unites them in their phantom struggle against the “elitist liberal establishment.” Imagine what America might be like if there actually were a “liberal” media. We would probably be consigned to civilized, openminded, and successful public debate on critical issues that affect America! There is a significant correlation between dominating the media and possessing political power. This is at the forefront of large corporations which buy out smaller markets to create mass consolidation. Their objectives are to own as many diverse types of media as they possibly can. Their economic interests clearly take precedence over the needs and interests of the public. As well, their revenues skyrocket while their social and political influence determines America’s culture.

More of the Scapegoat

157

Undoubtedly, corporate America and the Republican Party enjoy a mutually supportive partnership. Various corporations which lean heavily to the right have swallowed up numerous markets including America’s media. These large conglomerates make massive contributions to Republican candidates and their lobbyists are permanent fixtures within the legislature. By their nature, they are against labor unions, taxes, and Social Security. They are also, in many cases, anti-consumer. Take for just one example the circumstances involving General Electric. One of their engineers testified that during the Depression, GE decreased the life of their light bulbs by thirty-three percent in order to increase sales. This was the same General Electric that was convicted for having an illegal contract with Germany’s Krupp Company during World War II. Unbeknownst to most, Krupp was a major contractor for the Nazis. Let us now take a brief look at some of the proprietorship of these media conglomerates that make up the so-called liberal media. General Electric, guilty of various forms of malfeasance over the years is America’s tenth largest corporation. In addition to their status as a leading defense contractor, GE owns and operates a multitude of industrial services, household goods, appliances, financial services, insurance services, computer services, satellite communications, and broadcasting affiliates. Just to name a few, these affiliates include NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo, the History Channel, and American Movie Classics. General Electric’s primary objectives are to sell commercial products, acquire government contracts, and influence the news for their own benefit. Via General Electric’s communication department, “We insist on a program environment that reinforces our corporate messages.”2 General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt also just happens to be a big Bush supporter. Like General Electric, Viacom which was previously the Westinghouse Corporation, has been involved in their share of corrupt practices. In the 1940’s, General Electric, along with Westinghouse, were convicted of rigging bids on street lighting equipment. General Electric and Westinghouse teamed up again in the 1960’s in which both were found guilty of conspiracies involving the sale of billions of dollars worth of electrical equipment. Westinghouse was also a major defense contractor with interests in financial services, insurance services, appliances, and toxic waste disposal. Viacom owns a fair number of properties including the Columbia Broadcasting Station, Country Music Television, TV Land, Nickelodeon, Spike TV, BET, a variety of satellite stations, and over a thousand motion picture screens. Viacom chairman and CEO Sumner Redstone endorsed George W. Bush for president in 2004, acknowledging that a Republican administration was more conducive to Viacom’s philosophy. Redstone’s endorsement blew the conservative theory that Dan Rather and CBS were conspiring against Bush.

158

Chapter Ten

The Disney Empire possesses numerous subsidiaries and has interests in the oil industry, insurance services, computer systems, and publishing. The leader of the entertainment industry, Disney owns theme parks throughout the world, a cruise line, hundreds of retail stores, a variety of newspapers and magazines, and several movie, music, and television studios. Their broadcasting affiliates include, but are not limited to, the American Broadcasting Station, the Disney Channel, Touchstone Television, Lifetime, Arts and Entertainment, and ESPN. Upon the takeover of ABC/Capital Cities, Disney’s former chairman and chief executive officer Michael Eisner put it this way, “It doesn’t matter whether it comes in by cable, telephone lines, computer, or satellite. Everyone’s going to have to deal with Disney.”3 Disney, creator of “Mickey Mouse” and a host of fun filled fantasy movies that many grew up loving, is not immune to scandals or shady ventures. Disney at one time had been involved in some unethical business practices that put them in hot water with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Disney and the SEC settled out of court in a case in which the entertainment giant failed to disclose transactions which benefited executives and their families. It was Disney along with ABC and UHP Productions that created a fabricated dramatization called The Path to Nine-Eleven which aired in two parts on September 10th and 11th 2006. The film deceptively invented fictional scenes in an attempt to blame former President Clinton for the Nine-eleven attacks. Written by Cyrus Nowrasteh and directed by David Cunningham, The Path to Nine-Eleven inaccurately portrayed key scenes as authentic historical events. There were obviously many critics of the film, including FBI agent Thomas Nicoletti, who had been hired as a consultant. Early into the production, Nicoletti resigned from the project due to the outright lies contained in the film. The most transparently conservative media conglomerate of all is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Synonymous with nasty neoconservative ideology, News Corporation staunchly supports the Bush administration and zealously promotes the Right-Wing agenda. New Corporation boasts of their ability to “entertain” and “enlighten” hundreds of millions of people every day. In other words, blatant editorializing, bias, and misrepresentations are used systematically in order to manipulate public opinion. Professional journalistic ethics are a foreign concept to those in management at News Corporation. Author and former University of California dean of journalism Ben Bagdikian puts it succinctly, “To give citizens a choice in ideas and information is to give them a choice in politics: if a nation has narrowly controlled information, it will soon have narrowly controlled politics.”4 Murdoch’s News Corporation owns a variety of magazines, newspapers, book publishing firms, movie studios, and television markets. Mentioning just a few, News Corps television outlets include the Fox News Channel, Fox Sports,

More of the Scapegoat

159

Twentieth Century Fox Television, FX, and STAR Television. A household name to many is Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of the Fox News Channel. As ludicrous as it is, Ailes sticks to the script that Fox News is “fair and balanced.” While he insisted that Fox is in no way conservative, Ailes routinely sent messages to Karl Rove offering political advice to one George W. Bush. One of the most blatant media lies in recent times was provided by, “We report, you decide,” Fox News. During their coverage of the Capitol Hill page scandal, Florida Congressman Mark Foley was depicted in three separate segments as a “Democrat.” This would not have been in any way unusual or unethical if it was not for the fact that Representative Foley, who has since resigned, was a Republican. Of course, when the crew at Fox finally got around to removing Foley’s incorrect party designation, they did so without explanation. During the 2000 campaign, it was revealed that George W. Bush had been hiding a DUI conviction. The folks at Fox claimed that the Gore camp had orchestrated the leak and insinuated that Bill Clinton was the primary culprit. A year long study by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy revealed that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the war in Iraq were at a higher risk of believing misinformation than those who relied on other sources. The study was based on the belief of three assumptions: 1) There was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, 2) World opinion favored the war, and 3) Weapons of mass destruction had been found. The study revealed that eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of the three incorrect views. The study’s results show the percentages of viewers and readers nationwide that believed one or more of the incorrect statements; NPR/PBS: 23 %, Print: 47 %, CNN and NBC: 55 % each, ABC: 61 %, CBS: 71 %, and Fox took the honors at 80 %. The Republican Party and the “bias and bigoted” Fox network have benefited nicely from their association with each other. They enjoy a very comfortable “hand in glove” relationship. Hence, we should take a brief look at Fox family values. In their relentless desire to rake in viewers and profits, Fox’s pornographic programming has included the likes of “A Current Affair,” “Studs,” and “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?” Conservatives such as William Bennett, Fred Barnes, Patrick Buchanan, and Pat Robertson benefit from their relationship with Fox while they persistently vociferate about the virtues of so-called “family values.” Former Fox producer Burt Kearns put it candidly, “Sex, celebrity, politics, crime, morality and America’s obsession with home video cameras were all rolled into one…We were the fucking champions of the world.”5 Time Warner, formerly AOL Time Warner, owns a variety of assets within the music, movie, and television industries. It also has exclusive rights to a multitude of book publishing agencies and magazines. In addition, Time

160

Chapter Ten

Warner’s holdings include two theme parks, the Atlanta Braves, and the Atlanta Hawks. America On Line, the world’s number one internet service provider and media outlets such as CNN, TBS, TNT, Tru TV, Turner Classic Movies, the Cartoon Network, HBO, and Cinemax are also embedded within the Time Warner family. At the helm at Time Warner is Bush insider Richard Parsons. Former aide to President Ford, Parsons was a key participant on George W. Bush’s committee to dismantle Social Security. In fact, he was the co-chairman of the small group. Prior to 1987, the law required the media to permit opposing viewpoints whenever a controversial topic was presented. This prevented broadcasters from persistently airing prejudiced propaganda. This law, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949 was known as The Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 The Fairness Doctrine was repealed by the Reagan-appointed corporate media FCC. The purpose behind Reagan’s repeal was to transform the media from trustees of communities into a marketplace that would potentially rake in mega-profits. With the support of a conservativecontrolled FCC, ultraconservatives such as Rush Limbaugh were free to take over AM radio and deliver their lies and libels without any limits. Hence, media corporations have battled hard to prevent Congress from making any moves towards reinstating The Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was not created to censor the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Lars Larson. They are guaranteed their First Amendment rights to continue spewing out right-wing propaganda. The Doctrine was simply a means to allow others to have a say as well! The conservative media control and influence the nation’s debate via the power of editorial selection which overtly favors corporate America. Ever notice how the media covers stories that are overwhelmingly promanagement? Although blue-collar workers are the majority of America’s workforce, only about five percent of news stories cover issues affecting their lives. The challenges they face including the conditions they work in, workplace safety, income, and child care take a back seat to the glamour and glitter of big business. Notice, too, when the media covers corruption in Washington, politicians are blamed, not the corporations and lobbyists who fund them in exchange for underhanded favors. Think tanks, which are extremely partisan propaganda outlets for large corporate foundations, are consistently cited by the media. The ratio of conservative think tank citations over liberal ones is about five to one. Five of America’s top ten think tanks are conservative and five are considered centrist. There are only six among the top twenty-five which are categorized as “progressive” or “center-left.” The corporate-owned media obtain the majority of their “facts” from these conservative corporate-funded think tanks.

More of the Scapegoat

161

Bias within the media is a far cry from “liberal.” In fact, the evidence presented here indicates that America’s mainstream media have an overwhelmingly conservative bias. No one with two sticks to rub together for a brain can dispute the existence of a conservative media. Media magnates such as Murdoch, Ailes, and Parsons concern themselves with ratings, circulation, advertisers, and ultimately, profits. It is their profit motive, not broadcasters or reporters, which determine the content of the news. Despite journalists’ political orientations, they do not decide what news is, their bosses do. Journalists must adapt to the rules set by the corporations they work for. Contrary to what many conservatives believe, the “media” is not just comprised of broadcasters and reporters. The media also includes journalists, editors, producers, executives, organizational structures, social and economic forces, and lobbyists. The news itself is given little time and space as compared to advertising. Professional journalistic ethics are brushed aside to make room for the King, the Almighty Dollar. Veteran editor Harold Evans hit the nail on the head, “The problem that many media organizations face is not to stay in business, but to stay in journalism.”6 No question about it, conservative pundits enjoy a dominant presence within America’s media. Just think about that for a moment. Listen to talk radio and count the number of nationally syndicated conservative talk shows. Take a look at the multitude of conservative faces that regularly appear on your television. Check out the enormous amount of conservative propaganda via the web. Strap yourself in for a sharp turn to the right and read the op-ed pages of your local newspaper. Even Dan Rather, the supposed icon of radical Left-Wing journalism who said, “George Bush is the president, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, if he wants me to line up, just tell me where.”7 But there are thankfully a handful of household names that appeal to proponents of common sense. They appear to many on the Right as far Left because of their blatant honesty and decency. Some of these include James Carville, Paul Begala, Bill Press, Al Hunt, Mark Shields, Al Franken, Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Michael Reagan, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and the late Tim Russert. In reality, most reporters and broadcast journalists are centrists when it comes to political orientation. Those that consider themselves moderate tend to identify more with the left regarding social issues and identify more with the right when it comes to economic issues. Conservatives utilize an “all or nothing” type of tactic which maintains that journalists who are centrists are not conservatives, and therefore, they must be liberals. Conservatives assert that if journalists are objective and cover both sides of an issue, they must be liberals. If a news segment happens to bring attention to a civil war in Iraq

162

Chapter Ten

or mentions the suffering of neglected hurricane victims, well, it must be that “damn liberal media!” On this premise alone, conservatives generalize by labeling conscientiously objective and centrist journalists as “liberal.” Since they accurately cover stories that affect most Americans and they do not insinuate that George W. Bush walks on water, they must for sure lean to the Left. Also, journalists’ voting records do not tell the whole story. Since most journalists vote “Democrat,” conservatives argue that the entire media is dominated by wacko Left-Wing liberals bent on promoting their “radical agenda.” Conservatives conveniently omit the fact that “the media” consists of not only journalists, but editors, producers, executives, organizational structures, social and economic forces, and so on. You cannot fully comprehend the corporate ideology of a company that owns nursing homes throughout the country just by looking at the political views of all the nurses they staff. Imagine what the political orientation of the media would look like if we only inspected the voting records of the owners, CEOs, chairmen, and executives of America’s media conglomerates! Former House Majority Whip Tom Delay coined the slanderous terms “Clinton News Network” and “Communist News Network” in reference to CNN. Because CNN has traditionally maintained a reasonable amount of objectivity over the years, conservatives characterize CNN as the epitome of liberal bias within the media. Just take a look at recent history and you will see that members of the Left including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry were not immune from criticism via CNN. CNN spent a considerable amount of time pounding Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater scandals. It was CNN’s Headline News host Glenn Beck that denounced Gore’s highly acclaimed film An Inconvenient Truth branding it a “shockmentary” to promote a “climate of fear.” CNN’s Reliable Sources panelists blasted Kerry by echoing the lies contained in the erroneous Swift Boat Veterans for “truth” ads while CNN’s Robert Novak called the ads “honest” and “exactly correct.” In addition to Beck and Novak, ultraconservative pundits that regularly appear on CNN include William Bennett, David Brooks, Tucker Carlson, Jonah Goldberg, Laura Ingraham, Howard Kurtz, and Kate O’Beirne. CNN is a bastion of liberal ideology? No, not even close. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, conservative pundits continue their relentless claim that liberal bias is prevalent throughout the entire media. Most Americans slop up the Right-Wing’s incessant fulminating and accept their unsubstantiated claim as fact. The liberal media myth is alive and well. A myth that has provided innumerable benefits to the conservative cause, it

More of the Scapegoat

163

constantly receives unchallenged credence from vicious and unscrupulous Neanderthal-types. No one can deny that the media helped George W. Bush’s claim to the White House and pampered him throughout his presidency. As far as the media were concerned, Vice President Gore could not say or do anything right during the 2000 campaign. The press corps literally hated him. During the campaign, the Project for Excellence in Journalism along with the Princeton Survey Research Associates looked at over eleven hundred stories about the Vice President. Nearly half of the stories contained a theme in which Gore was depicted as scandal-tainted. Over one third of the stories insinuated that he was a liar and less than twenty percent of the stories asserted that he was competent enough to be President. The breakdowns on the number of stories covered during the campaign are as follows: Gore-613 negative and 132 positive, Bush-265 negative and 320 positive. Gore was portrayed by the media as an unlikable, boring, robotic, and “phony know-it-all.” But the real phonies were the journalists covering the vice president. In a variety of cases they either took Gore’s comments completely out of context or omitted and added words altogether. Examples of these tactics could be seen in their “Love Canal” and “Inventor of the Internet” stories. The media had a field day doctoring up Gore’s statements and then ridiculing him to boot. Hardball host Chris Matthews fell all over himself chastising the VP as he accused him of claiming to be the inspiration for Ryan O’Neal’s character in “Love Story.” Media outlets including the New York Times and CNN took much delight in covering Gore’s campaign voyage down the Connecticut River. The media claimed that the vice president wasted four billion gallons of water at a cost of seven million dollars for a “save the environment” photo-op. This however, was another example of the conservative media’s game plan to discredit Al Gore. The seven million dollar figure was fabricated by the press and since various utility companies were able to sell the water, none was wasted. As well, the media managed to find time to mock the vice president’s clothing. Apparently Gore’s brownish tan colored suits gave off a kind of “anti-American” aura. Gore was also ridiculed for being, of all things, intelligent, knowledgeable regarding the issues, and serious. He was not perceived as the fun-loving kind of a dimwit good guy that Bush was. This apparently made Bush more qualified than Gore to lead the free world. In spite of his awkward approach to the issues, his overall lack of knowledge, and his cavalier attitude, Bush was the darling of the media. Four years later, John Kerry did not fare too much better than Al Gore. Bush, meanwhile, did receive a fair amount of negative press. But keep in mind, he had also spent his first of what would be two terms successfully driving America into the ground.

164

Chapter Ten

Testimonials provide one of the best arguments to debunk the conservative claim of liberal media bias. Ronald Reagan’s Chief of Staff James Baker once revealed during a candid moment, “There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don’t think we had anything to complain about.”8 During his runs for the presidency, ultraconservative Patrick Buchanan admitted, “I’ve gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage— all we could have asked. For Heaven sakes, we kid about the ‘liberal media,’ but every Republican on Earth does that.”9 Bill Kristol, one of the most zealous conservative pundits also acknowledged, “I admit it…The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”10 In other words and a bit more bluntly, the media have conveniently provided conservatives with the perfect scapegoat. As we allow conservatives to perpetuate the fallacy that liberals control the media, we as a society become less able to participate in the public discourse that affects our own lives. Perhaps someday we can put to rest the misguided, yet popular, notion that the media have a liberal bias. Until then, however, we can only remain diligent in our efforts to expose the truth and stand up against the erroneous claims of “liberal” media bias. In his efforts to fan the flames of ignorance regarding the so-called liberal media, Bernard Goldberg argued, “Let’s assume I’m dead wrong in my book, that there is no liberal bias in the big-time media. Then I can be easily dismissed. But what about the millions and millions of Americans—including many liberals—who think I’m right… Are they all stupid?”11 The evidence presented throughout these pages emphatically debunks Goldberg’s claim of liberal media bias. “Are they all stupid?” Goldberg asks. Well, actually Bernie…yes, yes they are!

