Forums > Personal > The Case Against George W. Bush- by Ron Regan

forum rss feed
Author

SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 17:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Most of us know the answers to these questions, so it was incumbent upon the administration to pretend that Abu Ghraib was an aberration, not policy. Investigations, we were assured, were already under way; relevant bureaucracies would offer unstinting cooperation; the handful of miscreants would be sternly disciplined. After all, they didn't "represent the best of what America's all about." As anyone who'd watched the proceedings of the 9/11 Commission could have predicted, what followed was the usual administration strategy of stonewalling, obstruction, and obfuscation. The appointment of investigators was stalled; documents were withheld, including the full report by Major General Antonio Taguba, who headed the Army's primary investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib. A favorite moment for many featured John McCain growing apoplectic as Donald Rumsfeld and an entire tableful of army brass proved unable to answer the simple question Who was in charge at Abu Ghraib?

The Bush administration no doubt had its real reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. They've simply chosen not to share them with the American public. They sought justification for ignoring the Geneva Convention and other statutes prohibiting torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners but were loath to acknowledge as much. They may have ideas worth discussing, but they don't welcome the rest of us in the conversation. They don't trust us because they don't dare expose their true agendas to the light of day. There is a surreal quality to all this: Occupation is liberation; Iraq is sovereign, but we're in control; Saddam is in Iraqi custody, but we've got him; we'll get out as soon as an elected Iraqi government asks us, but we'll be there for years to come. Which is what we counted on in the first place, only with rose petals and easy coochie.

This Möbius reality finds its domestic analogue in the perversely cynical "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" sloganeering at Bush's EPA and in the administration's irresponsible tax cutting and other fiscal shenanigans. But the Bush administration has always worn strangely tinted shades, and you wonder to what extent Mr. Bush himself lives in a world of his own imagining.

And chances are your America and George W. Bush's America are not the same place. If you are dead center on the earning scale in real-world twenty-first-century America, you make a bit less than $32,000 a year, and $32,000 is not a sum that Mr. Bush has ever associated with getting by in his world. Bush, who has always managed to fail upwards in his various careers, has never had a job the way you have a job—where not showing up one morning gets you fired, costing you your health benefits. He may find it difficult to relate personally to any of the nearly two million citizens who've lost their jobs under his administration, the first administration since Herbert Hoover's to post a net loss of jobs. Mr. Bush has never had to worry that he couldn't afford the best available health care for his children. For him, forty-three million people without health insurance may be no more than a politically inconvenient abstraction. When Mr. Bush talks about the economy, he is not talking about your economy. His economy is filled with pals called Kenny-boy who fly around in their own airplanes. In Bush's economy, his world, friends relocate offshore to avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for chumps like you. You are not a friend. You're the help. When the party Mr. Bush is hosting in his world ends, you'll be left picking shrimp toast out of the carpet.


ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WILL DISSEMBLE, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 17:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The Case Against George W. Bush- by Ron Regan

It may have been the guy in the hood teetering on the stool, electrodes clamped to his genitals. Or smirking Lynndie England and her leash. Maybe it was the smarmy memos tapped out by soft-fingered lawyers itching to justify such barbarism. The grudging, lunatic retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama didn't hurt. Even the Enron audiotapes and their celebration of craven sociopathy likely played a part. As a result of all these displays and countless smaller ones, you could feel, a couple of months back, as summer spread across the country, the ground shifting beneath your feet. Not unlike that scene in The Day After Tomorrow, then in theaters, in which the giant ice shelf splits asunder, this was more a paradigm shift than anything strictly tectonic. No cataclysmic ice age, admittedly, yet something was in the air, and people were inhaling deeply. I began to get calls from friends whose parents had always voted Republican, "but not this time." There was the staid Zbigniew Brzezinski on the staid NewsHour with Jim Lehrer sneering at the "Orwellian language" flowing out of the Pentagon. Word spread through the usual channels that old hands from the days of Bush the Elder were quietly (but not too quietly) appalled by his son's misadventure in Iraq. Suddenly, everywhere you went, a surprising number of folks seemed to have had just about enough of what the Bush administration was dishing out. A fresh age appeared on the horizon, accompanied by the sound of scales falling from people's eyes. It felt something like a demonstration of that highest of American prerogatives and the most deeply cherished American freedom: dissent.

