For some reason, many people support the presidency of George W. Bush. The Bush administration runs the country through fear, lies, and a crass manipulation of a media run by fellow-travellers. He is supported even though almost no Americans will benefit from his policies. The most participation the average American will have in Bush's America is supplying bodies for the military. He's been in office for only 2 years but has already managed to set the United States on the way to destruction. I've lost track of his incompetent actions, and for that reason I've assembled these lists of horrible things done by him and his cohorts and supporters, whom I shall refer to as the Bushoisie.

Civil Rights

Bush has given the United States a black mark when it comes to civil rights.

1. He has blocked funding of international family-planning groups that mention abortion even in the context of a procedure necessary to save a woman's life.
2. He called for the removal of a provision in the annual budget which covered contraception for the federal workforce's healthcare plan. Congress stopped him.
3. Furthermore, Bush has fully supported Ashcroft's restrictions on civil liberties, allowing the government to hold people without charges for extended periods.
4. He rammed the PATRIOT Act through Congress, which shifts the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence and gives the CIA the authority to participate in domestic surveillance and investigations -- domestic Black Ops, overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
5. He has announced his opposition to the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights, the proposal that would require access to treatment and allow patients to sue HMOs whose denial of treatment had led to real harm.
6. He has signed an executive order allowing non-citizens charged with terrorism to be tried by MILITARY TRIBUNALS, in secret, and without juries. The U.S. has frequently protested the use of such tribunals by other countries. Use of military tribunals, coupled with the possible application of the death penalty, gives us a human rights record so bad that Spain cannot extradite eight suspects they captured to the U.S.
7. He has permitted the Justice Department to hold US citizens in prison indefinitely, without charges, access to defense lawyers, or trial. The first admission of this was on 10 June 2002, when Jose Padilla's May 8th arrest was announced.
8. He has arranged for protesters to be herded into "First Amendment Zones" when he is making appearances in the country, ostensibly for security reasons. According to the Constitution, the whole country is supposed to be a First Amendment Zone.
9. His Department of Homeland Security will have the Total Information Awareness project -- a federal database centralizing records on citizens' personal transactions. Our finances, education, travel habits, medical needs, transportation, housing, and credit record will all be at the fingertips of the federal government. It will be under the Information Awareness Office and headed by Iranamok felon John Poindexter. What will Americans do knowing that their unauthorized biographies are sitting in some federal database, knowing they could be tagged as un-American at the whim of an unknown official?
10. In October 2002 a group of suspected terrorists (including an American citizen) was assassinated by remote control missile. We can only hope we got the right people; without a trial we'll never know for sure, and without an interrogation we won't get anything that they knew.
11. On 20 March 2003, US citizen Maher (Mike) Hawash was detained as a material witness by the FBI while a team of agents in battle dress searched his home. Since then, Hawash has been held at a federal prison in Sheridan, Oregon. He is charged with no crime, and the evidence against him is sealed. He will not get a jury trial. Hawash apparently made two five-thousand-dollar donations to the Global Relief Foundation, an organization shut down by the government for supporting terrorism (one of its founders is in federal custody and is considered an associate of terrorists).

So let's review: The rights threatened by the Bush administration include the right to confidential counself if arrested, the right to a jury trial, privacy rights, freedom of association, the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, and citizenship itself.

Appointments

And you thought Clinton's Travelgate was an example of the Good-Old-Boys network at its worst?

1. He tried to put an end to the American Bar Association's traditional role in vetting judicial nominations. This body traditionally has helped prevent the appointment of ideologues, and without their input it would have been easier to appoint right-wing judges throughout the nation.
2. He appointed John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. Ashcroft started his career by opposing school desegregation, and as Attorney General he has show a gross contempt for civil rights by attacking the Sixth Amendment -- monitoring of conversations between individuals and their attorneys is to be practiced in situations where "reasonable suspicion" (not probable cause) of guilt exists. This applies to suspects as well as material witnesses in custody. Ashcroft himself is a man of dubious sanity -- he believes that dancing is Satannic, that calico cats are servents and messengers of the Devil, and he had Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas annoint him with Crisco oil when he took the oath of office.
3. He has appointed to the OMB John Graham. Graham will be able to block any new regulation. Graham has been quoted as saying that reducing dioxin levels too far might be harmful, stating that dioxin might prevent cancer in some cases. He also claims that the problem of pesticide residual on food is trivial, that the public is paranoid about toxic chemicals, and that safe housing codes kill people.
4. His first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said he wanted to abolish corporate income taxes entirely. In other words, he sides with collective groups against individual human beings.

Foreign Policy

Bush's policies destabilize the world and make it hell for most people to live in.