NOTES 1. Alterman, Eric. What Liberal Media? (Basic Books. New York, New York. 2003) p. 166. 2. Bagdikian, Ben H. The Media Monopoly (Beacon Press. Boston, Massachusetts. 1983) p. 160. 3. Ibid. p. X. 4. Ibid. p. 223. 5. Alterman, Eric. What Liberal Media? (Basic Books. New York, New York. 2003) p. 238. 6. Ibid. p. 27. 7. Ibid. p. 206. 8. Ibid. p. 2. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. p. 12.

Chapter Eleven

Bush Backers Undermine America

Springfield’s WMAY program director and talk show host Jim Leach always does a nice job of introducing a variety of topics during his weekday morning radio program. Whether it involves local, national, or international events, Leach covers everything from gay adoption to issues concerning corporate America. The plight of Springfield’s homeless has often brought about some pretty heated discussions over the years. Callers, however, most that lean heavily to the Right, have rarely provided any viable solutions to the problem. They offer no compassion or empathy. Instead, they whine about how their children have to “see those people” whenever they take their families downtown. They complain that homeless shelters are an eyesore and a burden to taxpayers. The consensus is usually, “Load them all up and ship them out of town!” This same callous and cruel attitude towards the homeless is accurately represented in George W. Bush’s poignant catch phrase “compassionate conservatism.” These people, the “compassionate” conservatives, are motivated by two significant features, greed and ignorance. With their selfish selfcentered outlook on life, they base all of their decisions on, “How does this situation benefit me?” Their ignorance regarding the world around them leads to fear. This fear in turn leads to intolerance, bigotry, and hatred. As well, these negative characteristics are manifested in the rhetoric of prominent conservatives throughout the media. These people played a key role in aiding, enabling, and anointing George W. Bush. Some of these media moguls were touched on previously, but a few seem to be a bit more deserving of a closer look. The following is a compilation of some of the vilest faces in the American media. The Mother of Malice and Queen of Contempt is the brazen and brassy columnist and author Ann Coulter. She has made a career of libeling and 165

166

Chapter Eleven

slandering liberals via her numerous books, columns, and speaking engagements. Her vicious tabloid trash has a great amount of appeal to those who share her bigoted attitude and hate mongering. She throws out unsubstantiated generalizations that are both cruel and ludicrous. For example, she accuses liberals of hating America, society, working class people, and all religions except Islam. Godless liberals, she insists, hate America more than Islamic terrorists and terrorists, in fact, exist because of liberals. All liberals are traitors. They are wrong about everything. She rants and raves that liberals are racists who only care about power and destroying morality. She told Fox News Channel’s Linda Vester the best way to confront liberals, “I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.”1 A blatant liar and hypocrite, Coulter consistently spouts out unmitigated nonsense. A “Beacon of Morality” who portrays herself as a Christian conservative, Coulter advocates the killing of not just liberals, but non-Christians. Speaking at a National Political Action Conference meeting Coulter explained, “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too.”2 She takes great pleasure in insinuating or specifically naming adversaries who she deems unworthy to live. Her death wish list, just to name a few, includes Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Gray Davis, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Norm Mineta. She told George Gurley of the New York Observer, “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”3 One of many of the comments she made about the invasion of Iraq was, “I’m getting a little fed up with hearing about…civilian casualties.”4 Her diplomatic compassionate conservative plans for North Korea and Iran involve, you guessed it, nuking them. Coulter boasts, “I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world.”5 Non-Christian nations beware, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”6 On ABC’s Good Morning America she said that she wished that John Edwards had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot. This was in reference to a comment Bill Maher previously made about how more people in the world would probably still be alive if Vice President Cheney had died prior to the invasion of Iraq. Coulter consistently crosses the line leaving no stone unturned. You might think she could put down her pen or swallow her tongue long enough to refrain from taking pot shots at John and Elizabeth Edwards. Her outrageously stupid take on the war in Iraq can be seen throughout her columns. She surmises, “Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military.”7 Coulter’s homophobia is clearly manifested in her characterizations of Bill Clinton as a “latent homosexual,” Al Gore as “a total fag,” and John Edwards

Bush Backers Undermine America

167

as a “faggot.” Attempting to be witty at a Conservative Political Action Conference, Coulter smirked, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’”8 Chastising the legitimacy of the grief of a small group of women from New Jersey whose husbands had been killed in the Nine-eleven attacks, she quipped, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”9 Her rabid rhetoric, among a multitude of other comments, includes trashing Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq. Apparently, Coulter takes offense to Sheehan’s public dissent towards her beloved George W. Bush. A real piece of work, Coulter claims that liberals do not interject any substance into a debate. They are, she insists, perfectly content to utilize name-calling instead. I guess “latent homosexual,” “total fag,” and “faggot” are not considered name-calling. Neither, I suppose were her references describing Christine Todd Whitman as “a dim-wit birdbrain,” Al Gore as “nuts,” and the late Adlai Stevenson as “a boob.” Flipping through a dictionary, one can observe various words which display pictorial descriptions next to them. In Webster’s Dictionary, you can see a silhouette of Abraham Lincoln next to the word “silhouette.” Next to the word “airplane” is a sketch of a small fixed wing aircraft. A drawing of a Scottish Highlander can be seen alongside the word “kilt.” I thought perhaps I could find a picture of the bigoted blowhard Rush Limbaugh when I looked up the word “hypocrite.” No such luck. The popular talk show host and icon of the conservative movement was not pictured next to the words “egomaniac,” “hateful,” or “liar” either. Nonetheless, Rush Limbaugh is all of these things. For a brief stint in the nineties, Limbaugh hosted a syndicated television program produced by Fox chairman Roger Ailes. Airing 1992 through 1996, The Rush Limbaugh Show was taped in front of a live studio audience which consisted of stuffy narrow-minded “ditto-heads” hanging on his every word. It is his nationally syndicated radio program which has reigned supreme throughout America’s airwaves since the late nineteen eighties. The king of talk radio and the professed “voice of the little guy,” Limbaugh boasts over twenty million listeners daily on nearly seven hundred stations throughout the country. With an income of over $40 million annually, Limbaugh spews out his poisonous propaganda without any contention. Like Coulter who has been known to cry and walk off a set when confronted, Limbaugh is afraid to participate in any legitimate form of intellectual debate. Via his “Excellence in Broadcasting” studio in New York City where he boasts his “talent” is “on loan from God,” Limbaugh has all of his callers prescreened in order to avoid possible confrontations.

168

Chapter Eleven

Our staunch advocate for “the little guy,” Limbaugh expresses his compassion for America’s poor in typical Limbaugh-like fashion. Repulsed by their mere existence, he characterizes them as pigs at the trough slopping up federal funds while giving nothing in return. He erroneously claims that the military is the one and only government program that has ever been successful. Years of washing down pain killers with Chateau Haut-Brion at two grand per bottle might have added to his warped thought process. Or perhaps he is just as loony as Coulter. I will venture to say it is probably the latter. Here, then, are just a few federal programs that Rush apparently views as unsuccessful; Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Prison System, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Interstate Highway System. It is frightening to say the least to realize that millions of Americans rely on Rush Limbaugh as their primary source of information. Whether it involves an adult day program for the mentally ill or a guaranteed student loan, Limbaugh abhors the entire concept of federal funding being offered to the public at-large. Like George W. Bush telling us to only buy fuel if we need it, Limbaugh advises those having difficulty making ends meet to simply “make more money.” The large and boisterous Cape Girardeau, Missouri native was once himself the recipient of several unemployment checks early on in his career. Just a thought here; if we are supposed to just “make more money,” perhaps Limbaugh could have just gotten off his ass and gotten a job! A profound irony indeed is evident in Limbaugh’s relationship with the American Civil Liberties Union. After years of periodically trashing them, it was the ACLU who went to bat for him while he was under investigation for illegally obtaining prescription medication. The ACLU filed an amicus brief arguing that the prosecution had violated Limbaugh’s civil rights (4th Amendment) by illegally seizing his medical records. Since then, Limbaugh has claimed that he has always had high admiration for the ACLU. His housekeeper, Wilma Cline had supplied him with the pain killers oxycontin and hydrocodone for years. Limbaugh subsequently bought his way out of trouble and spent a year and a half in a treatment program. The self proclaimed “truth detector” has regularly used his radio broadcast as a forum to condemn illegal drug use. Perhaps he should think twice before ranting and raving about locking up convicted drug addicts and throwing away the key. He has something in common with them. Limbaugh’s prejudices ooze from every pore of his body. He once responded to a black caller he could not muster the guts to debate by telling him to take the bone out of his nose and then call him back. Gays afflicted with the AIDS virus, he contends, deserve to suffer for their promiscuity. He once

Bush Backers Undermine America

169

commented that it would be fun to conduct a “Homeless Olympics,” featuring a shopping cart relay and a dumpster dig. A Mexican that won the New York Marathon only won, he joked, because an immigration agent must have been chasing him. Feminism only exists, he claims, because unattractive women created it so that they would be able to access the mainstream. These are just a few tidbits of Limbaugh’s true sentiments regarding people in our society. Unfortunately, there are millions of Americans who share Limbaugh’s twisted viewpoint. With ice cold blood piercing through his veins, Limbaugh prides himself on being a conservative. As though that was something to take pride in, he consistently derides and demonizes those who do not share his perverted outlook on life. His favorite sport in recent years has been Clinton bashing. Even Bill and Hillary’s daughter Chelsea has not been immune from Rush’s wrath. While holding up a picture of the Clinton’s only child during a segment via his brief television show, he commented that there was actually a “White House dog.” Cheers and laughter, of course, ensued from the studio audience packed full of crusty conservative “ditto-heads.” Limbaugh used several radio broadcasts to insinuate that the then-First Lady had White House counsel Vincent Foster murdered. Limbaugh even tried to suggest that Bill Clinton was responsible for his drug abuse predicament because as President, Clinton’s drug offender policies were too lenient. Of course, he also blamed the “liberal” media. In a complete contrast to characterizing former senate minority leader Tom Daschle as the Antichrist, Limbaugh views George W. Bush in an almost Messiah-like fashion. In the gospel according to Rush Limbaugh, everything Bush has ever said, done, or thought about, must have been divinely inspired. Questioning the President, Limbaugh has stated many times in the past, is a “dangerous road” to take. This includes, of course, Bush’s illegal, immoral, and unnecessary invasion of Iraq. A byproduct of this was the prisoner abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib. To Limbaugh, forcing detainees into homosexual acts, electrocuting them, and beating them to death are just like hazing rituals at a college fraternity. Those that carried out these acts, he contends, were just having a good time and blowing off steam. He also claimed that these actions reminded him of something that Britney Spears might very well do on stage as a part of her act. Just when you might think that he cannot possibly go any lower, Limbaugh slithers a notch or two closer to the abyss of tabloid trash. Prior to the midterm election, actor Michael J. Fox appeared in a campaign ad in which he endorsed Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill for the U.S. Senate. Fox’s endorsement of McCaskill had nothing to do with her political affiliation. He has endorsed a number of Republicans in the past. His avid support of

170

Chapter Eleven

McCaskill was because of her advocacy for stem-cell research, research that could very well open the door to finding cures for various neurological illnesses including Parkinson’s disease, a disease of which Fox suffers from. It was just a few days before the election when Limbaugh used his radio broadcast to chastise Fox and other advocates of stem-cell research. Claiming that Democrats have spent years parading victims of various diseases before congressional committees in order to gain sympathy for their cause, Limbaugh made more of a fool out of himself than he normally does. Mimicking the actor, Limbaugh proceeded to flail his arms and wiggle from side to side as he accused Fox of exaggerating his neurological condition in order to illustrate the horror of Parkinson’s disease. Limbaugh has even insinuated that former Florida Representative Mark Foley, who was the focal point of the page scandal, was set up, set up by the Democrats and the “liberal” media in order to manipulate the outcome of the midterm election. All that needs to be said at this point is, “Consider the source.” Let us also keep in mind that this kind of propaganda comes from the same man whose website identified Osama bin Laden as a Democrat. Characterizing liberals as “diabolical,” Limbaugh panders to the prejudices of his loyal listeners with statements that are both fictitious and ludicrous. He claims that while George W. Bush supporters are positive, upbeat, and optimistic, Democrats are negative, hateful, and pessimistic. Without a shred of evidence to make these claims, Limbaugh also insists that Democrats hate war heroes and they want more U.S. troops to die in the field. During the initial stages of combat operations in Iraq, three hundred and eighty tons of high explosives went missing from the Al Qaqaa bunker site. It was an extremely devastating discovery to say the least. These missing explosives, in the hands of the insurgents, would and did decrease our chance of success in Iraq and place our troops in a more precarious environment. A reporter embedded with the 101st Airborne Division video recorded troops inspecting the weapons at the onset of the war. To create a smoke screen to cover for the Bush administration, Limbaugh informed his listeners that the explosives were never there and that the entire story of “missing” weapons was fabricated via the New York Times. Limbaugh rarely engages in any objective analysis or fact gathering. Shooting from the hip by making erroneous claims without foundation is more his forte. Amazingly, there are millions of Americans who actually take the man seriously. She lambastes many liberals as “elitist snobs” as though her fellow neoconservative goons and she were average working class stiffs struggling to make ends meet. A graduate of Dartmouth College and the University of Virginia School of Law, political pundit, author, and talk show host Laura Ingraham spews out her hateful propaganda on over three hundred radio stations

Bush Backers Undermine America

171

throughout the country. Unfortunately, her intolerant and bigoted attitude is shared by many. As a reporter for the Dartmouth Review, she attended Gay Student Organization meetings in order to “out” them in the college’s newspaper. She would secretly tape the discussions and then publish the transcripts while identifying the participants by name. In her columns, Ingraham referred to the gay and lesbian students as “sodomites.” She has toned down her hateful rhetoric, however, since she learned that one of her brothers is gay. Like her counterparts, she consistently harps about the “liberal” media and their inability to accurately cover all the wonderful happenings in Iraq. Bush’s unsuccessful and embarrassing debacle in Iraq is apparently, you guessed it—the media’s fault. Her contribution to the midterm election included encouraging her listeners to subvert a toll-free Democratic Party number intended to report problems in voting by conducting a mass call-in in order to make it inoperative. Certainly, I could go on and on exposing the ruthless and despicable characteristics that define Laura Ingraham and her cohorts who make up the Right-Wing propaganda machine. My intent within this particular section is only to give readers a few morsels of the most grotesque and twisted ideologies that dominate America’s media. Many of these so-called defenders of the American way come up with some of the most ludicrous remarks imaginable. They use sweeping generalizations filled with blatant lies to condemn those who do not share their sadistic viewpoints. Laura Ingraham is no exception. “Elitist” liberals, Ingraham says, think that patriotism, flag-flying, freedom loving, and protecting our nation and loved ones are stupid concepts. She claims that the “elite” liberals think that George W. Bush is an idiot. According to Ingraham, they are prejudicing hypocritical God-haters. As a liberal God-loving, churchgoing, army reservist who volunteered for and served in Southwest Asia and the Balkans during Operations Desert Storm and Joint Guard, I take great exception to Ingraham’s outlandish remarks. She might have a point, however, on how she thinks we “elites” characterize George W. Bush. Funny how you can love America, support the troops, and still be considered a traitor. Just ask any one of these obnoxious talking heads. In their twisted thought process, criticizing George W. Bush is nothing short of treason. If we do not blindly support the President and his policies, we must be undermining not only the war efforts, but our overall national cause. We have all heard them bellowing, “Don’t you want us to win the war on terror?!” This is their standard mantra for silencing the critics. We must apparently set aside our trivial radical views concerning the principles of our Constitution, habeas corpus, the premise for going to war, and the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The hypocrisy within this tribe of talking heads cannot be overstated. These hypocrites, including the professed “average American” Sean Hannity

172

Chapter Eleven

never considered it to be blasphemy when it came to Clinton bashing. One of the most prominent liars among these political pundits, Hannity is probably best known as the overbearing dominant co-host of the Fox News Channel’s Hannity and Colmes. Author and talk radio mogul, Hannity also hosts The Sean Hannity Show which can be heard daily on over five hundred stations throughout the country. While flaunting his supposed morality and religiosity, Hannity and his cohorts consistently berated Bill Clinton for his extra-marital goings-on with Monica Lewinsky, but they had no difficulty overlooking the promiscuities of Bob Livingston and Newt Gingrich, nor do they have any qualms with their beloved George W. Bush’s perverted sense of morality. Hannity’s rhetoric regarding President Clinton’s humanitarian assistance operation in the Balkans includes the following assessments—“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life.”10 A month later he scorned, “They haven’t prepared for anything in this…And frankly, I don’t think Clinton has the moral authority or ability to fight this war correctly.”11 At the end of George W. Bush’s pathetic first term, Hannity wrote, “When Bill Clinton launched his own incursions into Bosnia and Serbia for humanitarian reasons—even though neither nation threatened the United States in any way, or affected our national interests—his party did nothing to stop him. Yet they have opposed and obstructed President Bush’s incursion into Iraq on national security and humanitarian grounds.”12 Hannity conveniently uses a double standard when making his Bush/Clinton comparisons regarding their use of the military. The simple, easy to comprehend Sean Hannity Double Standard equation looks something like this: Clinton + Troops in Harms Way = Bad; Bush + Troops in Harms Way = Good. Broken down to its simplest form, the equation looks like this: Clinton = Bad; Bush = Good. Hypocrite Hannity apparently does not have a problem with troops coming home in body bags when George W. Bush is calling the shots. Hannity’s Bush/Clinton comparison is laughable. The massacres in Bosnia and its surrounding states were meticulously planned, ongoing, and lethal. Because of Bill Clinton’s successful intervention, thousands of lives were saved. Now I think its time to reveal the actual answer to the aforementioned equation: Clinton + Fully Equipped Troops in Harms Way during a Humanitarian Assistance Operation = 0 Combat Casualties; Bush + Troops Unnecessarily in Harms Way for an Illegal and Immoral Invasion of Iraq = 5000 Combat Casualties. Hannity claims that Bush’s incursion into Iraq was for national security and humanitarian reasons. We already know that this is bogus. Iraq was never a threat to our national security and Sean Hannity was well aware of that. Bush’s premise for invading Iraq flip-flopped from eliminating weapons

Bush Backers Undermine America

173

of mass destruction to liberating the Iraqi people. The Bush administration’s strategy for attacking Iraq was quite simply: Toss out a variety of excuses for invading Iraq and see which one of them sticks. With an overt prejudice toward the Bush administration, Hannity whines about the lack of support afforded his beloved George W. Bush. He also takes the liberty of holding liberals responsible for all but a few of the world’s woes. In his pompous poetic propaganda Deliver Us From Evil, Hannity reflects on the third anniversary of Nine-eleven, “The nation rallied behind its leader long enough to expel the state sponsors of evil in Afghanistan. Yet by the time the confrontation with Iraq presented itself, our courage and moral certainty seemed to fade in the face of partisan bickering and posturing…and yet now the political left and the Democratic Party are trying to use the demanding aftermath of the war to exploit our national cause for their own political advantage.”13 Let me take the opportunity here to set the record straight. To begin with, we as a nation did rally behind Bush in the immediate aftermath of the Nine-eleven tragedies. Bush’s support faded, and rightfully so, when he took his eye off of Osama bin Laden and put Iraq squarely in the center of his crosshairs. Iraq, we already know, was Bush’s target all along. It is in fact, the Republicans, not the Democrats as Hannity tries to spin it, which have used exploitation to further their own political agenda. It was the Republicans who exploited our troops in order to advance George W. Bush’s own personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Just ask Sean Hannity why over three thousand innocents were killed on September 11th, 2001. He will be more than happy to tell you; it was former President Clinton’s fault. This is the standard Right-Wing mantra. Liberal Democrats blamed the terrorists while Hannity and the Republicans blamed Bill Clinton. Hannity and his conservative cohorts love to pedal their lying propaganda depicting Bill Clinton as anti-military and weak on terrorism. Strange how it was the Bush administration which fought hard against an independent commission to investigate the nine-eleven attacks. Perhaps the investigation might have uncovered information revealing President Bush’s weaknesses on defense and his lackadaisical stance on terrorism. In 1996, Bill Clinton spent around $250 billion on defense, about two percent less than Ronald Reagan spent on defense during his second term. Keep in mind, in 1996 the Cold War and the Soviet Union no longer existed. Clinton budgeted approximately $300 billion for defense at the end of his second term, the same as George W. Bush budgeted for at the beginning of his Presidency. It was Bush who misappropriated funding and sent our troops into his unnecessary war in Iraq. George W. Bush was the one who sent our troops into harms way without enough equipment to adequately sustain them and keep them as safe as possible.