Oddly, even my father's funeral contributed. Throughout that long, stately, overtelevised week in early June, items would appear in the newspaper discussing the Republicans' eagerness to capitalize (subtly, tastefully) on the outpouring of affection for my father and turn it to Bush's advantage for the fall election. The familiar "Heir to Reagan" puffballs were reinflated and loosed over the proceedings like (subtle, tasteful) Mylar balloons. Predictably, this backfired. People were treated to a side-by-side comparison—Ronald W. Reagan versus George W. Bush—and it's no surprise who suffered for it. Misty-eyed with nostalgia, people set aside old political gripes for a few days and remembered what friend and foe always conceded to Ronald Reagan: He was damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed to sum up the mood—a portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS A PRESIDENT.

The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees—Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn't quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him—these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging o


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 17:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

During his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Bush pledged a more "humble" foreign policy. "I would take the use of force very seriously," he said. "I would be guarded in my approach." Other countries would resent us "if we're an arrogant nation." He sniffed at the notion of "nation building." "Our military is meant to fight and win wars. . . . And when it gets overextended, morale drops." International cooperation and consensus building would be the cornerstone of a Bush administration's approach to the larger world. Given candidate Bush's remarks, it was hard to imagine him, as president, flipping a stiff middle finger at the world and charging off adventuring in the Middle East.

But didn't 9/11 reshuffle the deck, changing everything? Didn't Mr. Bush, on September 12, 2001, awaken to the fresh realization that bad guys in charge of Islamic nations constitute an entirely new and grave threat to us and have to be ruthlessly confronted lest they threaten the American homeland again? Wasn't Saddam Hussein rushed to the front of the line because he was complicit with the hijackers and in some measure responsible for the atrocities in Washington, D. C., and at the tip of Manhattan?

Well, no.

As Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, and his onetime "terror czar," Richard A. Clarke, have made clear, the president, with the enthusiastic encouragement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, was contemplating action against Iraq from day one. "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out," O'Neill said. All they needed was an excuse. Clarke got the same impression from within the White House. Afghanistan had to be dealt with first; that's where the actual perpetrators were, after all. But the Taliban was a mere appetizer; Saddam was the entrée. (Or who knows? The soup course?) It was simply a matter of convincing the American public (and our representatives) that war was justified.

The real—but elusive—prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was quickly relegated to a back burner (a staff member at Fox News—the cable-TV outlet of the Bush White House—told me a year ago that mere mention of bin Laden's name was forbidden within the company, lest we be reminded that the actual bad guy remained at large) while Saddam's Iraq became International Enemy Number One. Just like that, a country whose economy had been reduced to shambles by international sanctions, whose military was less than half the size it had been when the U. S. Army rolled over it during the first Gulf war, that had extensive no-flight zones imposed on it in the north and south as well as constant aerial and satellite surveillance, and whose lethal weapons and capacity to produce such weapons had been destroyed or seriously degraded by UN inspection teams became, in Mr. Bush's words, "a threat of unique urgency" to the most powerful nation on earth.

Fanciful but terrifying scenarios were introduced: Unmanned aircraft, drones, had been built for missions targeting the U. S., Bush told the nation. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice deadpanned to CNN. And, Bush maintained, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." We "know" Iraq possesses such weapons, Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney assured us. We even "know" where they are hidden. After several months of this mumbo jumbo, 70 percent of Americans had embraced the fantasy that Saddam destroyed the World Trade Center.


ALL THESE ASSERTIONS have proved to be baseless and, we've since discovered, were regarded with skepticism by experts at the time they were made. But contrary opinions were derided, ignored, or covered up in the ru


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 17:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Having gotten away with such witless falsities, perhaps Mr. Bush and his team felt somehow above day-to-day truth. In any case, once ensconced in the White House, they picked up where they left off.


IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH and confusion of 9/11, Bush, who on that day was in Sarasota, Florida, conducting an emergency reading of "The Pet Goat," was whisked off to Nebraska aboard Air Force One. While this may have been entirely sensible under the chaotic circumstances—for all anyone knew at the time, Washington might still have been under attack—the appearance was, shall we say, less than gallant. So a story was concocted: There had been a threat to Air Force One that necessitated the evasive maneuver. Bush's chief political advisor, Karl Rove, cited "specific" and "credible" evidence to that effect. The story quickly unraveled. In truth, there was no such threat.