1. On 13 November 2001, he announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the 1972 ABM treaty and deploy a national missile defense, despite the fact that it not working yet. This has been done over the objections of every other nation on the planet. The Chinese, who are already irritated by Bush labelling them a 'strategic competitor', have warned that abandoning the treaty will provoke an arms race. To mollify them, he has told the Chinese he will voice no objections to their tentative plans to modernize their missile force with MIRVs. That means more warheads to shoot down!
2. In pursuit of his missile shield, Bush continues to offer more and more concessions to the Russians. He seems prepared to give Putin whatever he wants in order to build this system.
3. He has cut the budget for securing Russian nuclear facilities by $30 million. Unsecure facilities in Russia host some 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, ideal for making terrorist bombs which could be smuggled into the U.S. under any missile shield.
4. On 6 May 2002 he announced that the US will withdraw from the International Criminal Court treaty so that the US will not be bound by its provisions. Only seven nations have rejected the treaty; the US is now ideologically aligned with Libya, Syria, China, Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
5. Representative Tom DeLay sponsored a bill which would allow the US to invade The Netherlands to rescue US soldiers if they are ever prosecuted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. The bill also bars US military aid to countries that ratify the treaty, prevents the US from participating in peacekeeping missions which might fall under the court's jurisdiction, and prohibits the US from sharing intelligence with the court regarding suspects being investigated. Only the US and Libya have this hard-line stance against the Court.
6. He rejected a global treaty restricting the small arms trade, which allows U.S. arms manufacturers to continue to sell weapons for conflicts around the world.
7. He rejected a global treaty setting up legal and information-sharing bodies for dealing with terrorism.
8. He has refused to give any teeth to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, despite outbreaks of anthrax-by-mail terrorist activity within the United States itself.
9. HE HAS ABANDONED KYOTO. The environmental treaty which started in Rio in 1992 and brought us to unprecedented global agreement in Kyoto in 1997 has been thrown out. The treaty was very limited and would have established quotas for so-called greenhouse gas emissions for developed nations. Bush abandoned the treaty because it would have reduced the ability of industries based in developed nations to compete with those in less-developed nations. When the European Union sent a delegation to urge him to reconsider they were bluntly rebuffed. The Europeans took the lead and the treaty was signed in Bonn in July 2001. The head of the American delegation, sent to observe, was roundly booed by the other delegates. With the recent ratification by Japan and Russia, it is now only a few nations short of coming into force.
10. He has alienated the United States' number one trade partner, Canada, with his confrontational and isolationist tone.
11. He has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have sent international observers to the Middle East to monitor Palestinian and Israeli atrocities against one another.
12. He has announced that he does not favor continuing the rapproachment with North Korea that had done so much to defuse tensions on the Korean peninsula. Indeed, national security advisor Rice has referred to North Korea as "the roadkill of history". This has put South Korean in an awkward position. Neither Korea is happy with us, and the north is actually threatening war.
13. He has managed to alienate such a large number of allies that the United States lost its seat on the United Nations human rights panel for a year.
14. He has withdrawn the U.S. from the World Conference Against Racism rather than attempting to resolve differences with nations disturbed by Israel's use of assassination against Palestinian political figures.
15. He has opposed ratification of an international childrens' rights treaty on the basis that it makes special mention of abuse and rehabilitation of girls in war zones which would allow individuals counseling the girls for torture and rape experiences to mention abortion. This allies the U.S. with Sudan, Libya, Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt in trying to delete references to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
16. His foreign policy has led to him being called a bully by a German newspaper. How belligerent to you have to be to be considered a bully by the GERMANS? In his spring 2002 visit to Germany, he gave a speech to the Bundestag which 80 members of parliament refused to hear; their empty seats were filled with retired politicians so Bush wouldn't know the difference.
17. HE HAS RENOUNCED THE NO-FIRST-USE POLICY. The administration has stated that the United States is willing to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. The no-first-use policy and its no-use corollary are cornerstones of nuclear arms control.
18. President Chavez of Venezuela announced an increase in taxes on oil exports from his country to the United States. In April 2002 there was a coup attempt against him. The US and the IMF immediately recognized the junta which replaced him, but the OAS condemned them, demanding Chavez' return. The Venezuelan people, despite being unenthusiastic about Chavez, turned out in droves to protest the manner of his ouster. After two days, the coup collapsed, and Chavez returned to power, restoring the country's democratic constitution. Condolezza Rice warned the reinstated Chavez: '...the whole world is watching...[take] advantage of this opportunity to right [your] own ship...' Since the coup attempt, Chavez remains under attack by US interests operating through like-minded Venezuelans.
19. He has blocked an international plan to provide adequate sanitation to 1.2 billion people in the Third World by 2015, and done so without explanation.
20. He has moved terrorism suspects captured in Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, where they are held in wire kennels. This has resulted in widespread condemnation of the United States for human rights abuses. When 'stress and duress' torture techniques don't work, the prisoners are repatriated to allied countries such as Egypt and Morocco, where there are no official qualms about torture.
21. He has refused $34 million in funding for the UN Population Fund. No other nation has ever pulled funding from the Population Fund, which promotes family planning, AIDS education, and improved pregnancy and childbirth conditions in 142 countries.
22. His foreign policy openly espouses the 19th century doctrine of might-makes-right. It states that the US reserves the right to unilaterally go to war against any state it perceives as a threat, without "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". In February 2004, secretary of defense explicity stated hostility to any kind of international order, saying "I honestly believe that every country ought to do what it wants to do...it either is proud of itself afterwards, or it is less proud of itself."
23. In his race to war with Iraq, he has responded to international opposition by insulting the French. French toast is no longer available on Air Force One, and his Republican allies in Congress, apparently having nothing better to do, have banished the word "French" from the capitol cafeteria.