174

Chapter Eleven

A wonder it is that Hannity and all the other Clinton-haters have not blamed the former President for Hurricane Katrina. We are well aware of the Bush administration’s refusal to heed warnings of a terrorist plot targeting the United States. Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger had scheduled ten briefings with Bush’s in-coming national security team in order to discuss terrorism and more specifically, the seriousness of the al Qaeda threat. Under the new Bush administration, former Clinton counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke personally met with Vice President Cheney in order to emphasize the al Qaeda threat and the previous administration’s anti-al Qaeda plan. Former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued three reports to the Bush administration warning that mass-casualty terrorism on U.S. soil was a paramount concern. Later, in the spring of 2001, Clarke presented a plan to eliminate Osama bin Laden. It was in August 2001 that CIA Director George Tenet delivered his ominous report to President Bush entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to strike in U.S.”14 Eventually Clarke’s plan was approved but the Bush administration decided to wait until September, when the president was back from his vacation, to implement the plan. It was a mere thirty-eight days after Bill Clinton took Office that the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred. President Clinton did not respond by blaming Bush 41; nor did the media or anyone else. Clinton responded by hunting down those responsible: Abdul Murad, Wali Shah and Ramzi Yousef. Because of Bill Clinton, they are all behind bars. According to Hannity and the rest of the Right-Wing clan, Bill Clinton was a weakling when it came to fighting terrorism. The record however shows much to the contrary. Clinton prevented terrorist plots to blow up a dozen U.S. commercial jets, the United Nations and FBI buildings, airports in Boston and Los Angeles, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and the U.S. Embassy in Albania. He doubled the budget for counterterrorism and signed two crime bills which emphasized anti-terror legislation. Despite the importance of counterterrorism funding, the Republican controlled congress fought vigorously against Clinton’s request for additional money. In retaliation for the terrorist bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton launched Tomahawk missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. He charged Richard Clarke to devise a detailed plan to eliminate al Qaeda after terrorists bombed the U.S.S. Cole killing seventeen sailors. He also issued a presidential directive to assassinate Osama bin Laden. And no, the Clinton administration did not let bin Laden “slip through their fingers” as Hannity and Company would like us to believe. The Sudanese government made no offer whatsoever to turn bin Laden over to the United States despite

Bush Backers Undermine America

175

attempts to negotiate the transaction. The story was concocted by Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who had promising investments in Sudanese oil. Ijaz is currently an analyst for the Fox News Channel! On various occasions, Hannity accused former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean of claiming that President Bush knew about the Nine-eleven attacks ahead of time. Hannity made this accusation nine times from December 2003 through April 2004. Within this same time period, he also made the accusation in which he attributed it to the Democrats. In a July 2004 interview, in which he was confronted with audio about his accusations, Hannity reluctantly admitted that he had “misspoke.” With no evidence to back up his claims, Hannity accuses former Vice President Gore of “global warming hypocrisy” for polluting the air by using a private jet instead of flying commercially. Hannity has been making these accusations since Gore was the vice president. There are a few facts that Hannity conveniently fails to reveal. To begin with, Gore was following Secret Service protocol when he was the vice president. A sitting vice president does not fly commercially. Second, when Gore does fly via private jet, as a former vice president, he purchases carbon offsets to reduce the emissions. Also, Gore flies commercially whenever possible, purchases green power, and drives a hybrid. Claiming that all the “global warming hysteria” is “ridiculous,” Hannity does his part to tear down the environment via his SUV and use of private planes. It is no wonder that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes love Hannity’s spin artistry. Sean Hate-ity outdid himself on this one. The Reverend Fred Phelps and his flock at the Westboro Baptist Church are notoriously known for their homophobic ideology. A Right-Wing conservative mob out of Topeka, Kansas, they claim that the deaths of U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen in Iraq are divinely inflicted by God to punish America for its acceptance of gays. They travel about the country to protest at the funerals of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Hannity erroneously claims that these Kansas based thugs are members of “the anti-war Left.” Unfortunately, Hannity and other Right-Wingers like him have a robust following who buy into their unmitigated bull. He is a bigoted, Bush-supporting, hate-filled, homophobic hypocrite. Although this could easily describe many conservatives, I am referring specifically here to political pundit and former radio and television talk show host Alan Keyes. Keyes, who executes a “fire and brimstone” style of political rhetoric, refers to homosexuals as “selfish hedonists.” Keyes does not shy away from viciously attacking the Vice President’s lesbian daughter or his own lesbian daughter who he recently disowned with this slanderous label. Perhaps disowning his daughter, Maya, is part of Keyes’ “family values” concept.

176

Chapter Eleven

Keyes claims that homosexuals are essentially subhuman “pleasure seekers” unable to procreate. Procreation, he insists, is the foundation of marriage and, therefore, civil unions are immoral. A Right-Wing nut job with a twisted mind-set, Keyes acquaints homosexuality with pedophilia. Studies, however, actually reveal that most pedophiles are heterosexuals. However, homosexuals are also God’s creatures, and therefore, they are part of His Divine creation. Keyes, like most of his conservative counterparts, fails to understand these things. He also fails to understand the innate origin of sexuality. No one in the history of the world has ever chosen his or her sexual orientation. An embarrassment to the state of Maryland and the country as a whole, Keyes has flashed his political ambitions on multiple occasions. His political ventures, including his vie for the U.S. Senate in 1988 and 1992, as well as his run for America’s highest office in 1996 and 2000, were all unsuccessful. In August 2004, Keyes entered the U.S. senate race in Illinois to run against Democrat Barrack Obama. The Illinois Republican Party drafted him to run after Jack Ryan withdrew his nomination and former governors Jim Edgar and James Thompson and former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run. Although Keys denied that he was “carpet-bagging,” four years earlier he claimed that that was exactly what Hillary Clinton did when she ran for the U.S. Senate in New York. Keyes maintained that he would never pretend to represent the people of a state in which he did not live. Whether the Illinois Republican Party asked Keyes to run or not, he was still “carpet-bagging.” More accurately, it could be known as “hypocritical carpet-bagging.” Alan Keyes is clearly irrational and maladjusted. His devotion to President Bush alone is a testament to this. He cannot fathom why many critics and historians have anointed George W. Bush the worst President in United States history. At a press conference just before the 2004 election, Keyes complained about the lack of support the President was receiving from the Left. Perhaps it was because those of us on the Left were disgusted with Bush’s arrogant and stubborn attitude, his many failures, his lack of morals, and his inability to lead the country. Or maybe we just failed to put on our rose-colored glasses in order to properly see all of Bush’s wonderful “accomplishments.” “Accomplishments” which included an unjust war in Iraq, unnecessary military and civilian bloodshed, committing war crimes, taking his eyes off of Osama bin Laden, inadequate monetary management of homeland security, a disastrous foreign policy, dismantling the Constitution, destruction of the environment, discrimination policies, out-sourcing jobs, and sucking up to large corporate conglomerates. If we just do like Alan Keyes and look the other way, Bush’s first term would probably not have looked too bad. It’s the conservatives who love that “John Wayne shoot first, ask questions later cowboy diplomacy.” “Just level their entire country and turn it into a

Bush Backers Undermine America

177

parking lot” is a common cliché touted by many Bush loyalists. Fox News Channel’s loud and obnoxious Bill O’ Reilly is the embodiment of this kind of warped sentiment. Bomb the hell out of them is O’ Reilly’s remedy for the quagmire in Iraq. The “no spin” host of The O’ Reilly Factor has also authored several books, hosts The Radio Factor with Bill O’ Reilly, and writes a weekly column which appears in the Chicago Sun Times and the New York Post. O’ Reilly oftentimes berates his liberal guests with a barrage of comments and questions in an attempt to prove them wrong. They are rarely given an opportunity to finish a sentence before he cuts them off and interjects his own ludicrous opinionated sound bite. His claim to host a “no spin zone” is akin to the Fox slogan, “fair and balanced.” He boasts that he is an “independent,” but in fact, he is a registered Republican. Just take a look at his Nassau County, New York registration form. As well, O’ Reilly’s own improprieties have not squelched his crusade against Bill Clinton. When he was not sexually harassing his former producer Andrea Mackris with obscene phone calls, he was chastising the former president for lacking “value-based judgments and discipline.” When he is called on an erroneous statement or a blatant lie, he cries “foul” and claims that he is the unfortunate victim of a “smear campaign.” O’ Reilly and his conservative cohorts can dish it out, but they fall seriously short when it comes to taking it. The aforesaid six-pack of putrid propagandizing pundits make up only a small fraction of the many dogmatic Right-Wing zealots who permeate the American medium. They share mean-spirited narrow-minded traits which include hypocrisy, dishonesty, intolerance, and bigotry. Any who dare to challenge their extreme ideology are ridiculed, ostracized, and branded unpatriotic and immoral. Several books denouncing legitimate people of faith while communicating resolute allegiance to George W. Bush have been written by many callous cutthroat “compassionate” conservatives. Some of these perpetrators have already been mentioned throughout this work. Others worthy of recognition include just to name a few, senior White House correspondent for the Washington Times and Fox News Channel political analyst Bill Sammon, former Wall Street Journal and Washington Post investigative reporter Ronald Kessler, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, and New York Post columnist and Fox News Channel political analyst John Podhoretz. Notice how they glowingly reference Bush in the titles of these specific books: Bill Sammon’s Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters, Ronald Kessler’s A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush, David Frum’s The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush, and John Podhoretz’s Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane.

178

Chapter Eleven

Looking back on Bush’s corrupt and destructive presidency, we can see just how laughable these titles are. They cry out the word “oxymoron.” Hold your nose along with me and read a few of these excerpts: In Misunderestimated, Sammon dedicates an entire chapter to Bush’s surprise Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, “When he finally stepped from behind the screen, the room exploded in thunderous cheers and applause. The soldiers leapt to their feet at the site of the commander in chief, punching their fists in the air and clambering atop chairs and tables for a better view of this incongruous image—the president of the United States joining them in war-torn Baghdad.”15 An antacid might be in order right about now before I continue. In Ronald Kessler’s gushing praise for Bush, A Matter of Character, Kessler writes, “No one could have anticipated the peril that America would face during the presidency of George W. Bush. Yet no one could have been better suited to confronting that peril. It required vision, courage, patience, optimism, integrity, focus, discipline, determination, decisiveness, and devotion to America.”16 Who is Kessler trying to kid? Attempting to defend Bush, Kessler, of course, scolds the so-called liberal media for presenting a negative image of the President. David Frum, The Right Man, states, “George W. Bush is a very unusual person: a good man who is not a weak man. He has many faults…But outweighing the faults are his virtues: decency, honesty, rectitude, courage, and tenacity.”17 He concludes his nauseating diatribe with, “There is nothing divine about American political process. Yet leadership remains the greatest mystery in politics. George W. Bush was hardly the obvious man for the job. But by a very strange fate, he turned out to be, of all unlikely things, the right man.”18 Frum was right when he said that George W. Bush was clearly not the obvious man to hold the highest office in the land. Frum’s proceeding statement falls well short of the truth. We know without any misgivings whatsoever that Bush’s record of failures, atrocities, and blatant incompetence speaks for itself. George W. Bush proved himself to be anything but the “right” man! So much for the antacid I took earlier. Now might be a good time to finish off the entire bottle to get through this next “literary masterpiece.” I kid you not. John Podhoretz’s ludicrous piece of work, Bush Country, has more spin to it than the Tilt-a-Whirl ride at the Illinois State Fair. Podhoretz poetically transforms Bush’s weaknesses and character defects into an array of strengths and sparkling attributes. Highly critical of those who have accused the President of being intellectually challenged, Podhoretz maintains that Bush has never been one to flaunt his intellectual prowess. Nor does he attempt to be culturally cognizant or pretentious. Podhoretz characterizes Bush as a “whipsmart,” self-confident, down-to-earth, good ole boy with keen instincts.

Bush Backers Undermine America

179

Podhoretz staunchly defends Bush’s character throughout his propagandistic prose. The columnist and political analyst tirelessly spins himself into the ground claiming that “Dubya,” as he fondly refers to his pal, is anything but a fanatical, warmongering, cowboy. Bush, Podhoretz insists, is the victim of unfair attacks from the Left. He is according to Podhoretz, a misunderstood underestimated visionary—a dignified statesman who makes great efforts at diplomacy. Podhoretz resolutely defends Bush’s lies in leading up to the war with Iraq by emphasizing how the president had inadvertently received bad intelligence. George W. Bush is committed to eliminating terrorism and bringing democracy to the Muslim world Podhoretz argues. We already know however that Bush has not only proven himself to be inept at fighting terrorism, but he has exacerbated it as well. Before the President’s first term concluded, Podhoretz boasts, Bush had miraculously tallied a remarkable list of accomplishments. In two hundred and seventy-six pages of fanciful tripe, Podhoretz manages to scrape up a grand total of eight accomplishments. In Podhoretz’s own words, “This would be an amazing list of accomplishments for a president who had served all eight years in office. Bush has done it all in just three.”19 Let us take a moment here to look at these accomplishments by “a Great President” as Podhoretz loosely refers to Bush in the title of his book: 1) Initiated two wars which served as a blueprint for future wars while wiping out two brutal regimes 2) Redirected American foreign policy in order to confront rogue nations 3) Pushed through two tax cuts 4) Signed a campaignfinance reform bill 5) Changed the way the elderly receive health care and pay for prescription medication 6) Created a new doctrine of accountability for the education system 7) Promised $15 billion to eliminate AIDS in Africa 8) Struggled with the philosophical significance of stem-cell research. Now let us look at these “accomplishments” a little closer. The war in Afghanistan preceded the war in Iraq and was initiated in order to hunt down Osama bin laden. Although this was an appropriate response to the nine-eleven terrorist attacks, Bush spoiled this effort when he took his eye off of bin laden and proceeded to go after his primary target, Saddam Hussein. Redirecting American foreign policy meant that Bush instigated an unnecessary war, alienated most of our allies, and tarnished America’s reputation. Bush’s infamous tax cuts proved to be very successful—for the wealthy. With a variety of loopholes at one’s disposal to evade campaign finance laws, signing a campaign-finance reform bill was hardly an act of nobility. Pilfering Medicare and Social Security to help pay for his tax breaks for the wealthy certainly changed the way the elderly received health care. They were also forced to take advantage of their creative skills by figuring out how to come up with the money to pay for medication.