Then there was Bush's now infamous photo-op landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and his subsequent speech in front of a large banner emblazoned MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The banner, which loomed in the background as Bush addressed the crew, became problematic as it grew clear that the mission in Iraq—whatever that may have been—was far from accomplished. "Major combat operations," as Bush put it, may have technically ended, but young Americans were still dying almost daily. So the White House dealt with the questionable banner in a manner befitting a president pledged to "responsibility and accountability": It blamed the sailors. No surprise, a bit of digging by journalists revealed the banner and its premature triumphalism to be the work of the White House communications office.

More serious by an order of magnitude was the administration's dishonesty concerning pre-9/11 terror warnings. As questions first arose about the country's lack of preparedness in the face of terrorist assault, Condoleezza Rice was dispatched to the pundit arenas to assure the nation that "no one could have imagined terrorists using aircraft as weapons." In fact, terrorism experts had warned repeatedly of just such a calamity. In June 2001, CIA director George Tenet sent Rice an intelligence report warning that "it is highly likely that a significant Al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." Two intelligence briefings given to Bush in the summer of 2001 specifically connected Al Qaeda to the imminent danger of hijacked planes being used as weapons. According to The New York Times, after the second of these briefings, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States," was delivered to the president at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in August, Bush "broke off from work early and spent most of the day fishing." This was the briefing Dr. Rice dismissed as "historical" in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

What's odd is that none of these lies were worth the breath expended in the telling. If only for self-serving political reasons, honesty was the way to go. The flight of Air Force One could easily have been explained in terms of security precautions taken in the confusion of momentous events. As for the carrier landing, someone should have fallen on his or her sword at the first hint of trouble: We told the president he needed to do it; he likes that stuff and was gung-ho; we figured, What the hell?; it was a mistake. The banner? We thought the sailors would appreciate it. In retrospect, also a mistake. Yup, we sure feel dumb now. Owning up to the 9/11 warnings would have entailed more than simple embarrassment. But done forthrightly and immediately, an honest reckoning would have earned the Bush team some respect once the dust settled. Instead, by needlessly tap-dancing, Bush's White House squandered vital credibility, turning even relatively minor gaffes into telling examples of its tendency to distort and evade the truth.



Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 17:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

But image is everything in this White House, and the image of George Bush as a noble and infallible warrior in the service of his nation must be fanatically maintained, because behind the image lies . . . nothing? As Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has pointed out, Bush has "never fully inhabited" the presidency. Bush apologists can smilingly excuse his malopropisms and vagueness as the plainspokenness of a man of action, but watching Bush flounder when attempting to communicate extemporaneously, one is left with the impression that he is ineloquent not because he can't speak but because he doesn't bother to think.


GEORGE W. BUSH PROMISED to "change the tone in Washington" and ran for office as a moderate, a "compassionate conservative," in the focus-group-tested sloganeering of his campaign. Yet he has governed from the right wing of his already conservative party, assiduously tending a "base" that includes, along with the expected Fortune 500 fat cats, fiscal evangelicals who talk openly of doing away with Social Security and Medicare, of shrinking government to the size where they can, in tax radical Grover Norquist's phrase, "drown it in the bathtub." That base also encompasses a healthy share of anti-choice zealots, homophobic bigots, and assorted purveyors of junk science. Bush has tossed bones to all of them—"partial birth" abortion legislation, the promise of a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals, federal roadblocks to embryonic-stem-cell research, even comments suggesting presidential doubts about Darwinian evolution. It's not that Mr. Bush necessarily shares their worldview; indeed, it's unclear whether he embraces any coherent philosophy. But this president, who vowed to eschew politics in favor of sound policy, panders nonetheless in the interest of political gain. As John DiIulio, Bush's former head of the Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, once told this magazine, "What you've got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm."

This was not what the American electorate opted for when, in 2000, by a slim but decisive margin of more than half a million votes, they chose . . . the other guy. Bush has never had a mandate. Surveys indicate broad public dissatisfaction with his domestic priorities. How many people would have voted for Mr. Bush in the first place had they understood his eagerness to pass on crushing debt to our children or seen his true colors regarding global warming and the environment? Even after 9/11, were people really looking to be dragged into an optional war under false pretenses?