Economics

Bush's economic policies favor large corporations over small businesses and individuals.

1. He has focused on repealing estate taxes, which would cut government revenues by $236 billion and benefit the wealthiest two percent. This revenue shortfall would have to be made up by higher taxes and fees for the other 98 percent.
2. His allies in the House have cobbled together a SECOND batch of tax cuts which are an undisguised looting of the national treasury -- the alternative minimum tax for corporations is repealed retroactively to 1986, meaning colossal giveaways for large corporations. Worse than that, corporate profits which are funnelled out of the country are tax-exempt, which means that the Bush administration is encouraging corporations to take money OUT of the U.S. economy.
3. His ally Senator Frank Murkowski has introduced a bill that would reduce royalties paid to the U.S. by energy firms when oil prices drop below $18 a barrel, resulting in taxpayers subsidising the energy companies when there's a market glut.
4. Though lacking any mandate (winning by only 4 electoral votes is hardly a mandate) he's proposed a 10-year tax plan which includes a colossal tax cut. The cut was proposed during the campaign as the reasonable outcome of a good economy -- more money for everyone. Once he became president and the economy soured, he stuck by his numbers but changed the reason -- now it was needed because the economy was faltering.
5. His budget proposes cuts of 86 percent in health programs for uninsured individuals.
6. His budget cuts programs for dislocated workers by 12 percent.
7. His budget cuts energy-efficiency and renewable-energy programs by 15 percent, while at the same time he claims our energy needs require oil drilling in once-protected wildlife areas.
8. He opposes legislation which would close a tax loophole by which US corporations which officially move out of the country avoid paying taxes.
9. His energy bill surreptitiously repeals the Public Utilities Holding Company Act, which protects ratepayers from subsidizing corporate expansion, monopolistic abuses, and shoddy accounting practices.
10. After promising a short, sharp deficit in FY2002, Bush's budgets for FY2003 and beyond project deficits of $300 billion a year. This is exclusive of costs engendered by any wars he may start.
11. When the war with Iraq began, his party pushed his budget through Congress with minimal public exposure and discussion. The budget calls for over seven hundred billion dollars in tax cuts, none of which are targetted to stimulate the economy now. Instead, they make three-hundred-billion-dollar deficits a permanent feature of the budget for the forseeable future.

Corruption and Secrecy

Bush promised an administration which would have not even the hint of a scandal. He has failed.

1. He has signed an executive order overturning a law requiring the release of presidenial papers 12 years after the end of an administration. Allegedly he has "reinterpreted" the law, a phrase ordinarily associated with the duties of the Supreme Court. To obtain those papers, a suit must be filed which demonstrates a need to know.
2. His administration may turn out to be the most corrupt since Harding's. As with many weathly politicians, members of the administration have assets which include stock in major corporations which might be affected by administration policies. They are supposed to divest themselves of those assets to ensure there will be no conflict of interest. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill did not do so until June of 2001, by which time his holdings in Alcoa (of which he used to be CEO) had increased in value by sixty-two million dollars. Karl Rove met with Intel executives at a time when it was seeking administration approval of a big merger, and at a time when Rove owned one hundred thousand dollars of Intel stock. Conflict of interest is everywhere.
3. Attorney General Ashcroft has issued orders to all federal agencies that they must resist FOIA requests.
4. The Bushoisie are up to their armpits in the debris of the Enron collapse. Enron was a major contributor to Republicans, numerous Bushoisie are former Enron executives or shareholders, and Kenneth Lay was a key player in the formation of the administration's energy policy (although the minutes of those meetings are held confidential by VP Cheney's office). Even before the Bush administration, in 1993, Wendy Gramm helped exempt Enron from government regulations while working for a federal oversight commission, and five weeks later joined Enron's board. Wendy Gramm is of course the wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm.
5. The Carlyle Group was contracted to produce the Crusader artillery program, a weapon which the Pentagon didn't really like because it was so badly designed. After hyping it for 8 months, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld finally dropped it, but the Carlyle Group still gets $520 million in cancellation fees and from the IPO of United Defense. Bush's father is a founding member of the Carlyle Group.

Domestic Environment

Bush cares nothing for the environment, except as a source for raw materials.

1. He has betrayed his campaign promise to require power plants to control carbon dioxide emissions.
2. He is attempting to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to oil exploration, despite estimates which indicate it could not supply more than six months' worth of oil.
3. He has revoked regulations which would have reduced the acceptable amount of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion, the standard adopted by WHO and the EU. This would have required expensive cleanups by mining and chemical companies in western states, but an eight-year study concluded it would result in a reduction of cancer rates in the affected area. The ruling affects the drinking water of 34 million people and keeps in effect the original 1942 regulations.
4. He revoked, then later partially reinstated regulations prohibiting public money from being spent on logging roads in national forests. Essentially this means that Americans may end up paying for the destruction of their own forests.
5. He twisted the intent of his campaign promise not to use Nevada as the host site for temporary nuclear waste storage. Instead, he's made it the PERMANENT storage site for nuclear waste.
6. His allies in Congress blocked legislation which would have mandated greater fuel efficiency in passenger vehicles, requiring that the US vehicle fleet average 36 MPG by 2017. This legislation would have saved many times more oil than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve would have provided, and in roughly the same time period.