180

Chapter Eleven

Accountability for education consisted of promoting privatization and punishing school districts for not meeting unreasonable demands. Promising funds to fight AIDS is a far cry from actually delivering on that promise. It did make for some good publicity, however. Bush’s proposed budget at the time was substantially short of fifteen billion over a five year period. And finally, struggling with the philosophical significance of stem-cell research meant that Bush gave it some serious thought. I will concede this one. Giving any issue serious thought would have been quite an accomplishment for George W. Bush. Bringing this chapter to an end without emphasizing the immense hypocrisy that embodies the neoconservative nation would be a flagrant omission on my part. The Right-Wing’s reaction to Bill Clinton’s humanitarian assistance operation in the Balkans is a prime example. You talk about a double standard. Since the war in Iraq first began, we have been constantly reminded by the Right that opposing the President also means not supporting the troops. Neoconservatives clearly did not have this sentiment during the Clinton Presidency. As well, Clinton was not allowed any leeway. Here are just a few examples: “I cannot support a failed policy…The president began this mission with very vague objectives…There is no legitimate definition of victory.”20—Representative Tom Delay (R-TX). “I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”21—Senator Trent Lott (R-MS). ”If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”22—Karen Hughes. “Republicans reply that they’re serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad President.”23—Rush Limbaugh. “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”24—Governor George W. Bush (TX). This one says it all when it comes to the double standard, “You can support the troops, but not the president.”25—Representative Tom Delay (R-TX). “Guilty…guilty…guilty…guilty!”26 Kevin Bacon portraying Henri Young muttered these very words as he hobbled towards the witness stand in the classic movie Murder in the First. As I reminisce on this particular scene, it reminds me of the irresponsible derelicts who bestowed George W. Bush with a second term—guilty! They are not just the aforementioned pundits who pedal their propaganda throughout the media. These offenders are members of the public at-large and they represent a wide spectrum of ethnicity, religiosity, educational level, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation. Their ideologies include four basic tenets: fiscal, social, security and a combination of these three. They are comprised of nine predominant groups who have done their utmost to undermine our democracy and tear America apart.

Bush Backers Undermine America

181

One group, I refer to as “combo-conservatives,” share various traits with some of the accompanying eight sects. America’s wealthy bonded with Bush for obvious pocketbook reasons. Their mutual worship of the Almighty Dollar has promoted an increasing gap between the filthy rich and the working class. Bush’s pilfering of various programs to pay for his notorious tax cuts have not only provided this elite group with outrageous revenue, but created hardships for others, and stunted the overall economy. The gun-toting NRA cronies are also a major Bush ally. Their gun ownership along with their twisted view of the Second Amendment often dominates their very existence. Evangelicals and fundamentalists who give Christianity a bad name by promoting intolerance, hatred, and bigotry were also a dominant factor in hurling George W. Bush into a second term. The military, a traditionally Republican voting bloc, unfortunately make up one of these many Bush fanatic clans. I say “unfortunately,” because of my own affiliation with the military. I have much respect for our men and women of the Armed Forces who sacrifice themselves for our country. Their decision to tear into the very heart of America by reinstating George W. Bush as commander in chief was disgraceful. One of the most ignorant of these groups, I refer to as “character conscious conservatives.” These are the folks who have the most difficulty thinking for themselves. They subscribe to the imagery that George W. Bush is in fact the repository of strength, morality, and character. For example, Bush and his administration have relied heavily on the psychological phenomenon that a person who speaks frequently and passionately about morals is generally regarded as a moral person. Ronald Reagan was the beneficiary of this phenomenon. A divorcee who was known by his Hollywood cohorts as having questionable morals, Reagan was considered the epitome of “family values.” Despite having raised taxes, he was viewed by the general public as the paragon of lower taxes. Thus, despite his policies and actions which reveal the contrary, George W. Bush is considered by many as a beacon of morality and an exemplar of character. There are those too who whose lives are centered on fear. These are known as the “security conscious conservatives.” They are more than willing to give up their civil liberties in order to help the president fight the War on Terror. In this respect, by allowing their lives to be disrupted while supporting a president who has seized our civil liberties, the terrorists have already won. Former Nixon legal counsel John Dean makes a legitimate point which illustrates the relationship between the security conscious thought process and the reckless policies of the Bush administration. Dean writes, “Many people believe that neoconservatives and many Republicans appreciate that they are

182

Chapter Eleven

more likely to maintain influence and control of the presidency if the nation remains under ever-increasing threats of terrorism, so they have no hesitation in pursuing policies that can provoke potential terrorists throughout the world.”27 Pat Robertson and some of the members of his Christian Coalition flock are a prime example of security conscious conservatives. They did not hesitate whatsoever to sell out their principles and values in exchange for security in the fall of 2007 when they endorsed former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani for President. Giuliani, they are confident, is the logical choice for protecting America. In spite of Giuliani’s pro-choice, gun control, and gay friendly stance, Robertson and his clan have declared security to be their number one priority. Deranged and self-sabotaging accurately describe an organization known as the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative gay and lesbian political sect with numerous state and local chapters throughout the country. Senseless and ludicrous goes without saying. They are akin to groups of African-Americans monetarily supporting the Ku Klux Klan! Despite their erroneous and deceptive “all inclusive” rhetoric, the homophobic Republican Party platform blatantly marginalizes America’s gays and lesbians. The President’s pathetic first term however opened a few Log Cabin eyes. Following their enthusiastic support for Bush in 2000, many Log Cabin folks were reluctant to endorse him in 2004 after he stabbed them in the back with his constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Mark Patrosso, a disenchanted Log Cabin activist from California naively lamented, “I don’t think the president has been the uniter he said he would be.”28 Well… really? What did these Log Cabin fools expect? Log Cabins who continue to back Bush must have then been elated when he recently vetoed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. There were also those who simply backed Bush by default. In other words, those in this particular group considered Bush “the lesser of two evils.” They could not justify voting for Bush, as much as they could justify voting against John Kerry. This clan was probably the most gullible of the aforementioned groups. They were the ones most mesmerized by the Right-Wing’s propaganda to vilify Senator Kerry during the campaign. When the Bush campaign said that if elected, Kerry would take away everyone’s Bibles, this was no doubt the first group to believe it. As I put pen to paper I can already hear the wailing and whining from the right, “This guy hates America!” Nothing of course could be further from the truth. I will not question the sincerity of those who truly worship God as they strive to understand His message of love, compassion, and forgiveness.

Bush Backers Undermine America

183

My problem is with those who use God as a tool to justify and promote their bigotry, hatred, and intolerance. One of the reasons I decided to create this work is because of my intense loyalty to America. I dare anyone to challenge my patriotism. As well, this book expresses my profound disappointment with the millions who felt it necessary to cast their ballots for failure, corruption, and incompetence. I thought about titling this work I Told You So America, because it was so easy to foresee that Bush’s disastrous first term would overflow into a second term leaving Bush backers with egg on their faces and blood on their hands. These are the same “patriots” who would go ballistic every time they learned that someone had exercised their First Amendment right by burning an American flag. Now I ask you, what caused America more harm, hosting a barbecue featuring Old Glory or having voted for George W. Bush? Think about it!

NOTES 1. Fox News Channel. Dayside with Linda Vester (New York, New York) 6 October 2004. 2. Alterman, Eric. What Liberal Media? Basic Books. New York, New York. 2003) p. 4. 3. Franken, Al. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Penguin Group). New York, New York. 2003) p. 17. 4. Gurley, George. New York Observer (New York, New York) 10 January 2005: 2. 5. Ibid. 6. Franken, Al. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2003) p. 17. 7. Coulter, Ann. “You Can Count on Democrats to Say Something Stupid.” The State Journal Register, 14 September 2007: 7. 8. Nagourney, Adam. “GOP Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author.” New York, New York, 4 March 2007: 24. 9. Coulter, Ann. Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Publishing Group. New York, New York. 2006) p. 103. 10. Fox News Channel. Fox News (New York, New York) 6 April 1999. 11. Franken, Al. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2003) p. 129. 12. Hannity, Sean. Deliver Us From Evil (Harper Collins. New York, New York. 2004) p. 141. 13. Ibid. pp. 1-2. 14. Franken, Al. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2003) p. 120.

184

Chapter Eleven

15. Sammon, Bill. Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry, and the Bush Haters (Harper Collins. New York, New York. 2004) p. 306. 16. Kessler, Ronald. A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2004) p. 209. 17. Frum, David. The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush (Random House. New York, New York. 2003) p. 272. 18. Ibid. p. 284. 19. Podhoretz, John. Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane (Saint Martin’s Press. New York, New York. 2004) p. 2. 20. Courtesy of what really happened.com & daily kos.com. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. Gordon, Dan. Murder in the First (Warner Brothers Productions. Burbank, California) 1995. 27. Dean, John W. Conservatives Without Conscience (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2006) p. 82. 28. Courtesy of Carolyn Lochhead & Carla Marimucci.

Chapter Twelve

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

The aroma of brand new tires hit me squarely in the face as I opened the door and walked into E.T. Tire to see about scheduling an oil change. “Hey Forrest,” Mike cheerfully bellowed from behind the service counter, “How you doing?” Mike Hannah, the proprietor of the small automotive shop in Virden, Illinois always exhibits a genuinely pleasant and upbeat demeanor whenever I see him. There is an aura about him which presents confidence and optimism. After scheduling my oil change for later that afternoon, I asked Mike why he kept an opened Bible atop the far end of the service counter. I had noticed it whenever I went in to get some car work done, but on this particular occasion, I seemed to be especially curious. “It sometimes gets conversations going.” Mike exclaimed, “…it helps me get more involved with Christ.” During our discussion, we quickly learned that each of us shared the fascinating aspect of how well the Bible and spirituality correlate with science. About a half an hour later we were still enveloped in our own impromptu Bible study! Conspicuously centered between the Holy Scripture and a well-worn grease-stained auto parts manual was a small paperback that I was mystically drawn to. I began perusing the first few pages with the precision of a surgeon. The more I read, the more my enthusiasm grew. I felt like a kid in a toy store waiting to see Santa Claus. Suddenly Mike gently tapped the top of the page I was reading and said, “Keep it…it’s yours.” I graciously accepted his gift without hesitation. The entire document stunningly provides an inspirational biography of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The book I was so entranced by was Lee Strobel’s Gold Medallion winning The Case for Christ. Strobel, an investigative reporter by trade and former atheist turned pastor, stunningly provides verifiable evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the Son of God. Strobel also eloquently captures the unconditional love that God has for mankind through the sacrifice of His Son. 185

186

Chapter Twelve

Strobel’s The Case for Christ inspired me to pursue other books about Christ, spirituality, and an omnipotent and benevolent God. Contrary to what many might believe, conservatives do not have a monopoly on God, Christianity, or morality. Fundamentalists do not speak for Jesus, nor do they have respect for morality, but there is in fact an abundance of liberal Christians in America who, unlike the Christian Right who just give it lip service, actually practice Christianity. Appropriately voiced via the Reverend Jim Wallis, “Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and pro-Republican? And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?”1 Members of the Right however have proven themselves to be the champions of materialism and selfishness. This adheres to the eighteenth century philosopher Adam Smith who said that our community well-being is further advanced when everyone pursues his own narrow-minded self interests without any regard to the well-being of others. This clearly does not depict the generous, charitable, forgiving, tolerant, and loving Jesus of the Gospels. Former President Jimmy Carter puts it well, “Those Christians who resist the inclination toward fundamentalism and who truly follow the nature, actions, and words of Jesus Christ should encompass people who are different from us with our care, generosity, forgiveness, compassion, and unselfish love… Breaking through this barrier and reaching out to others is what personifies a Christian and what emulates the perfect example that Christ set for us.”2 Bigotry, hatred, hypocrisy, intolerance, and violence are not values held by the Christian faith. They are however the values of the Christian Right. The Christian Right will piously wear religion on their sleeve yet fail to uphold the teachings of Christ. They claim to be the keepers of morality, family values, peace, and the sanctity of life. Their rhetoric and their actions however, tell a much different story. Their voices ask, “What would Jesus do?” but “Who would Jesus bomb?” accurately describes their true sentiment. The evidence which follows will reveal why in fact, the Christian Right is wrong! The Holy Bible is a beautiful collection of various books which were in fact inspired by God. They are an authentic accumulation of works which can be traced back to hundreds of years prior to the first century. The Old and New Testaments are both historically and scientifically reliable. As well, Jesus himself referred to the Old Testament during his teachings and considered it to be the Word of God, but please keep in mind that these antiquities were compiled by mortal beings that recorded the events of and lived by the laws of their time. Literally practicing the ways of the Old Testament today would be considered ludicrous and barbaric. Some violations would include eating

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

187

off of a three legged table, consuming shellfish, and a man marring the edges of his beard. Some offenses would merit being stoned to death. Assuming they are educated enough to be aware of the many biblical laws contained throughout Scripture, the Christian Right conveniently disregards various passages which do not pertain to their agenda of promoting fear and prejudice. They give little, if any, credence to most of the offenses contained in the ancient code, but they have no qualms in singling out and putting to memory two of their favorite passages from the book of Leviticus; “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). These passages are maintained to be sacred while others can be selectively ignored. Not long ago when I was passing the square in Virden on my journey home from work, I was listening to The Frank McNeil Show on WMAY. Tuning into as much of McNeil as I can before he leaves the airways always makes a portion of my drive home more enjoyable. Faithfully I switch to another station or pop in a CD when his broadcast concludes in order to avoid the Lars Larson propaganda which immediately follows. The topic that one particular evening was the torture of U.S. held detainees at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. The question posed to McNeil’s callers was essentially, should American troops and those contracted by the U.S. government engage in torture techniques in order to gain potentially valuable information? Two of the callers I heard alluded to their strong God-fearing Christian backgrounds as they proceeded to embarrass themselves with their callous, vengeful, and totally un-American attitudes. While listening I felt shock, a touch of nausea, disappointment and extreme shame. One of the callers was a woman who ranted and raved about how vitally important it is that we conduct heinous torture techniques, if nothing else, to avenge the deaths of “our boys” who are sacrificing themselves for God and country. Apparently, since God is on our side, U.S. sanctioned torture is not only acceptable, but it’s the Christian way. The following caller who was in total agreement with the previous woman, kept harping on about a portion of a passage from Leviticus 24:20, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Nothing like wrapping yourself up in the flag and shielding yourself in the name of God in order to justify torture! I quickly grabbed my cell phone and began dialing McNeil’s show as the “eye for an eye” clod was winding down his tirade. I was not about to hold my tongue after the crap I had just heard from the last two callers. I informed my gracious host and all who were tuning in that torture is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is not, nor should it ever be considered, an option. Torture is not a Christian act. It is inhumane, barbaric, and un-American. Also,

188

Chapter Twelve

I continued, torture does not produce reliable information. The Bush administration and those who carry out such heinous acts must be held accountable. As well, those who condone such acts should be ashamed of themselves! The god of the Christian Right is the god of wrath, vengeance, and punishment. Their god puts conditions and limitations on his love for mankind. Apparently their god is also a registered Republican. The following is an excerpt courtesy of PublicEye.org: “Godly Christians must be involved in politics to take back America from the Godless secularists and liberals…Our version of Christianity is correct, dominant, triumphant, defines the political center, and is a struggle between good and evil. Our opponents are witting or unwitting agents of Satan…Our moral superiority, and the fact we are persecuted by our opponents justify hatred of the enemy…Our God may be merciful, compassionate, and the God of justice; but our God is a zealous and vengeful God…We will win, because God is on our side.”3 This is an ideal sample of the ignorant, narrow-minded, and mean-spirited rhetoric of the Christian Right. Since when does the “Godly” Christian Right have exclusive rights to the United States of America? America belongs to all of her citizens. Authentic open-minded and spirit-filled Christians understand this. There is one thing however that is definitely true. The Christian Right is indeed dominant. They were clearly a major factor in causing America to be cursed with George W. Bush for eight years. As well, their inability to understand the true nature of God is appalling. As noted previously, the god of the Christian Right is vengeful and vindictive. They emphasize a “fire and brimstone” version of God which conveys feelings of anxiety and fear. A masked man wielding a gun in your local bank should induce feelings of fear. Confronting a rattlesnake in the woods is also a legitimate reason to be very afraid. Definitely, witnessing a bus load of Republicans gathering at the polls on Election Day is a cause for extreme fear. The Christian Right erroneously believes that in order to be a genuine bona fide Christian, one must embrace a god of fear. They envision a condemning god who is powerful, pugnacious, and stern in judgment. This concept of God is senseless and offensive. God is not a punishing god of fear. He is the power of the cosmos and the ultimate paradigm of hope, generosity, charity, compassion, and forgiveness. He is the purest energy of divine light. The true nature of God is perfect, unconditional, and unfathomable love. Words alone cannot express God’s universal love for mankind. It is simply beyond human comprehension! As well, our love for one another should epitomize God’s love for us. Just examine John 13:34, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” This

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

189

concept is incomprehensible to members of the Christian Right. For them, anyone outside their community of faith is considered the “enemy.” It is their constant crusade in the battle of “us” versus “them.” The “enemy” consists of non-Christians and Christians who do not conform to their strict ideology. For God, there is no “us” or “them.” We are all indistinguishable in His eyes. We are all a part of His divine creation. Through the sacrifice of His Son, He provided us with the ultimate gift of love. This is the divine grace of God. Take notice of how the Christian Right is more hung up on the Old Testament laws than the hopeful optimistic aspects of the New Testament. Those on the Right seem to be more comfortable with the condemning God of the Old Testament. This is more conducive to their political agenda to divide America into two particular groups; the “good” God-fearing Christians” and the “evil” heretics, infidels, liberals, proponents of free choice, and gays. Through God, Jesus brought us a new covenant which supersedes the Old Testament. However, Jesus did not come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, but to fulfill prophesy and remind his followers that God had introduced a new contract with mankind. Jesus himself was this catalyst for God’s new covenant with humanity. Although they claim to have “moral superiority” over the rest of us, they fail to remember and follow the teachings of the gentle, compassionate, and liberal Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount. Condemning homosexuality is the cornerstone of the Christian Right’s battle to defeat the “enemy” and defend Christianity. Homosexual activities depicted in the Old Testament were only considered unnatural because they were non-procreative. Thus, a heterosexual couple unable to bear children must apparently be unnatural as well. The Leviticus passages mentioned previously were written by Jewish leaders in the sixth century B.C. in order to keep exiled Jews separate from their captors. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah which the Christian Right points towards to condemn homosexuality depicts the sin of inhospitality. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Up until the mid-1900s, science and religion were primarily at odds with each other. Since that time, the gap between the two has decreased considerably. So much so that science, particularly quantum physics, has revealed a correlation between the Book of Genesis and intelligent design. The secular world of science has traditionally been vilified by many on the Christian Right as the “enemy” of religion. However, when examined more closely, science is actually an ally of the Christian faith. Over the years, scientific discoveries have been beneficial in everything from determining the origins of the universe to creating new technologies in medicine. Science has also uncovered evidence that homosexuality is an innate biological predisposition. Contrary to the popular belief of the Christian Right, sexual orientation is not