If ever there was a time for uniting and not dividing, this is it. Instead, Mr. Bush governs as if by divine right, seeming to actually believe that a wise God wants him in the White House and that by constantly evoking the horrible memory of September 11, 2001, he can keep public anxiety stirred up enough to carry him to another term.


UNDERSTANDABLY, SOME SUPPORTERS of Mr. Bush's will believe I harbor a personal vendetta against the man, some seething resentment. One conservative commentator, based on earlier remarks I've made, has already discerned "jealousy" on my part; after all, Bush, the son of a former president, now occupies that office himself, while I, most assuredly, will not. Truth be told, I have no personal feelings for Bush at all. I hardly know him, having met him only twice, briefly and uneventfully—once during my father's presidency and once during my father's funeral. I'll acknowledge occasional annoyance at the pretense that he's somehow a clone of my father, but far from threatening, I see this more as silly and pathetic. My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself. His Republican party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious Right and its kill-anything-tha


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
Bob The Shrek user not visiting Queenzone.com
Bob The Shrek
Deity: 4014 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 17:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wouldn't it have been easier just to type - Don't vote for Bush?


Cleveland May 24 to June 4th 2007 - I came, I saw, I fucked off home again.
Sir Archie 'Tiffany' Leach user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1331 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 17:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Nice touch BTS.


Nancy Astor : "If I were your wife I would put poison in your coffee".

Winston Churchill : "And if I were your husband I would drink it".
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 18:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bush is ruining all my travel plans (even though they're very unrealistic anyway). I really want to go to France, but since everyone there (and in all of Europe) hates America cause of the president, I can't go! Thanks a lot, Mr. Bush.


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
Panchgani user not visiting Queenzone.com
St Peter's Burnt Piano
Panchgani
Deity: 6373 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 19:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Who was Ron's ghost-writer?

Although many of the things written are likely factual, this argument is more fiction than fact, and is unfortunately another misleading ultra-liberal Michael Moore style hatchet job.

Unfortunately, "Anyone but Bush" is the sole plank in Kerry's political platform.

I would gladly vote against Bush if someone was better qualified.

Maybe I will vote for Nader as a protest vote. It is extremely unlikely that Bush can win Illinois in a liberal Chicago politics dominated state.


Roger: I like it. If you don't. Sod you!



Queen song poll: http://home.comcast.net/~vantricers/index.html



B-52's: I, I, I'm lookin for some fun - waitin for the REAL Queen Box Sets to come
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 19:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bullwinkle wrote:

Who was Ron's ghost-writer?


Not Ronald Regan. It was his son, Ron Regan.


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 19:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Barry_uk wrote:

Mr pepper you are most welcome here in europe, you are not one of these ppl in power you are a human being.

This whole fiasco is f**king insane.


MISS Pepper...


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 19:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ok, Sergeant Pepper still sounds best. Miss Pepper is from Blues Clues. Or maybe that's Mr. Pepper and Mrs. Salt. Or vice versa. I'm not sure...


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 19:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No- I don't like it. I still just like Sergeant Pepper. Somehow, "MISS PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND" doesn't have a nice ring to it.


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
Panchgani user not visiting Queenzone.com
St Peter's Burnt Piano
Panchgani
Deity: 6373 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 19:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sgt Pepper -

I am well aware it was not Ron senior. It is highly unlikely that Ron junior was the primary writer/author.


Roger: I like it. If you don't. Sod you!



Queen song poll: http://home.comcast.net/~vantricers/index.html



B-52's: I, I, I'm lookin for some fun - waitin for the REAL Queen Box Sets to come
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 04, 19:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bullwinkle wrote:

Sgt Pepper -

I am well aware it was not Ron senior. It is highly unlikely that Ron junior was the primary writer/author.


*ahem* Sorry.


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18638 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Aug 04, 01:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bullwinkle wrote:

Sgt Pepper -

I am well aware it was not Ron senior. It is highly unlikely that Ron junior was the primary writer/author.


After reading this for four seconds, the fact that Ron Sr was a republican should've kinda given it away.

I was so glad to see Ron Jr on Larry King Live a little while back, being completely pro-stemcell and pro-evolution. He proudly said that any stance against either of these is completely anti-intellectual. Good on him!


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
SergeantPepperDG user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1725 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Aug 04, 08:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It would've been a lot less confusing to name their son Jimmy or something.


Kay Adams Corleone- The ultimate desperate housewife