Quality of Life

American citizens cannot get a fair shake from Bush. He continues to favor corporate collectives over individuals. Look forward to poverty, illness, and lack of opportunity.

1. He has killed off ergonomic regulations which protected workers from repetitive-motion injuries. The regulations were the result of ten years of careful study.
2. He has supported legislation that would disallow filing for bankruptcy due to disastrous medical bills rather than other reasons. The same legislation would also force bankrupt individuals to continue to pay credit card debt.
3. He has cut back on Community Oriented Policing Services, a program which put tens of thousands of police officers on the streets and enhanced school security programs.
4. He has restricted USDA testing of raw meat for salmonella. Last year 7 percent of tested meat was rejected due to contamination. The meat industry argues that the testing increases the cost of ground beef (but is silent on the question of the cost of labor lost due to food poisoning).
5. He has proposed to ease the budget deficit he created by cutting $1.3 billion from a federal student loan program which allows college students to consolidate their education loans to lock in low interest rates.
6. He has begun the militarization of civilian life. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 includes a provision requiring public high schools to provide military recruiters with full access to their facilities, including contact information for every student. Schools which elect not to comply face a cutoff of all federal aid.
7. Bush's FY2004 budget proposal cuts benefits for the soldiers who will be veterans of his wars. Free healthcare will be available only to veterans who make less than twenty-six thousand dollars a year. There are further cuts in housing assistance, education benefits, and even funeral coverage.

Under Bush, my mother country has lost its credibility and its honor. Bush's verbal gaffes and political mistakes have cost us in ways which may never be forgotten (or forgiven). Yet I see the media, which is owned by corporations strongly supportive of Bush, constantly reporting in his favor and keeping his popularity high. A survey of ABC, CBS, and NBC news programs show that 92 percent of their US sources are white, 85 percent are male, and 75 percent are Republican. In order to prevent the destruction of the United States, the Republicans must be defeated in 2002, and Bush in particular in 2004. If he is still in power in 2005, it is the end of the Republic. What will follow is a 21st century totalitarianism, in which dissent is marginalized not by the government, but by the people themselves, who have been fed their ideas by government-aligned media and corporations. The American aristocracy which Bush would permit would never need to resort to force to suppress dangerous ideas. Instead, those ideas simply would not be available.

Bush's 271-266 election victory was one of the closest ever. However, it was only possible due to gross hypocrisy by the radical right. Florida's 25 votes were in dispute and that dispute was being handled at state level. But when it seemed that Florida's Supreme Court would require that recounts by hand continue and that Bush's opponent would then become president, the U.S. Supreme Court, betraying its longstanding states-rights position, ordered an end to the recounts and allowed Bush's electors to win by 537 votes. So much for states' rights!

Even if Florida had sent Gore's electoral slate to the statehouse, the votes could have been challenged in Congress. The election would then have been determined by the House of Representatives, as provided for in the Constitution. Bush would have won anyway, as 28 state delegations were predominantly Republican. The U.S. Supreme Court's intervention was unnecessary and unconstitutional. So much for the Constitution!

In a further snub to states' rights, Attorney General Ashcroft has undercut Oregon's assisted-suicide law by allowing federal drug agents to take action against doctors who help terminally ill patients die. Also, California's medicinal marijuana law (Proposition 215) has come under fire from Ashcroft; a marijuana garden run by patients with prescriptions for the drug was destroyed by federal agents. Again, so much for states' rights!

With respect to the alleged energy crisis in the United States the Republicans show more hypocrisy. Their solution to drugs? Self-restraint; just say no. Their solution to teenage pregnancy? Self-restraint; abstain. Does the solution to the energy crisis involve self-restraint? No. Conservation is declared to be a "personal virtue", and Americans should not have to restrain their wastrel ways during an energy crisis. So much for self-restraint!

California experienced an energy crisis in 2001 brought on by a poorly designed energy deregulation regime. Bush refused to impose federal controls on energy prices in California because it would interfere with the natural functioning of the market. Yet it was the natural functioning of the market that kept US oil producers from building new oil refineries over the last twenty years -- until recently the existing ones weren't running at anything approaching full capacity. With light trucks and SUVs dominating American roads it's only natural that we should find gasoline in short supply and that the market would demand higher prices for that gasoline. But instead of allowing the natural functioning of the market to take care of gasoline prices, Bush is pushing for government intervention to encourage oil exploration and drilling, especially in ANWR. So much for the natural functioning of the market!