190

Chapter Twelve

a choice. No, God does not “hate fags,” to borrow a phrase via the notorious Fred Phelps. God, in fact, loves each and every one of His children unconditionally…even Republicans! The Christian Right’s obsession with selective scriptures contained within the Old Testament neatly coincides with their preconceived prejudices. Despite the fact that the Old Testament condones stoning adulteresses to death as well as other barbaric practices, the Christian Right gives special attention to the “aberration” of homosexuality. AIDS, they often claim, is God’s way of punishing gays. I was reminded of the Christian Right’s love and compassion for mankind one Sunday morning on my way to church. Two bumper stickers on the back of a small red pickup in the parking lot of a large fundamentalist church caught my eye. The one on the left side of the bumper read, “Smile…God loves you!” The one on the right read, “Help Cure AIDS…kill a queer!” This also brings to mind the story of a young man who, several years ago, confided to his evangelical pastor that he was gay. Honest and forthright, the man was seeking guidance from someone he felt he could trust with spiritual matters. With all the love and compassion he could muster, the pastor told him that since he was a homosexual, he should immediately go home and kill himself! Such comforting words from the “morally superior” Christian Right! Unlike the innate properties of homosexuality, being an adulteress is not a biological predisposition. It cannot be overstated enough. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Author Chandler Burr unequivocally states, “Sexual orientation’s biological component is effectively determined at birth. And we know conclusively that sexual orientation is neither changeable nor a matter of choice.”4 Yet, the Christian Right is much less condemning when it comes to matters of infidelity. It is often cavalierly referred to as “the forgivable sin.” This is a completely different sentiment given to homosexuality…the “unforgivable abomination.” “Look the other way” is often the consensus when it comes to matters of infidelity. We have all heard it…”boys will be boys.” Adulteresses as well are rarely viewed to be as guilty as the adulterer. Women, still regarded as “the fairer sex,” are usually perceived as more vulnerable and thus, easier for unfaithful men to manipulate. My friend Buff Carmichael, founder and editor of Prairie Flame, reminded me why adultery and prostitution are not given the same amount of prominence from the pulpit as homosexuality. The collection plates on Sunday morning he quipped would be markedly less full! The hypocrisy of these keepers of morality is astounding. Notice how members of the Religious Right conveniently downplay scriptures referring to hypocrisy. Reminds me of a passage from the Gospel of Mark, chapter

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

191

seven; “And he said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me’” (Mark 7:6). Rodger Malcolm Mitchell poetically captures the hypocrisy of the Christian Right; “The devil decries evil. Virtue is his guise. To find the hidden villain, listen for the loudest voice.”5 One of the loudest voices we have had the displeasure of hearing over the years belongs to the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart. The wealthy televangelist, like so many others on the Right, has been a champion of hypocrisy and an embarrassment to Christianity. The twisted homophobe once passionately declared that he would not hesitate to kill any gay man that made a pass at him. I seriously cannot imagine that there might be any gay man desperate enough to make advances towards the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, but beyond that, Swaggart is no stranger to the world’s oldest profession. Rosemary Garcia and Debra Murphree just to name two can attest to Swaggart’s “hands-on” experience with prostitution. Jessica Hahn received large sums of hush money from Praise the Lord founder Jim Bakker not to divulge their adulterous relationship. Bakker was also indicted on twenty-three federal charges of fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering. Assemblies of God minister Marvin Gorman took a little time out from condemning loving monogamous homosexual relationships to have an extramarital affair with one of his parishioners. First Assembly of God pastor Mike Hintz turned himself into police for the sexual exploitation of a minor. South Carolina Christian Coalition chairman Beverly Russell sexually molested his step-daughter. Oregon Christian Coalition chairman Louis Beres was accused of molesting three of his family members. Christian Coalition member Ken Calvert has been sued as an alimony deadbeat. The Christian Right’s blatant hypocrisy and its denigration of Christianity will continue to manifest itself in America’s culture and grow like a cancer until true Christians rise up against the enmity and disdain of the Right Wing establishment that promotes fear, bigotry, and hatred. Let us see what else is inside the file drawer labeled “moral values.” Investigators have estimated that Richard Dasen, a big benefactor of various Christian organizations, has spent millions of dollars on prostitutes and was previously convicted of sexual abuse of minors. Two time divorcee Bob Barr, currently on wife number three, paid for his second wife’s abortion, but failed to pay child support for the children he fathered with his first two wives. Also on wife number three is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Gingrich, one of the loudest voices during the Clinton impeachment, was the recipient of oral sex via Anne Manning while he was married to his first wife. Focus on the Family medical consultant David Hager was involved in an adulterous affair just before divorcing his wife whom he had sexually abused.

192

Chapter Twelve

Jeff Miller, Tennessee senator and big proponent of the Marriage Protection Act had an adulterous affair with one of his office aides. Henry Hyde, the Illinois congressman who presided over Clinton’s impeachment proceedings was involved in an extramarital affair which ended the marriage of his mistress and her husband. Staying in the Land of Lincoln for a moment, U.S. Senate nominee Jack Ryan got some kind of a high with a fantasy of his wife having sex with other men. He actually pressured his wife, actress Jeri Ryan, to fulfill his fantasy. He went so far as to have her accompany him into sex clubs where others could potentially view the two of them having sexual relations. While waving his finger at Bill Clinton’s improprieties, former Louisiana congressman Bob Livingston resigned in the wake of revelations about his own acts of infidelity. Hoosier congressman Dan Burton committed, you might say, the ultimate form of adultery when he impregnated a woman he was having an affair with. Florida congressman Charles Canady attempted to conceal his adulterous affair with Sharon Becker. Hailed by the Christian Coalition, Oregon congressman Jim Bunn abandoned his wife and five children to marry one of his aides. He put his new bride on the state payroll with a salary of nearly one hundred thousand dollars annually. Former Georgia state attorney general Mike Bowers recently admitted to an extramarital affair that continued on for a decade. Former Pennsylvania congressman Don Sherwood recently admitted to an extramarital affair and former California congressman John Scmitz fathered two children during adulterous acts with one of his students. Outspoken proponent of “family values” is the Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts who he himself has fathered children out of wedlock. After impregnating the daughter of his ex-girlfriend, Wall Street reporter and avid anti-abortion proponent John Fund encouraged the pregnant woman to abort his child. Among others, Louisiana Senator David Vitter was linked to the infamous “D.C. Madam” when his phone number appeared on the client list of Deborah Jeane Palfrey of Pamela Martin and Associates escort service. Prominent Christian conservative Coy Privette of North Carolina pleaded guilty to a half a dozen counts of aiding and abetting prostitution. Spokane, Washington mayor Jim West was himself involved in an extramarital affair…with a man. West supported a bill that would have made it illegal for homosexuals to work in schools and specific state agencies. Bible Belt Congressman Keith Westmoreland from Tennessee was arrested on seven counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to minors. Department of Homeland Security Deputy Press Secretary Brian Doyle initiated sexually explicit phone conversations with a woman profiling herself on the internet as a fourteen year old girl. He went so far as to give her his of-

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

193

fice number and government issued cell phone number. As well, he used the internet to send her pornographic movie clips. Back to the Land of Lincoln once more, we have Congressman Dan Crane, married with children, who boasted a history of extramarital affairs involving underage congressional pages. Focus on the Family member and “ex-homosexual” John Paulk lied about prowling for gay sex in a gay bar in Washington, D.C. When he was confronted by Wayne Besen of the Human Rights Campaign, Paulk, alias “John Clint” claimed that he only entered the bar to use the restroom. However, eyewitnesses at Mr. P’s stated that Paulk flirted with various men, stated he was gay, and was in the bar for over an hour. Maine gives us the Right Wing county commissioner Merrill Barter who pleaded guilty to assault on and sexual contact with an underage male. Former Ohio congressman Donald Lukens was found guilty of having sexual intercourse on multiple occasions with an underage female since she was thirteen. “Buckeye” county commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to child molestation on two counts with girls under the age of eleven. One of George W. Bush’s electorates from Virginia, Parker Bena, was sentenced to thirty months in federal prison after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography. Pennsylvania councilman Jack Gardner was convicted of child molestation. Hawaii councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of an underage male. John Burt was convicted of child molestation of an underage female who was a resident of the home for troubled girls that he directed. Earl Kimmerling was sentenced to prison for molesting a girl that he attempted to keep a gay couple from adopting. Virginia congressman Ed Schrock, who was hailed as a hero by the Christian Coalition, withdrew his candidacy for a third term after it was revealed that he had been soliciting for gay sex. His voting record has earned him kudos from the Christian Right including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, against a bill that would have outlawed employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and opposes hate crimes legislation which would cover gays, but it appears that he sanctions soliciting for gay sex in airport restrooms! This would be Idaho U.S. Senator Larry Craig who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. Specifically, he pled to soliciting sex from an undercover police officer in a men’s room at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. Since then, of course, he insisted on numerous occasions that he did not do anything inappropriate and should not have pled guilty. Founder of the New Life Church and former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, is the gay-bashing Ted Haggard. An associate of George W. Bush who rallied millions of evangelicals to vote for Bush in

194

Chapter Twelve

2004, Haggard admitted to purchasing crystal methamphetamine from a gay prostitute named Mike Jones. He also admitted to a three year relationship with Jones which included monthly “massages.” Haggard has claimed that he has never had gay sex with anyone, but in a letter he wrote to his New Life congregation after his resignation, he stated that he was guilty of “sexual immorality.” Former televangelist and president of the Trinity Broadcasting Network Paul Crouch never admitted to having gay sex, either. But he did pay almost a half a million dollars in hush money in an attempt to conceal a gay affair he never had with Enoch Ford! The Christian Right enjoy using the rhetoric “love the sinner…hate the sin” when it comes to homosexuality, but indeed their actions speak louder than their words. The Religious Right opposes homosexuals’ right to work in almost all environments, to live in safety, to raise children, to serve their country in the armed forces, and to marry their loved ones. In short, they make every effort to deny the homosexual community the basic rights of American citizenship. Some on the Right have even called for the arrest of all homosexuals. Those on the Right have successfully portrayed themselves as the guardians of morality, fiscal discipline, and individual responsibility. They have neatly packaged their promotion of fear, bigotry, and hatred via the neat little catch phrase “family values.” Millions of working class Americans abandoned their own fiscal and social concerns in 2004 in order to be a part of the morality bandwagon. The god of the Christian Right meticulously keeps score in order to divvy out punishment or reward. Those who are well-heeled and have relatively few problems, for example, must be favored by God. The poor on the other hand, are probably poor because they deserve to be so. Their plight is their own fault and no doubt, they “got what they deserved,” but thankfully, the Jesus of the Gospels did not base His ministry on what people deserved. And since when did hatred become a family value? Is ostracizing one’s own relative because he or she happens to be gay a component of family values? What about the federal government? Is turning a surplus into a deficit by record spending, which our children and grandchildren will be harnessed with, a part of family values? Is the wanton disregard for the environment included in family values? Is denying children the access to basic health care a family value? Since when did greed and materialism become a family value? When did idolatry manifest itself into family values? We all remember Judge Roy “take your hands off of our god” Moore who resisted the removal of the Ten Commandments from his Alabama courthouse. Jim Leach of WMAY Springfield has always warned his listeners to be wary of any organizations containing the name “family.” This is certainly good sound advice. Organizations like these, in addition to groups such as the

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

195

Traditional Values Coalition and the Alliance Defense Fund, work together to divide America and undermine the basic principles of democracy. They make unsubstantiated and ludicrous claims in order to promote their agenda of hatred, bigotry, and fear. For example, they insist that gays should not be entitled to “special” rights to promote homosexuality in public schools and that “reports” provide proof that homosexuals and pedophiles are one in the same. They claim that gay couples marrying or adopting will weaken the family and destroy our society. Leach is right. He has often said that if his marriage is somehow put in jeopardy because homosexuals are afforded the basic rights of American citizenship including marriage, then his wife and he must not have much of a marriage. The Christian Right is under the erroneous and bigoted assumption that marriage is the sacred union between one man and one woman. Marriage is in fact, the legal union between one man and one woman, but it should not just be afforded to heterosexual couples. Marriage should be recognized by every state in the country as a legal union between two consenting adults who are committed to each other. When they speak of “family,” the Christian Right is referring to a husband and a wife with or without children. This is the typical, narrow-minded, fundamentalist concept of family. Jesus views the family in a much broader and inclusive sense. “But he replied to the men who told him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers!’” (Matthew 12:48-49) But I think the most appropriate and most powerful definition of “family” came by way of the classic seventies sitcom, The Mary Tyler Moore Show. During the emotionally charged final episode, Mary Tyler Moore, who gave life and pizzazz to the character “Mary Richards,” provided the meaning of family. With tears in her eyes and a catch in her throat Moore affirmed, “What is a family anyway? They’re just people who make you feel less alone and really loved.”6 This goes far beyond the Christian Right’s exclusive and petty definition of family. The writers of the show were simply emphasizing the gift of and the importance of friendship. Our friends…you know… those wonderful people in our lives who know everything about us and yet they still love us. They have a special place in our hearts and thus, are legitimate members of our family. This is truly a wholesome and authentically Christian take on the concept of family! While they preach and sing hymns about peace, the fundamentalists and evangelicals that make up the Christian Right have sanctioned the Bush administration’s unnecessary, illegal, and immoral aggression against Iraq calling it “God’s will.” So apparently, making plans to attack Iraq eight months before Nine-eleven for personal, political, and economic reasons

196

Chapter Twelve

was somehow “God’s will.” For the twisted mind-set of those on the Right, that probably makes a great deal of sense. As the blood of every soldier and civilian continues to be spilled, the Religious Right will continue to defend Bush’s “holy war” because they are in fact convinced that George W. Bush was called upon by God Himself to lead the world and extract all of the “evildoers.” One of the most fundamental principles adhered to by the Christian Right is their “pro-life” stance maintaining the sanctity of human life, but they conveniently overlooked the fact that privately, George W. Bush has always maintained a pro-choice stance when it comes to abortion. They also neglect to acknowledge that assuming a “pro-life” position goes far beyond the issue of abortion. For example, the Christian Right has no qualms with capital punishment. Imposing the death penalty, besides giving conservatives an adrenaline rush, does not deter crime, bring closure to the victim’s family, or save the state money. As well, innocent people have wrongly been convicted, placed on death row, and executed! Although they erroneously characterize themselves as pro-life, we already know the Religious Right’s pro-death stance when it comes to capital punishment. As well, their antagonistic opposition towards basic health care is a testament to their true contempt for human life. The United States is just one of a handful of industrialized nations that does not provide universal health care to its citizens. Our current health care system is a failure whereas nearly fifty million Americans are unable to afford health insurance. George W. Bush’s claim that millions of people choose to be uninsured is just one of his numerous lies. The fact is, they simply cannot afford the high cost of the premiums. Had Bush’s first tax break for the wealthy been just half of what it was, we could have used the remaining funds to pay for a comprehensive health care program for each and every American for approximately ten years. What Would Jesus Do? You can bet your tax break He would scold the Religious Right and vote for universal health care! Quantum physics has taught us that everything throughout the universe is connected. We are all not only connected to each other, but we have an organic relationship with the Earth as well. “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7) Siding with the Bush administration’s anti-environmental policies, the Christian Right views our planet as a warehouse full of commodities to be turned into profit. Deregulating environmental protection laws which allow more deadly toxins to be poured into our air and water is anything but “pro-life.” There is nothing moral or pro-life about destroying provisions that were put into place to prevent death and disease just to line the pockets of corporate polluters.

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

197

At this point we can put to rest all of the nonsense that the Religious Right holds the key to morality. We also know that they put strict limitations on those who are deserving of God’s love and which human lives are sacred and which ones are not. As well as and contrary to what many might think, Jesus was not a biblical literalist, but He was a flaming hardcore compassionate bleeding-heart liberal. We know this by looking at His ministry and the way He contested the religious and political presumptions of His time. We know this because He followed the law of God and the spirit of the Scriptures, not the letter of the Scriptures. As well, He had only two requests for humanity: Love God with all of your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Righteousness to Jesus does not include how often one goes to church, how hard one prays, or how strongly one abhors and condemns homosexuals, but rather, are we kind and neighborly? Do we tend to the suffering? Do we feed the hungry and help the poor? Do we open our hearts and homes to the stranger in need or do we send them away because they fail to meet our criteria of family values? A quick reference to prayer in public schools will conclude my point regarding the liberal Jesus of the Gospels and His rightful place in our lives. Christ believed very deeply that prayer is private and should not be displayed as a pious public act. Once more I shall ask, What Would Jesus Do? He would adamantly vote against prayer in our public schools. This is a completely foreign concept to those on the Right. The Christian Right vociferously manifests Jesus on their lips and wears their religion on their sleeves. The liberal contrast is to maintain Jesus and His ministry of love and compassion in our hearts and minds, not simply on our lips. This is truly the Christian way! The completion of this document comprised of an even one dozen chapters is close at hand. It has been a long literary journey which has taken me approximately four years. Fortunately for the entire world including America, George W. Bush’s reign of destruction and incompetence, long overdue, has ended. As I take a moment to contemplate the outline of my conclusion, I have realized that the perfect ending to this book will actually be marked by a beginning. America will have an opportunity to redeem herself by voting for change, hope, and optimism in the renewed spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. America will have the potential to inject leadership into an Oval Office which has been without any leadership for the past eight years. This entire work up to this point has been a kind of cathartic exercise in which I have had a great opportunity to vent. I hope also that this book has been a positive therapeutic device for my readers who also needed a chance to vent their frustrations over the destructive direction that our nation has taken under the Bush administration, but before I reach the finish line, I do have a little more venting to do. Join me as we take an excursion into the sections

198

Chapter Twelve

I simply refer to as “age irrelevancy,” “science reveals that we are all connected,” and “a future outlook.” It might almost seem surreal that I would begin a section entitled “age is irrelevant” by reintroducing the former Florida Congressman Mark Foley. Foley was mentioned earlier as the centerpiece of the congressional page scandal. He was referenced not because he had sent “inappropriate” emails to a House page, but because the loony tunes at Fox News had depicted Foley as a Democrat in an attempt to hide his true political affiliation while taking a swipe at the Democrats. At this juncture, I will with no hesitation whatsoever come to Foley’s defense. Foley had sent sexually explicit emails to a younger man working at the Capitol whom he had apparently become very fond of. No, the House page was not a child. The page was not running about the Capitol building with a dripping ice cream cone in one hand and a teddy bear in the other. He was in fact a paid government employee who attended school and had responsibilities similar to other adults. He worked, paid income tax, probably had a driver’s license and owned a car which he paid insurance premiums on. Chances are pretty good that he had at least one bank account and a government savings plan. Like many teenagers, he was probably sexually active as well. These are not the characteristics of a child, but because of America’s homophobia and obsession with age, this male page was magically transformed into an “innocent child” and a congressman’s career was needlessly destroyed. The Mark Foley House page scenario was addressed in order to introduce the hypocrisy and inconsistency that conservatives have regarding the age and sex issue. Allow me to illustrate my point a bit further. Let us take a look at the young man who just pulled into the student parking lot at his high school. For my argument, we will presume that he is enrolled in his junior year and he is less than eighteen years old. His name is on the title of the car he bought and paid for himself. His driver’s license is neatly tucked away in his black leather wallet. His wallet also contains cash which he earned at the job he goes to every day after school. During the summer months, he lifeguards at the local pool where human lives are entrusted to him. He pays for auto insurance and the necessary maintenance his car requires. Obviously, since he is employed, he pays income tax and contributes to Social Security. Records at the local bank attest to the fact that he has both a savings and checking account. He has a girlfriend he has been sexually active with for the past two years. Our society, including those on the Right, pat him on the back regularly and say, “Way to go big guy…you’re a stud…a real man.” Watch now as those predominantly on the Right, become enraged and blow a gasket. Evidence reveals that the young man, responsible enough to own a car, hold a job, and

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

199

so on, recently engaged in consensual sex with a man in his mid-thirties. Now the circumstances are completely different. I can already hear the rage from the Right. Suddenly, our studious, hardworking, and sexually active young adult has metamorphosed into an irresponsible and helpless child who has become the innocent victim of a child molester. Clearly, we have a blatant double standard here. My point is defended as well by educator and author John Holt. Holt argues, “We shrink from giving children control of their sex lives…many of us…need to believe that children are ‘innocent’ and ‘pure,’ that is, asexual, untainted by sexual thoughts, feelings, or urges. There is increasing evidence that this is not true even of very young children, and it is certainly not true of children much past the age of ten or eleven.”7 Holt continues, “For the state to deprive someone of liberty by putting him in prison is a most serious act, close to a crime in itself. It can only be justified by the most weighty cause, that the prisoner did real harm to others. But to make the act of sex, the mutual giving and receiving of pleasure, the excuse for putting someone in prison seems both mistaken and morally wrong.”8 If anything, we are not liberal enough regarding peoples’ sexual relationships. Holt again, “I would want these citizens to have the same rights in the matter of sex as any other citizens, regardless of age.”9 As well, look at the irony of how we treat “minors” in the United States. Depending on the circumstances, they are an adult on the one hand and a child on the other. They can drop out of high school, but cannot purchase a pack of cigarettes. They can work and pay taxes, but are not allowed to vote. They can serve in the military and fight on the battlefield, but they cannot buy a six-pack of beer. We allow them to represent our nation in the Olympics or study abroad as a foreign exchange student, yet deny them the access to an “R” rated movie. They are our heroes when they make the game winning basket at the buzzer, then we turn around and impose curfew laws on them. A woman in high school can get an abortion without her parents’ knowledge, but the school nurse cannot give her a couple of Tylenol for a headache without parental consent. Putting it frankly, our laws regarding age issues including age of consent are asinine and must be radically altered or abolished altogether. It is grotesque and condescending the way powerful conservative corporations exploit, patronize, and chastise the so-called “elderly.” I have grown very weary watching health care, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies take pot shots at “senior citizens” while taking their money via tacky and nauseating television ads. We have all seen these cheesy advertisements. “Larry,” the woman sitting at the kitchen table screeches to her professor looking spouse, “we need more life insurance.” Another one begins, “are you between the ages of…” These ads run frequently throughout the day on

200

Chapter Twelve

a variety of cable channels. One of them depicts the dweeb who gets pulled over and gets asked by the cop for his AARP card. They promote retirement plans, life insurance, burial options, reverse mortgages, vitamins, bladder control products, electric scooters, you name it. They promise “freedom” and “independence” that one might then “enjoy life to the fullest” or “get their life back.” No, getting your electric scooter stuck in the mud in the middle of your garden is not living “life to the fullest.” Allowing these industries to belittle you because of your age is far from “getting your life back.” Americans are being brainwashed for a buck. These advertisements are designed to convince people of specific age groups that they are old, washed-up, useless, and therefore, need their product. They coincide with America’s attitude towards aging. Getting older in America is almost considered criminal. In an excerpt entitled Society Does Not Respect the Elderly, Nancy Osgood writes, “In America today our core attitude about older people is that they are useless people whose lives are over.”10 From Perceptions of Aging in America, “In Africa the aged are the guardians of knowledge and power; in the West they are all too often regarded as an encumbrance.”11 Sad, yet true, that most Americans have more respect for an American Idol contestant than a distinguished war veteran. These advertisements we are constantly bombarded with demonstrate the conservative corporate media’s initiative to divide America while making a quick buck. I love reading stories about some of my own heroes who have disrupted the status quo by refusing to succumb to the conventional role of a “senior citizen.” Although everyone is certainly not physiologically the same, it is still refreshing to be reminded of the unlimited potential each of us possesses. Let me now take a moment and introduce you to a few of my noteworthy achievers. Seventy-five year old Andre Cyr loves figure skating. He does not, however, sit in front of the television and watch it…he does it. United States Master Swimmer Lois Nochman competes in over a dozen swimming events each year…she is eighty-one. At ninety-one, Leo Burns continued to have a successful career as a professional harness racer. Ninety-eight year old Ruth Frith competes in track and field meets all over the world. Her events include the javelin, hammer throw, pentathlon, long jump, triple jump, and the 100 meter sprint. At one hundred and four, California native John Whittemore was still competing in track and field. Big-hearted Texan Sam Tate loves to bowl. He is one hundred and three. At one hundred and one, Britain’s Buster Martin annually competes in the London Marathon. Henry David Thoreau said it well, “None are so old as those who have outlived enthusiasm.”12 We need to quit setting limitations on each other. We

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

201

must stop focusing on how many wrinkles people have and look instead at how many hearts they have touched. Everyone regardless of where they happen to be in life should be treated with dignity and respect. We need to quit treating younger adults as toddlers and older adults as subhuman. Stating it simply and refreshingly…age is irrelevant. Science teaches us that age, as well as the dimension of time, is relative. Depending upon the perception of and the location of the observer in the universe, time is measured at a variety of speeds. Let me explain by giving a brief example of time dilation. Travel in a spaceship to an area in the universe with a high-gravity system. While two minutes go by on your watch, ten years will pass by at another location in the universe. Someone perceived to be ninety years old at one spot, may be only nine years old at another spot. The unique properties of light further illustrate my point while revealing how we are all connected. At the exact moment in which God created the universe, commonly known as the Big Bang, radiant light energy was formed. Before that moment, there was no light or darkness. Nothing existed, not even space. All matter therefore comes from the same source, light. Thus, we all share the same origin, the light of God. “…for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:21) Literally, we are all connected to God and to each other. This is undoubtedly a strange concept to many on the Right who profess the “us verses them” ideology of division. They are unable to feel complete without a perennial boogie man. Whether it is the Democrats in general, the Clintons, or any other group which does not espouse to their standard beliefs, they must have an enemy to go into battle against. Examining the characteristics of light in more detail depict the irrelevancy of age and time. From a void of nothing, the miracle of life with the formation of the universe began as an explosion of singularity. All of the matter in our universe originated from this explosion of light energy. All matter, including human beings and animals are made up of this light energy. Thus, some scientists and philosophers liken us to “star dust.” This light, of which we are made of, is simply infinite, eternal, and conscious energy. Light which includes electromagnetic radiation does not yield to time. At the speed of light; 186,000 miles per second, the dimension of time ceases to exist. Both God and light exist outside of time. Within the spectrum of light, to take it a step further, the past, the present, and the future are one and the same. Author and physics professor Amit Goswami concisely concluded, “Light is the only reality.”13 We are all on the same journey which has a timeless, ageless, and eternal destination. Evolution was by many, considered a fact since Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was first published in 1859. Up until the middle of the

202

Chapter Twelve

twentieth century, science and religion were at odds with each other. While science owned the domain of the secular world, religion was entrenched firmly in faith. Since then, however, the two have gradually been converging. Both are able to boast significant amounts of evidence to support each another. This convergence of science and spirituality has always been a fascinating and inspiring subject to me; not so much for my brother, Charles Redd, who once accused me of being “too secular” during a religious discussion we were engaged in one night. I should simply “have more faith” he insisted. I have a great deal of love and admiration for my brother, but regardless, his comments did not strike me as terribly offensive. This is because I have witnessed a partnership between the secular and the spiritual. Secularism, for example, has provided us with some invaluable tools which enlighten and strengthen our faith. These tools include some of the sciences such as archeology, physics, cosmology, astronomy, biology, and chemistry. If it were not for the amazing discoveries of science, we would sorely have lacked the evidence necessary to establish a foundation for our faith in the first place. We can thank archeology for providing us with ancient scriptures and information about the people who lived in the biblical era. The Cosmic Background Radiation tells us that the universe, including Earth, had a beginning described in the Book of Genesis. The fossil record shows us that Darwin was wrong, macroevolution never occurred. Physics reveals the fact that “nothing” cannot produce “something.” The unexplainable sudden emergence of energy, space, matter, and time provide evidence for a transcendent supernatural event. Numerous other examples which point toward God are contained in a variety of books written by liberal scientists of faith. Innumerable thanks are in order to these men and women of science and faith who have provided us with a better understanding as well as an enhanced appreciation of our world and our relationship to God. Many on the Right show their ignorance as well as their artistic talent by painting liberals with a broad brush when it comes to religious beliefs. They attempt to paint liberals as Darwinian atheists hostile to religion. Liberals, they contend, promote an antireligious culture in order to weaken the traditional family. They actually believe, in their twisted thought process, that the Left is in cahoots with radical Islam to undermine America’s national security and defeat Bush’s war on terror. Thus, liberalism is, of course, the enemy responsible for the Nine-eleven attacks. This is, of course, bogus Right Wing malarkey. If those on the Right would do their homework, they would understand the correlation between American military presence and occupation abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks. Many of the people in foreign nations resent our domination and our policies. They do not “hate our freedoms” as the Bush administration erroneously

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

203

contends. A liberal common sense solution would consist of military occupation only where it is actually necessary and use the money saved to increase diplomatic and educational initiatives in order to counter terrorism. Again, if the Right would do a little research, they might realize that they do not have a monopoly on God and religious beliefs. We are all in this life thing together and we are all children of God living in a diverse world, and if the truth be known, we critical thinking liberals do believe in evolution, not however, in the Right’s limited interpretation of the word evolution. We do not espouse to the Darwinian theory of macroevolution, but rather, to the intelligent design of microevolution. As well, we represent a fervently more Christian posture than those on the Right. We advocate open-mindedness, diversity, tolerance, and helping each other. It is those on the Right who represent narrow-minded intolerance, materialism, pleasure, wealth, and the always popular self-reliant “survival of the fittest” viewpoint. The last time I looked, there was no blessing which offered, “Blessed are those who look out for number one, for they shall inherit the Earth.” Our purpose in life is not to espouse to the conservative sentiment of getting what we can out of life, but refreshingly, to add to life instead. Our mission is to love God and our neighbor, be of service to God and humanity, and continually seek knowledge. Love and knowledge are the only two things in God’s universe which truly matter. This is the great message given to those whose lives have been transformed by the phenomenon known as the near-death experience. Without God, life has no purpose. Without purpose, there is no hope. And without hope, there is no incentive to change. There is no progressive spirit to make the world a better place. During a recent drive home from work, like most nights, I was listening to a local talk radio program. The topic that particular segment was the prospect of impeaching George W. Bush. Curious to hear what the callers’ comments would be, I punched up the volume a couple of notches. About half of the callers felt as though Bush deserved to be impeached. Others, who apparently take their cues from Fox News, were insistent that impeachment was uncalled for and that Bush has simply been the unfortunate victim of the “liberal” media. One of the caller’s comments was astonishingly stupid. A blatant and blindly patriotic Bush supporter asked sarcastically, “Are we going to impeach every president we disagree with?” “This guy cannot be for real,” I thought to myself. No, we the people do not initiate impeachment proceedings against Presidents we simply disagree with. The framers of our Constitution designed the impeachment process in order to protect our democracy. Impeachment was created as a tool to be used by the people, through their representatives, to remove an abusive President from Office. Those of us who were taking the necessary steps to impeach

204

Chapter Twelve

Bush were not doing so simply because we disagree with his policies. George W. Bush clearly met the criteria for impeachment. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states, “The president may be removed for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Let me make it clear at this point that an impeachable offense or offenses, does not or do not necessarily have to be criminal in nature. However, in George W. Bush’s case, he has committed multiple war crimes. To begin with, the president of the United States has three primary duties. George W. Bush has failed in all three. They include: Faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7), Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 7), and Laws be faithfully executed (United States Constitution, Article II, Section 3). Specific impeachable offenses committed by Bush also include his war crimes depicted earlier in this work. Bush’s impeachable offenses include; 1) Willfully deceiving Congress and the citizens of the United States in order to launch a preemptive attack against Iraq, 2) Directing illegal domestic wiretapping, 3) Permitted and condoned the torture of detainees in U.S. custody, 4) Reckless indifference to human life in equipping troops sent into harms way, 5) Attempted to deceive the American people via the leak of misleading classified information, and 6) Reckless indifference to human life via the lack of aid and support to Hurricane Katrina victims. Impeaching Bill Clinton in 1998 was a partisan ploy initiated by a Republican controlled Congress in order to cripple the Democratic Party. However, impeaching George W. Bush and specific members of his cabinet was truly warranted. It is our duty as Americans, to stand up, be heard, and call for the prosecution of George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld for violations against the people of the United States, failing to support and defend the Constitution, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and murder. As well, we must call for the prosecution of Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft for crimes against humanity, failing to support and defend the United States Constitution, and violations against the people of the United States. Our founding fathers created a unique political system which affords each and every American the opportunity to participate. Americans must come together and fight against the tyranny which has beset America for the last eight years. Impeaching Bush and a host of various cabinet members would not have magically solved America’s many problems. But it would have potentially righted some of the wrongs of the past and invigorate participatory democracy as America moves forward in a new direction.

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

205

In a twisted kind of irony, Bush allies and advisors including Karl Rove, Rudy Giuliani, and Tony Snow have made comparisons linking George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln. Both were war time presidents under a great deal of stress. But that would be where their similarities end. President Lincoln was intelligent, articulate, and did not bring on the war due to his own choosing. Bush, however, is stupid, incompetent, and arrogant and brought on an unnecessary war of his own choosing. Lincoln fought to keep America together whereas Bush fought to separate America. Lincoln’s war was fought against the injustices of slavery. Bush’s war was fought against America’s working class. John Fitzgerald Kennedy gave us the New Frontier. George W. Bush gave us the New Divide. A comparison more apropos would be the youthful, intelligent, energetic, and inspiring John Kennedy of 1960 to the youthful, intelligent, energetic, and inspiring Barack Obama of 2008. On the advent of the Kennedy administration, America was in a predominantly cynical mode and viewed the federal government as menacing and untrustworthy. Kennedy introduced a government that could be benevolent and altruistic. This is the same sentiment shared by President Barack Obama. Obama, like Kennedy before him, envisions a promising future for America which offers hope, change, unification, and a renewed spirit to lead the free world. “What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label ‘liberal?’…if by a ‘liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘liberal,’ then I’m proud to say that I’m a ‘liberal.’”14 These were the opening remarks of Senator John Kennedy as he accepted his party’s nomination for president of the United States at the Democratic National Convention in New York City, September 14, 1960. Politicians who assume a centrist posture are in a sense, pandering to the immediate and unreflective wishes of potential constituents. Politicians along with their strategists and pollsters chart and respond accordingly to popular positions in an effort to refrain from offending likely voters. Moving to the political center eliminates the need to engage in an open debate on controversial issues that impact America. As well, politicians in search of the middle ground are abandoning their principles and compromising their role as a leader of society. Barack Obama, in the spirit of John Kennedy, wears the liberal label with pride. It is much safer in many instances to embrace already popular positions on various issues. America needs a leader who is not afraid

206

Chapter Twelve

to confront controversial issues and make sound policy decisions which will benefit the nation as a whole. As well, our nation deserves a leader who understands America’s role as a dominant superpower. Former President Jimmy Carter, who embodies all of the attributes which George W. Bush lacks: character, honesty, generosity, and humility, eloquently explains the function of a superpower. “It is good to know that our nation’s defenses against a conventional attack are impregnable, and imperative that America remains vigilant against threats from terrorists. But as is the case with a human being, admirable characteristics of a nation are not defined by size and physical prowess. What are some of the other attributes of a superpower? Once again, they might very well mirror those of a person. These would include a demonstrable commitment to truth, justice, peace, freedom, humility, human rights, generosity, and the upholding of other moral values.”15 Carter went on to say, “There is no inherent reason that our nation cannot be the international example of these virtues. Our government should be known, without question, as opposed to war, dedicated to the resolution of disputes by peaceful means, and, whenever possible, eager to exert our tremendous capability and influence to accomplish this goal. We should be seen as the unswerving champion of freedom and human rights, both among our own citizens and within the global community. America should be the focal point around which other nations of all kinds could marshal to combat threats to security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing humane assistance to people in need, willing to lead other industrialized nations in sharing some of our great wealth with those who are destitute.”16 The large volume of ignorance and stupidity which permeates the fabric of America is appalling. After defending George W. Bush’s policies promoting hatred and bigotry, a woman caller on WMAY’s Jim Leach Show, continued to ramble on while exemplifying the asinine thought process which cursed America with eight years of the Bush regime. In reference to Barack Obama she bellowed, “I wish he’d just go back to Africa and straighten out his own people.” She reminded me of the many slow-witted Right-Wing whiners who cast stones at the before mentioned Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter will not go down in history as America’s greatest President, but he is far from America’s worst President. The worst President in U.S. history, by the way, was in Office from January 20, 2001 to January 20, 2009. Pundits and authors such as Joe Scarborough and Craig Smith will defend George W. Bush while referring to Jimmy Carter as a “national disgrace” in the same breath. George W. Bush, Joe Scarborough, and Craig Smith, might I add, are not fit to lick the bottom of Jimmy Carter’s shoes.