When Clinton went after Osama bin Laden in 1998, the Bushoisie accused him of attempting to distract attention from the Lewinski affair. When the Bush administration admitted in April 2002 that bin Laden had escaped capture with US troops on the ground in Tora Bora, the Bushoisie merely stated that bin Laden had been marginalized and was no longer important. So much for the war on terrorism!

Trent Lott on 16 December 1998: 'I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. I am opposed to endangering the lives of brave American men and women in the military for action in Iraq...' Trent Lott on 28 February 2002: 'How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field.'

Orrin Hatch in 1997: 'If [the president] makes a recess appointment, then I have to say it's a finger in the eye of the Senate. I think you'd find there would be an awful lot of repercussions from that.' On 30 March 2002, Bush made several recess appointments, without a word of criticism from Hatch or other Republican senators, and without repercussions.

Senator Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania) in the 2000: 'A number of my Republican colleagues are not likely to rush President Clinton's lifetime judicial nominees through the confirmation process when they think there is a chance another party could occupy the White House in January.' In 2002: 'The delays are the result of rank partisanship by Tom Daschle.'

Ann Coulter in 2002: 'We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors.' Yet none of the Bushoisie were calling for Timothy McVeigh to be executed as a deterrent to conservatives. For that matter, those who support a military solution to terrorism were silent in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing when they logically should have called for the destruction of militia camps in Montana and Idaho.

In the 1980s, Republicans were calling for a balanced budget amendment to the US constitution. The budget was finally balanced, and from 1997 to 2001 ran a surplus. When the Republicans were handed a federal budget in balance, they immediately -- the very next fiscal year -- started running up incredible deficits again. So much for fiscal responsibility!

Republicans in the Senate killed a proposal to make low-interest loans available to workers whose jobs were lost due to dropping of trade barriers. The intent of the proposal was to allow those individuals to continue to make mortgage payments for up to a year after losing the job. Yet Bush GAVE AWAY fifteen billion dollars to the airline industry in the wake of September 11th. This is blatant favoritism for groups over individuals. So much for the importance of the individual!

When former president Carter called for the elimination of the trade embargo against Cuba, the Bush administration responded that it would not be involved in "propping up a repressive regime". Yet Cuba's human rights record is not as bad as that of China or Saudi Arabia, with whom we trade extensively. So much for opposing repression!

Republicans in the media have attacked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a "San Francisco Liberal" and wasted no time in tearing into her. However, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is much more extremist. He has called the EPA a Gestapo, he blamed the Columbine shootings on birth control and day care, doesn't want kids going to Texas A&M because there is sex on campus, describes Democratic voters as "Greenpeace, Queer Nation, and the National Education Association", denounces the Noble Peace Prize, and rejects global warming and evolution. So much for denouncing extremism!

Bush has claimed the United States has the right to initiate hostilities against a nation which is preparing a first strike. This is his doctrine of pre-emption. He alleged that Iraq was preparing to attack the United States and prepared us for war. But when the U.S. had over 100,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region and since Bush had been talking war for months, Iraq would have had the very justification it would need to attack America. So much for defensive war!

Bush's antiterrorism record stinks. The previous administration took the threat of al Qaeda very seriously. The outgoing NSC chief briefed his replacement, Condolezza Rice, on bin Laden, the outgoing Secretary of Defense briefed Rumsfeld, and the CIA confirmed to Bush that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole. There were assets in place with which Bush could have worked:

• A Predator drone was positioned for surveillance flights to track the movements of Osama bin Laden;
• A submarine was stationed in the Indian Ocean, with cruise missiles ready to fire if another opportunity to take out bin Laden appeared (we had missed him in 1998 by mere hours, or even minutes);
• There were AC-130 gunships on scramble alert only six hours from Afghanistan which were ready to get bin Laden if the opportunity arose;
• U.S. special forces personnel were based in Uzbekistan, ready to take out bin Laden if the chance came.

Bush ceased all this activity and reassigned the personnel and units in question to other duties. The Vice President, while head of a counterterrorism taskforce, held no meetings until September 4th, despite CIA Director Tenet's concerns (in the previous administration, the counterterrorism taskforce had met almost weekly). Ashcroft refused FBI requests to assign more agents to counterterrorism and away from drugs and pornography (but Ashcroft himself stopped flying on commercial flights in July, thanks to a threat assessment).

Then there was August. Bush was on vacation in Texas, VP Cheney in Wyoming. On 6 August Bush was briefed about the specific threat of attacks on U.S. soil. On 17 August the FBI arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, who had an expired student visa and pilot training which involved how to fly but not land a 747. Ashcroft had refused to grant a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Moussaoui; the previous Attorney General had never refused a FISA request.

On 11 September 2001, the threats became reality. The World Trade Center in New York was destroyed, the Pentagon damaged, and the valiant passengers of Flight 93 gave their lives to thwart another strike. How did Bush respond to the murder of innocent civilians?

Afghanistan

On 7 October 2001 he involved the U.S. military in Afghanistan's civil war, using warlords in the Northern Alliance as ground troops. Why? Presumably because the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden. But is that justification for launching an attack? In 1979 the U.S. rejected a demand by Iran to hand over the Shah, who had been responsible for the deaths of thousands of his countrymen. If we were justified in refusing to hand over a guest of our country who was implicated in mass murder, where do we get off demanding that another country do the same?