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

207

Certainly President Carter had some failings including an oil crisis, doubledigit inflation, and difficulty managing his Cabinet. As well, his inability to communicate his vision for the country forced him to micromanage many of his policies. Describing Carter, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski accurately wrote, “He was trusted, but, unfairly, that trust was in him as a person and not as a leader…His personal qualities—honesty, integrity, religious connections, compassion—were not translated in the public mind into statesmanship with a historical sweep.”17 Carter was not a proponent of big government or less government. He believed very adamantly that good government in conjunction with the hard work of its citizens could build a great nation. Many unfairly marked President Carter as an object of ridicule since the Iran hostage crisis which, unfortunately, ended his presidency. Upon taking over the American embassy in Tehran, students supporting Iran’s revolution held fifty-two U.S. diplomats hostage from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981. For months, President Carter made every possible effort to seek a peaceful resolution. As the general election was looming over the commander in chief like a dark cloud just before a funnel appears, Carter initiated Operation Eagle Claw. A mission designed to expeditiously extricate the American captives, Operation Eagle Claw turned into a horrendously unsuccessful rescue attempt. The Carter administration never seemed to recover. In November, in a landslide victory, Ronald Reagan was elected America’s fortieth president. Chances are quite good that Reagan, “The Great Communicator,” had his hands in on the Iranian hostage crisis. Was it just a coincidence that the hostages were released less than ten minutes after Reagan was sworn in? Some theorists believe that Reagan’s campaign operatives, including William Casey, negotiated a deal with the Iranian government to keep the hostages until after the general election. This would all but ensure a Reagan victory. Let us also not forget that it was the corrupt Reagan administration which negotiated with and aided Iranian terrorists! And yet Jimmy Carter is the one who has been branded by many as a “national disgrace.” For a “national disgrace,” Jimmy Carter had some pretty impressive achievements. A trailblazer for America’s energy independence, Carter initiated a new Department of Energy which reduced the burden placed on taxpayers. He practiced what he preached. With the thermostats set at moneysaving levels, thick wool sweaters were often the dress of the day for the White House staff and him during the winter months. A money saver as well, Carter also had solar panels installed on the White House. It was Jimmy Carter who initiated a reform in America’s educational system which allowed more people to obtain a college degree. As well, daughter Amy attended public schools. A true environmentalist, Carter promoted key environmental protection legislation including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

208

Chapter Twelve

Carter accomplishments abroad included the establishment of diplomatic relations with China, the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaty, and the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty with the Soviet Union. A genuine idealist with high expectations, Carter exercised an aggressive international agenda promoting peace and human rights. Many leaders will give lip service to such a concept, but Carter, going well beyond talk, took real action. One of his shining moments came in September 1978 when he personally negotiated a peace settlement between Israel and Egypt. The negotiations with Israel’s Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat of Egypt ended hostilities and initiated the return of the Sinai Peninsula to the United Arab Republic. In his first Presidential campaign statement he uttered the words, “I’m Jimmy Carter and I’m running for president. I will never lie to you.”18 Carter, as well as his Vice President, Walter Mondale, never broke that promise to the American people. A Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Jimmy Carter was a champion of democracy, human rights, and international peace. Unlike George W. Bush who chose a war and sent over five thousand troops to their death just to portray himself as a great war time president, Jimmy Carter was not concerned about his legacy. To this day, Carter still works to promote peace and human rights throughout the world. In the spring of 2008, Carter took much criticism for meeting with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Carter has argued that Hamas, which won the 2006 Palestinian Parliament elections, then forcibly seized control of the Gaza Strip, must be engaged in order to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel. Not engaging in talks with our opponents, ala the Bush administration is one of the reasons America is in the mess it is in right now! Hypocrisy and spin are alive and well in the GOP. Jimmy Carter gets lambasted for taking the initiative to promote peace and Barack Obama gets accused of wanting to “sit down and have tea” with America’s foes. When the Republicans suggest talking with our enemies, it is considered “strategy.” When the Democrats propose talks with our adversaries, it becomes “appeasement.” The Bush administration, by the way, has already had “tea and cookies” with such rogue nations as Iran and North Korea. A week before George W. Bush launched a political attack from Israeli soil against Senator Obama, accusing him of “appeasement,” Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, suggested the necessity to resume talks with Iranian leaders. Bush himself jumped at the opportunity to “appease” North Korea by lifting sanctions and removing them from the sponsors of terrorism list after Kim Jong-Il disclosed a vague declaration of North Korea’s nuclear program and promised to destroy a portion of its weapons-building reactor. Former presidential candidate, John McCain, meanwhile has been trying to distance himself from his own comments in 2006 in which he acknowledged that engaging in talks with Hamas were inevitable.

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

209

On the eve of America’s most historic election ever, the American people were facing the hardships of a sluggish economy, an abused environment, inadequate health care, soaring fuel prices, and the fall out of an immoral and unjust bloodbath in Iraq. Not since the Civil War has America been so ideologically divided. How apropos that a sewage treatment plant in northern California, or anywhere else for that matter, would be named after “Dubya.” America’s next leader will face many challenges in order to right the wrongs of the Bush administration. America has promising potential under the right leadership. We are in vital need of a leader who can unite the country via bipartisan participation. America deserves a commander in chief with the courage and integrity to meet the domestic and international challenges ahead. Our torn and tattered reputation requires careful and capable leadership in order to restore our image at home and abroad. The people of America are entitled to a leader who communicates his vision and promotes American values without strong-arming other nations. Our next, and future presidents, will need to be able to adapt to global changes and understand the role of diplomatic strategy and military aggression. The goal of striving for international peace can only be achieved through the appropriate use of civilian and military leadership. Obtaining a stable Middle East requires leadership which has the fortitude to establish communication with key nations within the region while restoring a U.S.-led coalition. As well, the redeployment and reconstitution of an overstretched military is essential to our national security. Springfield, Illinois. It is the focal point of my social ties, a convenient locale for me to shop and run various other errands, an oasis of recreational sites where I can get my softball fix, and the place I call home. Driving through town, I am always encountering things with historical relevance. Whenever I frequent the local library, I usually park on Capitol Avenue just a few yards from Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln’s home. Cruising down Fifth Street in the downtown sector, I can look left and see the grand Greek Revival style Old State Capitol where Lincoln gave his famous “House Divided” speech. Less than a half a mile west is the majestic Victorian style Capitol which stately towers high above Mr. Lincoln’s beloved Springfield. Bitter cold temperatures and an unforgiving wind chill did not stop thousands of supporters who gathered around Springfield’s Old State Capitol on the second Saturday of February 2007 to witness Barack Obama announce his candidacy for president. The scene was somewhat surreal. Secret Service agents were lurking behind buildings and scanning the crowd from rooftops. Television crews swarmed about, satellite trucks lined Washington, Fifth, and Sixth Streets, cable lines adorned the sidewalks along the square. It seemed as though the large throng was becoming oblivious to the weather as Obama spoke. “It

210

Chapter Twelve

was here, in Springfield, where north, south, east, and west come together that I was reminded of the essential decency of the American people—where I came to believe that through this decency, we can build a more hopeful America…in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together…I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States.” It is a very short walk indeed from the grounds of the Old State Capitol to the current Capitol located at Second Street and Capitol Avenue. Both structures are symbolic reminders that the past, the present, and the future are one in the same. This has been verified through the conclusions of Albert Einstein’s research on special relativity depicted earlier in this chapter. I cannot help but feel the presence of Christopher Reeve peering over my shoulder as I conclude this particular section. When I contemplate the dimensions of past, present, and future, my thoughts often turn to the magnificent 1980 Universal Productions film Somewhere in Time, a time travel love story which also features Jane Seymour and Christopher Plummer. Listen carefully as you stand on the grassy knoll of the Old State Capitol and you can still hear Lincoln’s voice echoing through the heart of Springfield. Just down the street, inside the Capitol, servants of the people of Illinois are busy drafting bills, attending meetings, and pounding out legislation. A symbolic icon of the future, it was on the steps of the Old State Capitol where Senator Barack Obama launched his presidential campaign and inspired a nation with “change we can believe in.” John McCain was clearly not the remedy for America’s woes. This has nothing to do with what stage of life he is in. His age, as we learned earlier in this chapter is irrelevant. It is however, his conservative ideology, his policy decisions, his inability to differentiate an unnecessary war from national defense, and his disassociation from the needs of mainstream America which all make him so dangerous. America has an opportunity to change course and re-ignite the light of liberty which still shines strong in the hearts and minds of many Americans. Martin Luther King Jr. addressed this sentiment a few decades ago, “Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.”19 I will now take this opportunity to invite all who rejected George W. Bush in 2000 and again in 2004 to feel vindicated. Your consciences are clear. You have no blood on your hands. Although the Bush administration is guilty of a multitude of heinous failures and high crimes, it is itself, not to blame for the greatest atrocity of all—voting for George W. Bush. It was collectively, the American people who bestowed Bush, Cheney, and their cronies of corruption the power to reign over America for the eight longest years in U.S. history.

The Religious Right and the Speed of Light

211

Let us keep in mind our relationship to each other, our fellow citizens of the world, and God. Future elections involving future generations, are not about Barack Obama, John McCain, or any other single individual. Elections are about the well-being of the people and America’s obligation to do right. Still appropriate today were the closing remarks in John Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”20 I was tempted to write a comprehensive in-depth section on some of the finest public servants throughout America who never served as president. Besides John Kerry and Al Gore, the list would have included such figures as Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis Lloyd Bentsen, Joe Biden, and Wesley Clark. A less known candidate for the list would have also included the passionate and progressive Ohio statesman, Dennis Kucinich. In his book, A Prayer for America, Kucinich accurately captures the connection we all have to each other which I revealed at the beginning of this chapter. As I bring this work to a close, I find it necessary to emphasize the important reality that we are all in this life thing together. Our common bond to each other and to our Creator allows us the opportunity to work together to build a peaceful world based on equality and justice. “That implicit in the union of our country is the union of all people. That all people are essentially one.”21 Kucinich elaborates, “That the world is interconnected not only on the material level of economics, trade, communication, and transportation, but interconnected through human consciousness, through the human heart, through the heart of the world, through the simply expressed impulse and yearning to be and to breathe free.”22 Senator Obama puts Kucinich’s and my sentiment more succinctly, “I’m a Democrat because we are the party that believes we’re all in this together.”23 In contrast, the Republican attitude reeks with the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” and “look out for number one” premises. Words and phrases such as “Love,” “Peace,” “Equality,” “Peace on Earth,” and “Goodwill towards Men,” are too often considered nothing more than beautiful lyrics in songs or poems. Instead, these popular tidings should be regarded as goals we as Americans and members of the international community should strive to achieve. Unfortunately, the barriers of bigotry, hatred, intolerance and ignorance limit our potential for achieving these goals. They create divisions among people and erode the spirit of humanity. America must wake up and courageously stand up against these attributes which many on the Right seem to hold so dear. We must denounce the darkness which has maligned the world for far too long. We must choose instead to embrace the light and love of God—The light and love which transcend all human comprehension.

212

Chapter Twelve

NOTES 1. Carville, James and Paul Begala. Take It Back (Simon & Schuster. New York, New York. 2006) pp. 78-79. 2. Carter, Jimmy. Our Endangered Values (Simon & Schuster. New York, New York. 2005) p. 31. 3. Courtesy of publiceye.org. 4. Marcus, Eric. Is It a Choice? (Harper Collins. New York, New York. 1999) p. 13. 5. Mitchell, Rodger Malcolm. Courtesy of dkosopedia.com. 6. Brooks, James L. and Allan Burns, Stan Daniel, Bob Ellison, David Lloyd, and Ed Weinberger. The Mary Tyler Moore Show (Columbia Broadcasting Station. New York, New York) 1977. 7. Holt, John. Escape from Childhood (E. P. Dutton & Company. New York, New York. 1974) p. 271. 8. Ibid. p. 275. 9. Ibid. pp. 270-271. 10. Bender, David and Bruno Leone. An Aging Population (Society Does Not Respect the Elderly, Nancy J. Osgood) (Greenhaven Press. San Diego, California. 1996) p. 175. 11. Smith, Olivia J. Aging in America (Perceptions of Aging in America, Sage or Spoilsport? Bernadette Puijalon and Jacqueline Trincaz. The Unesco Courier, January 1999) (The H. W. Wilson Company. New York, New York. 2000) p. 115. 12. Peale, Norman Vincent. The Power of Positive Living Doubleday. New York, New York. 1990) p. 216. 13. Baumann, T. Lee. God at the Speed of Light (ARE Press. Virginia Beach, Virginia. 2001) p. 30. 14. Sorensen, Theodore C. Let the Word Go Forth (Delacorte Press. New York, New York. 1988) p. 106. 15. Carter, Jimmy. Our Endangered Values (Simon & Schuster. New York, New York. 2005) p. 199. 16. Ibid. pp. 199-200. 17. Abshire, David M. A Call to Greatness (Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham, Maryland. 2008) p. 63. 18. Ibid. p. 62. 19. Gore, Al. The Assault on Reason (Penguin Group. New York, New York. 2007) p. 272. 20. Clarke, Thurston. Ask Not (Henry Holt. New York, New York. 2004) p. 201. 21. Kucinich, Dennis. A Prayer for America (Thunder’s Mouth Press. New York, New York. 2003) p. 12. 22. Ibid. 23. Dougherty, Steve. Hopes and Dreams (Black Dog & Leventhal. New York, New York. 2007) p. 75.

Epilogue

As depicted in the final chapter, love and knowledge are the absolute elements of the universe. These are the two most powerful weapons in the war against bigotry, hatred and intolerance. Imagine a world where everyone practiced the creed, “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12). Not long ago, many Americans were forced to ride in the back of buses simply because of the color of their skin. They were tormented, beaten and murdered for nothing other than their innate status in life. Fortunately, America has made progress and moved forward beyond the darkness which beset the Bush administration. In 2008, America and the world witnessed the election of the first African-American for President. In the most historic election in U.S. history, proponents of racism were given a sharp blow. However, there is still much work to be done in the civil rights arena. With conservatism embedded in the American culture, America remains a divided nation. This was made apparent in 2008 when the people of California voted to pass Proposition Eight, rescinding the right of same-sex couples to marry. It was a hate-filled and shameful act which tore a hole in the human heart. Denying marriage to same-sex couples is the epitome of antiChristian sentiment. Gays and lesbians simply want the same opportunity of permanence and happiness afforded heterosexual couples. They do not insist that the heterosexual community embrace their innate lifestyle; they only wish to be treated equally. Jesus himself, the Son of God, was and still is a proponent of unconditional love and people of diversity. It was not that long ago in America when black and white couples were denied the basic right of marriage. The cruel passing of Proposition Eight reminds me of the Saint Augustine sentiment, “An unjust law is no law at all.”1 213

214

Epilogue

The Reverend Martin Luther King quoted Saint Augustine in a letter while he was incarcerated in a Birmingham jail during the civil rights movement. The 2008 presidential campaign season was a depiction of a step forward in King’s vision of equality for all Americans. The candidates and their running mates represented a variety of backgrounds and ethnicity. The campaign featured a Mormon from Massachusetts, a former First Lady turned U.S. Senator, a former Vietnam POW and U.S. Senator from the Panama Canal Zone, a “Hockey mom” Governor of Alaska, a scrappy kid from Scranton, and an African-American Hawaiian U.S. Senator from Illinois. As we look at memorable presidential elections, Truman’s shocking victory over New York Governor Tom Dewey in 1948 sits near the top of the list. Certainly we could say the same about Kennedy’s narrow win over Vice President Nixon in 1960 which was decided by less than one hundred and twenty thousand votes and featured the first televised debate. The 2000 presidential election was historic in the fact that several weeks passed following Election Day before the nation knew who would become America’s forty-third president. Although Vice President Gore won the popular vote, the Republican controlled Supreme Court halted the Florida recount and awarded the presidency to their man, George W. Bush. The 2004 election was historic in the fact that America decided that a war criminal with numerous failures was better for the nation than a war hero with leadership accomplishments. The 2008 election, however, will stand alone in the annals of history as America elected her first African-American president. While running a nearly flawless campaign, the Democrats were on the top of their game. The Obama campaign slogan, “No drama Obama,” proved to be successful. But there was a host of factors which led to Obama’s historical victory. Certainly, running against the Bush policies which John McCain supported over ninety percent of the time played a key role. Ironically, John McCain can attribute both of his presidential defeats to George W. Bush. In 2000, Karl Rove masterminded the sleazy slanderous primary campaign which ended McCain’s Road to the White House. Eight years later, McCain received “the kiss of death” when George W. Bush endorsed him for President. As well, the outpouring of support for Barack Obama for President was unprecedented. From veteran politicians and household name celebrities to working-class donators and world leaders, the Obama campaign gained energy and confidence. Bay State native and longtime U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy was the first prominent leader to endorse Barack Obama for President. One of America’s most distinguished public servants and one of the greats in Senate history, Kennedy rallied behind the Illinois Senator before most Americans knew who Barack Obama was. Several months later, following a victorious

Epilogue

215

battle against brain cancer, Kennedy inspired the nation with a surprise speech at the Democratic National Convention. Kennedy, known by his colleagues as the “Lion of the Senate,” proclaimed that indeed “The Dream Lives On.” Speaking as an advocate for all Americans, the grey-haired Statesman peered confidently over the rim of his glasses and eloquently delivered a message of hope, change and unity. Gracious, intelligent and thoughtful, she is probably one of the most influential voices in the world. “This is something above and beyond politics”2 was her response to the keynote address delivered by Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Television icon, activist and philanthropist, Oprah Winfrey saw much potential in the young lawmaker from Illinois. In the fall of 2006, Barack and his wife Michelle appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show. It was in this forum where Oprah formally pledged her support for Obama and encouraged him to run for President. Her endorsement proved to be a catalyst which helped to propel Obama into the White House. Oprah and America’s forty-forth president understand that we are all connected and that our survival as well as our success depends on a reliance on God and the ability to reach out and help others. If there was ever a moment in our country’s history when we needed a leader to take the helm and steady the ship, it was the beginning of the post-Bush era. Barack Obama was called on to fill that role. During the 2008 campaign, many on the Right questioned Obama’s experience to be Commander-in-Chief. We were inundated with the rhetoric that the junior senator from Illinois was unqualified. Obama was constantly being labeled “inexperienced,” “untested,” “wet behind the ears,” and “a candidate with no executive experience.” Wait a minute; perhaps Barack Obama was lacking presidential experience. As I look back on George W. Bush’s pre-presidency and presidency, maybe those who questioned Obama’s experience were right. Obama never ran any businesses into the ground. Nor has he come close to dismantling a large commonwealth. He has no experience at turning his back on hurricane victims. As well, he has not ever turned a federal surplus into an enormous deficit. He has no experience at shredding the Constitution or breaking the law. And finally, Obama lagged far behind in foreign policy experience. He never started any unjust wars or committed war crimes. Maybe Obama was inexperienced after all! Many on the Left as well as the Right questioned the experience and qualifications of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Again, as we compare the 2000 Republican nominee to the 2008 Democratic and Republican tickets, all four of the candidates were experienced and well qualified. In all fairness to Sarah Palin, her experience and qualifications were not in doubt.

216

Epilogue

Putting it succinctly, the problem was with her ideology. Her far Right-Wing conservative principles manifested her lack of compassion and inability to empathize with the trials and tribulations of others. As well, Palin’s hypocrisy is evident in her stance on the abortion issue. Commenting on her daughter’s pregnancy during the week of the 2008 Republican National Convention, Palin said that she was proud of her daughter’s “decision to have the baby.” Was there another decision? Do we have a double standard here? Notice how most conservatives are “pro-life” when it comes to others and “pro-choice” when the issue hits close to home. Showing consistency, John McCain and Sarah Palin are on the same sheet of music. During the 2000 republican primaries, McCain stated that if his daughter was contemplating an abortion, “the choice would be up to her.” Conservatives are accustomed to playing the “morality card.” Evidence of this is evident in their callous and twisted position on gay rights and their cunning exploitation of the abortion issue. As a member of Democrats for Life of America, I have always resented the Right-Wing’s use of abortion as a political ploy which receives nothing more than lip service. As well, my lifelong comprehensive pro-life sentiment is one of the reasons I support the Democratic Party. Allow me to elaborate. For a number of years while the republicans controlled the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, they have passed over opportunities to make abortion illegal. Why? The abortion issue arms the Right with the ammunition they need to win local, state and national elections. Constituents opposed to abortion will vote for a “pro-life” candidate without questioning what that candidate will do to end abortion. Conservatives are well aware that outlawing abortion would eliminate their perennial boogeyman, and thus, their lock on millions of constituents. If the republican hierarchy was comprehensively “pro-life,” they would sponsor a ban on capital punishment and fight to overturn Roe versus Wade. They would promote pro-life issues including support services for pregnant women, programs dedicated to helping children and adoption services. As well, they would stand up against corporate polluters who compromise our environment. Other priorities would include affordable health care and common sense gun control. Democrats for Life of America actually have a comprehensive pro-life agenda which confronts these issues. On abortion specifically, DFLA, which President Obama supports, has implemented the “ninety-five ten initiative.” The ninety-five ten initiative is comprehensive federal legislation and policy proposals targeted at reducing the number of abortions in America by ninety-five percent over a ten year period. Many on the Right have accused Obama of “encouraging abortion.” Implementing plans to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States each year is a far cry from “encouraging abortion.” As well, Obama

Epilogue

217

has been belittled for his willingness to negotiate with our adversaries. “He wants to sit down and have tea with our enemies,” some on the Right have claimed. Open dialogue with our enemies as well as our allies is vital if we are going to successfully defend ourselves and promote peace. If talks with our adversaries fail, we still have the option of imposing sanctions, or possibly, using force. If talking with our foes is successful, we will have prevented conflicts, ended crises and avoided possible war. Sound diplomacy, however, is dependent upon the backing of a strong military. With the global challenges facing America, it would be ludicrous and too dangerous to ignore our adversaries. Israel’s Yitzhak Rabin puts it succinctly, “You don’t make peace with friends, you make peace with very unsavory enemies.”3 When democrats suggest negotiating with our adversaries, the Right calls it “appeasement.” When the same idea comes from the Right, they call it “strategic dialogue.” At any rate, it is imperative that we never return to the destructive, isolationist, go it alone, cowboy diplomacy of the past. It is heartbreaking to look back and see where this kind of diplomacy has taken us. The trademark of the George W. Bush presidency was captured in a sad statistical description of the Iraq War casualty count just two weeks following the 2008 election. One death in Bush’s personal vendetta is one too many, but these numbers, all representing a valued and precious life are staggering. U.S. killed in action: 4,199; U.S. wounded in action: 30,793; coalition killed in action: 4,513. Multilateralism is the key to building cohesive relationships around the world. America has an opportunity, as well as, an obligation to be an example to the rest of the world. Abraham Lincoln once referred to the United States as “the last best hope of Earth.”4 America has an obligation to reject totalitarianism and be a guiding light for the world, a beacon of light which transcends time and space.

NOTES 1. Washington, Denzel. The Great Debaters (Harpo Films. Santa Monica, California) 2007. 2. Winfrey, Oprah. The Oprah Winfrey Show (Harpo Production. Chicago, Illinois) 2006. 3. Burns, Nicholas. “Talk is Cheap—and Smart.” Newsweek, 3 November 2008: 40. 4. Albright, Madeleine. Memo to the President Elect (Harper Collins. New York, New York. 2008) p. 14.

Index

Abd, Hayder Sabbar, 30 abortion, 97, 98, 216 Abramoff, Jack, 47, 48 Ailes, Roger, 159, 161, 167, 175 Armitage, Richard, 36, 49 Ashcroft, John, 31, 35, 46, 47, 63, 64, 66, 109, 146, 204 Atwater, Lee, 44–46 Baker, James, 120, 164 Barbiero, Danny, 72, 73 Barnes, Fred, 136, 159 Bauer, Gary, 20, 60 Begala, Paul, 89, 161 Belodeau, Tommy, 125–26 Bennett, William (Bill), 136, 159, 162 Bentsen, Lloyd, 22, 211 Bible, 139, 185–86. See also Genesis (2:7); Genesis, Book of; John (13:34); Leviticus (18:22, 20:13, 24:20); Luke (17:21); Mark (7:6); Matthew (7:12, 12:48, 49) Biden, Joe, 111, 211 bin Laden, Osama, 12, 26, 27, 41, 92, 94, 116–17, 137, 140, 151, 170, 173–74, 176, 179 Blair, Tony, 27, 50, 51 Blount, Winton, 9, 10 Bolton, John, 40, 147

Boortz, Neal, 134, 148 Brown, Michael, 144, 147 Buchanan, Patrick (Pat), 63, 145, 159, 164 Buckley, William Jr., 130, 136 Bundy, McGeorge, 74, 76 Bundy, William (Bill), 74, 76 Bush, Barbara, 1, 2 Bush, George Herbert Walker (Poppy), 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14–16, 20, 28, 44, 76, 84. See also Bush Senior Bush, George Walker (Dubya), vii, ix, x, 1, 2, 13, 17, 19, 20, 24–26, 31–36, 38–40, 42–51, 53–68, 85, 87, 89, 103–4, 109, 122–24, 126, 128, 132–35, 137–41, 153, 180–83, 188, 193, 196–97, 202–6, 208–10, 213– 15, 217; business ventures of, 12, 14–16; campaign & election, 2004, 21–23, 88, 90–96; education of, 3–6, 11; enablers, 165, 168–79; Iraq War propaganda, 27–30, 37, 41; Kerry, John Forbes, comparison to, 97–102, 105–8, 110–21; media and, 136, 143–52, 157–63; Texas Air National Guard, 7–10 Bush, John (Jeb), 1, 23, 37 Bush, Laura (First Lady), 14, 15, 92, 149. See also Welch, Laura 219

220

Index

Bush, Prescott, 1, 2 Bush, Robin, 1, 2 Card, Andrew, 104 Carlson, Tucker, 135, 162 Carter, Jimmy, 13–15, 42, 82, 120, 186, 206–8 Carville, James, 16, 89, 161 Cheney, Richard B. (Dick), ix, 21, 25, 28, 29, 35, 37, 39, 48, 95, 126, 133, 139, 153, 166, 204; antienvironmental policies, 57, 63, 109; tax breaks benefiting the wealthy, 30, 56, 111–12; Valerie Plame Scandal, 49, 146; vice presidential debates, 2000, 22, 93, 94; Iraq War propaganda, 27, 40–43, 174 Chertoff, Michael, 144–47 Clark, Wesley, 87, 93, 211 Clarke, Richard, 26, 174 Cleland, Max, 32, 33 Clinton, Bill, 3, 16, 20, 34, 37, 54, 63, 69, 84, 89, 99, 104, 110, 120, 155, 158–59, 162, 166, 169, 172–74, 177, 180, 192 Clinton, Hillary, 48, 111, 169, 176 Corsi, Jerome, 122–23 Cosmic Background Radiation, 202 Coulter, Ann, 52, 136, 144, 165–68 Craig, Larry, 193 Darwin, Charles, 201–2 Dean, Howard, 87, 175 Delay, Tom, 47, 55, 146, 162, 180 Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), 216 Dukakis, Michael, 82, 84, 211 Durbin, Dick, 152–54 Edwards, John, 87, 88, 93, 136, 166–67 Elliott, George, 125–29, 132 Falwell, Jerry, 60, 135 Fleischer, Ari, 32 Foley, Mark, 159, 170, 198

Ford, Gerald, 12, 42, 150, 160 Fox, Michael J., 169–70 Franke, William, 130, 132 Franken, Al, 140, 161 Frist, Bill, 37, 149 Frum, David, 177–78 Gallagher, Mike, 134, 148 Gates, Robert, 150, 208 Genesis (2:7), 196 Genesis, Book of, 202 Gingrich, Newt, 172, 191 Giuliani, Rudy, 182, 205 Goldberg, Bernard, 136, 164 Gonzales, Alberto, 42, 51, 63, 146–47, 204 Gore, Al, 19, 21–23, 27, 33, 35, 45, 67, 69, 84, 93, 156, 159, 162–63, 166–67, 175, 214 Haggard, Ted, 135, 193–94 Hannity, Sean, 52, 134, 144, 147–49, 171–75 Heinz, Teresa, 84 Hibbard, Grant, 123, 131 Hildreth, Robert, 124, 131 Hitler, Adolf, 51, 108–9, 139 Hughes, Karen, 38, 39, 88 Humphrey, Hubert, 8, 51, 211 Hussein, Saddam, x, 19, 20, 26–28, 30, 40–42, 49, 67, 84, 89, 117, 120, 137–38, 140, 150, 173, 179 Ingraham, Laura, 134, 148, 162, 170–71 Jefferson, Thomas, 50, 68 Jesus of Nazareth, 39, 47, 185–86, 189, 194–97, 213 John (13:34), 188 Kelly, James, 130, 132 Kennedy, Jackie, 74, 75 Kennedy, John Fitzgerald (Jack), ix, 4, 21, 23, 71, 73–77, 205, 211, 214

Index

221

Kennedy, Edward M. (Ted), 73, 214–15 Kennedy, Robert F. (Bobby), 5, 58, 77 Kerry, John Forbes, ix, x, 76, 79, 82–85,133, 138, 211; Bush, George Walker (Dubya), comparison to, 97–102, 105, 107–8, 110–11, 115– 16, 118–21; campaign & election, 2004, 69, 87, 89–91, 95, 96, 140–41; education of, 72, 73; formative years, 70, 71; Kennedy, John Fitzgerald (Jack), assassination of & association with, 74, 75; media and, 151, 156, 162–63; presidential debates, 2004, 92–94; slander against, 45, 46, 88, 103, 122–32, 136–37, 139, 166, 182; Vietnam service, 77, 78; Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), 80, 81, 130s. See also Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Kerry, Julia, 82, 83. See also Thorne, Julia Stimson Kerry, Richard, 70, 71 Kerry, Rosemary (Rosy), 70, 71 Kessler, Ronald, 177–78 Keyes, Alan, 20, 60, 94, 134, 175–76 Killian, Jerry, 10 King, Martin Luther Jr., ix, x, 5, 77, 81, 197, 214 Kristol, Bill, 136, 152, 164 Kucinich, Dennis, 211

Lowry, Rich, 136, 149 Luke (17:21), 201

Lambert, Robert, 129, 132 Langhofer, Wayne, 129, 132 Larson, Lars, 23, 24, 34, 53, 67, 135, 160, 187 Leach, Jim, vii, 135, 165, 194–95 Leviticus (18:22, 20:13, 24:20), 187 Libby, Lewis (Scooter), 49, 146 Lieberman, Joe, 21, 22, 32, 84, 93 Limbaugh, Rush, 52, 134, 144, 147, 160, 167–70, 180 Lincoln, Abraham, 50, 167, 205, 209, 217 Livingston, Bob, 172, 192 Lott, Trent, 36, 180

Palin, Sarah, 215–16 Pelosi, Nancy, 149 Pershing, Richard (Dick), 72, 76, 77, 81 Phelps, Fred W. Sr., 60, 175, 190 Plame, Valerie, 48–50, 146 Podhoretz, John, 177–79 Powell, Colin, 27, 36, 41, 146–47 Putin, Vladimir, 118

Mark (7:6), 191 Marx, Groucho, x Matalin, Mary, 37, 48, 145 Matthew (7:12), 213; (12:48, 49), 195 Matthews, Chris, 145, 163 McCain, John, 8, 20, 21, 46, 62, 84, 90, 111, 214, 216 Medeiros, Michael (Mike), 78, 125, 127, 132 Medved, Michael, 134, 148 Mondale, Walter, 211 Murdoch, Rupert, 136, 158, 161, 175 near-death experience, 203 Nine-Eleven Commission, 112, 138 Nixon, Richard, 8, 11, 19, 34, 42, 43, 51, 80–82, 130, 181, 214 North, Oliver, 84, 134 Norton, Gale, 57, 63 Novak, Robert, 49, 136, 162 Obama, Barack Hussein, 91, 141, 176, 205–6, 208–11, 214–16 Obama, Michelle, 215 O’ Dell, Van, 129, 132 O’ Neill, John, 80, 121–32 O’ Reilly, Bill, 135, 144, 177

quantum physics, 189, 196 Rassman, James, 78, 128–29, 132 Rather, Daniel Irvin (Dan), 152, 157, 161

222

Reagan, Ronald, 14, 15, 34, 42, 54, 83, 105–6, 160, 164, 173, 181 Redstone, Sumner, 152, 157 Reed, Ralph, 22, 60, 98 Reid, Harry, 149 Rice, Condoleezza, 30, 35, 37, 38, 56, 147, 204 Richards, Ann, 16, 17, 46 Ridge, Tom, 32, 146–47 Roberts, John, 63, 147 Robertson, Pat, 22, 60, 135, 148, 159, 182 Roe v Wade, 216 Rood, William, 127, 132 Roosevelt, Franklin, 54, 64 Rove, Karl, 16, 17, 19, 20, 32, 35, 37, 38, 43–46, 49–51, 88, 95, 132, 140, 146, 149, 153, 159, 204–5, 214 Rumsfeld, Donald, 26, 28, 35, 36, 41–43, 111, 150, 153, 204 Ryan, Jack, 176, 192 Sammon, Bill, 177–78 Sandusky, Del, 78, 125, 129, 132 Santorum, Rick, 60, 149 Scalia, Antonin, 39, 63 Scarborough, Joe, 135, 206 Schachte, William, 123, 131–32 Staudt, Walter, 6, 7 Stevenson, Adlai, 167, 211

Index

Strobel, Lee, 185–86 Swaggart, Jimmy, 135, 191 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, 89, 122–23, 127–28 Thorne, David, 75, 76 Thorne, Julia Stimson, 79. See also Kerry, Julia Thorson, Eugene, 124–25, 131 Thurlow, Larry, 129, 132 Thurmond, Strom, 36, 64 Truman, Harry S., 19, 214 Tsurumi, Yoshi, 11, 53 War Crimes, 141. See also Bush, George Walker (Dubya) Washington, George, 3, 50 Welch, Laura, 13. See also Bush, Laura Whitman, Christine Todd, 55, 57, 167 Wilson, Joseph, 49, 50 Wilson, Woodrow, 117, 151 Winfrey, Oprah, 215 Wolfowitz, Paul, 36, 147 Zaldonis, William, 123, 130 Zumwalt, Elmo, 126–27 Biblical passages in this text were taken from the Revised Standard Version