So why did the U.S. attack Afghanistan?

1. None of the hijackers were from Afghanistan. Most were Saudi citizens, the rest Egyptian. The evil bin Laden himself is a Saudi. The Saudis continue to export Islamic extremism and fund extremist groups.
2. The meetings which planned the attacks appear to have been held in Germany rather than Afghanistan.
3. The Taliban came to power through the support of Pakistan, itself a supporter of terrorism in India.
4. Osama bin Laden is a man without a country, who has a large following. He is a supernational leader. No single country is responsible for his rise to power.
5. Nonviolent avenues remained unexplored. In 1990, President Bush spent SIX MONTHS attempting negotiations with Iraq, building an international coalition, and putting forces in place for swift victory. In 2001, President Bush broke off negotiations with the Taliban because they asked for proof and because they hinted that they might hand bin Laden over to the World Court instead.
6. The U.S. recognized no government in Afghanistan. We should have been able to send in special forces or conduct small-level bombing attacks in order to find and destroy bin Laden. Resorting to war was unnecessary.

So we saw one of the richest nations on earth attacking one of the most wretched. The US ran out of targets on the third day. The US bombed the same Red Cross warehouse twice. And worst of all, al Qaeda members, probably including bin Laden, bribed their way out of the country when we were closing in on them.

In September 2001, Bush promised we'd get bin Laden dead or alive. In March he said that bin Laden was no longer relevant. That doesn't make me want a piece of him any less. And why couldn't he have at least promised progress in the hunt for the man when he gave his State of the Union address in 2003?

The most horrible part is saved for last, of course. On 17 April 2002, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated that the US military has never had good enough intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts to mount a mission to go after him. He actually admitted that after bombing the bejeezus out of Afghanistan and killing thousands of people, we never really had enough information to justify going in.

But there was worse to come.

Iraq

A strange statement came out of the administration in August of 2002. When asked why the administration was downplaying troop redeployments to the Persian Gulf, a spokesman said "You don't start marketing new products in August".

Sure enough, in September Bush began talking up the case for removing Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. He dismissed the role of the United Nations in tackling the issue and even Congress, stating that previous UNSC resolutions and Congressional authorizations gave him all the authority he needed to start a major war by himself.

Nevertheless, political pressure compelled him to go to Congress. While he did not ask for a formal declaration of war, he did ask for authorization to use force against Iraq. The resolution was supported by the leadership of both parties, but substantial numbers of Democrats rebelled against their own leadership and voted against the resolution.

• Senate Democrats voting against war: Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Inouye, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wellstone, and Wyden. Of these, Bob Graham of Florida is often spoken of as a 2004 presidential candidate.
• Democratic representatives voted against the war resolution by a 3:2 margin. Principal opposition came from Nancy Pelosi, now minority leader, Lloyd Dogget of Austin, Texas, and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
• Only seven Republicans voted against the war. Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and representatives Duncan, Hostettler, Houghton, Leach, Morella, and Paul. Ron Paul of Texas was Libertarian candidate for president in 1988.

In November, Bush made his case at the United Nations for the resumption of inspections. The Security Council unanimously agreed with him, and passed UNSC resolution 1441, calling for an immediate resumption of inspections in Iraq. Much to Bush's suprise, Hussen agreed. The inspections got off to a rocky start, with Iraq's injured pride and excessive concerns about state soveregnty causing early difficulties, but by winter the inspectors were reporting acceptable cooperation.

What did they find? Mostly leftovers from the first Gulf War, and cold paper trails. There was clearly much work to do, but early successes brought hope to the world community that war could be averted.

The US presented evidence that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. It took months for the administration to hand over the evidence. When examined, the documents turned out to be forgeries. There was a letter from the president of Niger which referred to his authority under a constitution which was no longer in effect, and which had his forged signature on it. Another document, dated October 2000, was signed by the foreign minister of Niger, but the man in question had retired in 1989. The document also referred to the supreme military council, which ceased to exist in 1999.

Three months with 218 inspections at 141 sites had produced no plausible indication that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Undeterred, Bush pressed for war. When it seemed the matter could be diplomatically resolved, he compelled the UN to withdraw the inspectors so that military action could begin. World leaders began to voice their opposition to the war.

Who Opposed the War?

The Pope, Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwartzkopf, Bush 41, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, President Jacques Chirac of France, President Vicente Fox of Mexico, Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada, Nelson Mandela. Signers of a formal declaration of opposition to the war include Hans Bethe (physicist and atom bomb architect), Walter Kohn (defense advisor to the Pentagon), Norman Ramsey (NATO advisor and Manhattan Project scientist), and Charles Townes (former research director at the Pentagon). The statement read in part "Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world."

One hundred and thirty million workers belonging to over 200 unions and 550 union leaders from 53 countries signed an International Labor declaration against the war.

The doctrine of preemtion...appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. -- Senator Robert Byrd

There is only one way to truly support our soldiers, and that's to bring them home. -- director David Lynch

On 20 March 2003, Bush announced that the United States had attacked Iraq with a "coalition of the willing". Who was in this coalition?

• From Latin America, he had the support of Colombia, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Honduras and the Dominican Republic were also on board, as was Costa Rica.
• From Africa, he had the support of Eritrea and Ethiopia, plus Rwanda and Uganda. Angola was on board for a while, but withdrew. Morocco was sending two thousand monkeys (no joke; they help detonate land mines).
• From Oceania, he had the support of Australia and the Solomon Islands. Australia has sent two thousand men. He also had support from Palau, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.
• From Asia, he had the support of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Uzbekistan. Taiwan also supported the US effort.
• From Europe, he had the support of Albania (70 troops), Bulgaria (no troops), the Czech Republic (sent experts in chemical agents), Denmark (sent a submarine), the Baltic states, Holland, Hungary, Italy (no troops), Macedonia, Poland (200 troops), Romania (278 troops), Slovakia, Spain (no troops), Turkey (no troops), and the United Kingdom (45,000 troops). Iceland, though it has no army, was also on board.

It is significant that Italy, Spain, and Turkey, though supportive of the war, sent no troops. In each nation, vast majorities of the populace opposes the war.

The American attack on Iraq has three major twentieth-century precedents. None of them are flattering.

Hypocritical Arguments for War

• Bush defied the will of the United Nations and went to war to punish Iraq for defying the will of the United Nations.
• Bush started a war to prevent Iraq from starting a war.
• Bush wants to end the Iraqi government's suppression of dissent, but suppresses dissent in the US by equating it with treason.
• Bush used shocking, awful air raids to intimidate the Iraqi government into surrender, so that they won't be able to use terrorism to intimidate other governments.
• Bush accused the Iraqi government of repeatedly lying to UN inspectors, while using forged evidence to justify an attack.

Once Baghdad was taken, troops were immediately dispatched to protect the Ministry of Oil from rampaging mobs of looters. The Museum of Baghdad, one of the five greatest museums in the world, was not protected at all, and was destroyed. Other cultural assets were also destroyed in the looting, but no effort was spared to save them. Even other government buildings were allowed to burn, but the Ministry of Oil was protected.

The war ended with no use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. The regime collapsed in less than a month. Casualties on all sides were mercifully low, but still numbered nearly ten thousand. The evil Saddam Hussein was sent packing, and his whereabouts remain unknown (much like bin Laden's). Iraqis are now free to demonstrate against Saddam -- and against their liberators!

The Failure of the War

Despite eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime, the war is still a failure. Iraq's sudden collapse demonstrated they were never a threat to anyone. There was no use of weapons of mass destruction by the collapsing regime. On 25 April 2003, administration officials admitted that the threat of such weapons was overstated. Why?

To make a statement.

Administration sources stated that Bush "wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism...Other countries have such weapons...[but Iraq had] a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between...two countries the United States wanted to send a message to...If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril."

In other words, Bush lied about the real reasons for the war. Millions of people around the world saw through the lies, and it has seriously damaged American prestige. Now that the war is over, even Bush is admitting that perhaps Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began. When even Bush admits the casus bellum did not exist, the lost lives and damaged standing of the US makes the war a far bigger failure than Afghanistan.

Bush is not merely a mediocre president like Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. He is grossly incompetent, and that's not just an opinion -- I can back that up:

• He removed and/or refused to use antiterror assets already in place, as discussed above;
• He annihilated the budget surplus before the first summer of his presidency was over, by cutting federal taxes, increasing spending on defense, creating the Department of Homeland Security, and preparing for war against Iraq;
• He increased the tax burden on most Americans by cutting federal spending in precisely those areas where states needed help, forcing the states to raise taxes;
• He has declared that the United States can do nothing about global warming and that we'd just better get used to it;
• His vice president has stated flatly that the US can do nothing to prevent another major terrorist attack on US soil, possibly including nuclear attacks;
• His Department of Homeland Security does not incorporate the CIA and the FBI, whose rivalry prevented their cooperation once the September 11th hijackers' plans had been detected;
• He's opened US markets to nations whose low wages undercut American companies' ability to do business, putting downward pressure on US wages during a recession;
• His arrogant, imperial foreign policy, with its pattern of dissolving, abrogating, unsigning, and refusing important international agreements, has produced a wave of anti-Americanism that threatens the very existence of NATO, the UN, and the Euro-American alliance;
• His economic policies have cost one million jobs a year, and resulted in record bankruptcy filings for any single twelve-month period, all while cutting funding for unemployment benefits;
• He has cut back on press conferences more than any other president, and is afraid to call on veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas;
• He refused to intervene in the 2001 energy crises in California, even when corruption was revealed;
• He sent US troops into harms' way in the unnecessary conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, while cutting benefits for veterans;
• He has refused to send financial aid to the states at the time of their greatest fiscal crises since the Great Depression;
• He has continuously blocked investigation into the intelligence and security failures of September 11th.

How would a competent president have handled this? Simply on the final point, dealing with September 11th, Bush falls short. A good president would have followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, and immediately assembled an independent commission (as with Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, the Challenger disaster, and other notable events). He would have called for a time of national sacrifice and rallied the nation and the world to a new effort to eliminate the underlying causes of terrorism through a concerted effort to spread prosperity and democracy (neither of which can be imposed by force).

But that's a theoretical comparison. Compared to the previous administration, how does this stack up? Under Clinton, an assassination attempt against former president Bush was prevented, and terrorist attacks at the millenium celebrations were thwarted. The administration attempted to revise airline security regulations and were thwarted by Congress. The budget was balanced and in surplus, so that the public debt could be payed down. Global warming was recognized as a threat and the administration was engaged in negotiations with other states on ways to ameliorate it. And the danger of future terrorist attacks was being dealt with by eliminating the underlying causes of terrorism, through such initiatives as facilitating the Mideast peace process.

In short, even mediocre presidents can offer us hope. The Bush administration offers us only admissions of powerlessness.

The Bushoisie want to invest Social Security funds in the stock market, based on the idea that stocks always provide a superior return in the long run (as long as you don't make any stupid investments, or get taken for a ride by scam artists). Of course, this overlooks the fact that Social Security is not a retirement fund, but an insurance policy. It is invested in government bonds, and its payments are indexed to one's income during one's working life. They increase as the cost of living increases, and they are life-long, as opposed to money from the stock market, which is finite and can run out.

But let's return to the argument of the Bushoisie, that the stock market will provide superior returns. If that is true, if stocks pay more than bonds, then why do people invest in bonds?

• Because they're safer than stocks.

So if Social Security money is moved from bonds, bonds which help fund the cost of government, how do we pay for government services?

• Taxis will have to be raised, which will take money out of the private sector.

THEREFORE, shifting money into stocks from bonds will NOT increase the capital available for private investment. Now, if Social Security funds in the stock market create a bonanza of extra money above and beyond what it currently pays, from where does that money come? There are two possibilities:

• The extra money actually grows the economy as wise investors provide capital for companies which create new growth.
• Someone loses. If these wise amateur investors fail to grow the economy by billions of dollars, some are going to lose their shirts.

Beyond the risk of losing, what happens if the government floods the stock market with Social Security money taken out of bonds? The return on stocks will go down, and on bonds it will go up -- supply and demand at work. So those in the market are worse off, while those on government bonds are subsidized by the change in demand.

Finally, for those who fell that Social Security only benefits the elderly, consider the good old days before Social Security. Try to launch a career, raise a family, and still pay the health costs of Mom and Dad.

Turns out that the Reagan years were just disastrous for the United States. We were once the world leader in quality of life. That ended with Reagan. As of 1991, the United States (as compared to the rest of the First World) was:

• 13th in home ownership (American dream, indeed!)
• 1st in two-income families -- 58% of US two-parent families had both parents working. Second-place Japan and France have only one-third of their families requiring two incomes.
• 1st in household debt, at $71,500 per household on average. Thatcher-ravaged Britain was second at only $35,500.
• dead last in household savings, at $4,201 per household. Japan was first at $45,118 per household.
• 9th in overall size of the middle class (53.7%). The largest middle class belongs to Japan (90%). Middle class is defined as people with incomes 67% to 150% of the national median.
• 1st in poverty rate (17.1%). Poverty is defined as having an income below 50% of the national median.
• 1st in single-parent households (8%). The failure of the minimum wage to keep up with inflation hasn't helped here -- why marry someone who can't pay the bills?

Some argue that by not overtaxing businesses and the wealthy, we've enabled the United States to have the highest productivity in the world. Yet between 1991 and 1998 productivity on average actually grew faster in the EU than in the US. In 2001, the US was 4th in hourly productivity, behind Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. The US still outpaces EU productivity per worker, though, because more Americans work, they pay fewer taxes, and work longer hours (28 percent more than Germans, 43 percent more than the French) and take shorter (or no) vacations. Other items of interest:

• Americans put in 1,890 hours work on average per year (2nd most in the First World) and received on average 12 days paid vacation.
• Germans work 1,668 hours per year on average (9th most in the First World) and received on average 30 days paid vacation.
• Average wages for American workers have gone from the highest in the world in 1983 to the lowest in the First World in the present. That means the American worker is producing more than ever and getting paid less for it.
• Executive pay as a percentage of profits has increased from 22 percent in 1953 to 61 percent in 1987, while wage increases for employees have generally not kept up with inflation. The purchasing power of the poorest working Americans has, on average, declined 20% since 1973. The profits are not going to the people who are producing product, but only their bosses.

The official story is that the Palestinians were offered a state of their own in July 2000, but Arafat rejected it and led the new intifada to win concessions he couldn't get through negotiations. The facts are more complicated, and present a tragic view of the peace that might have been.

The Camp David offer was superficially a return to Israel's 1967 borders, as Arafat and Rabin originally agreed in 1993. But in the details, Israel was to annex strategic locations in the West Bank (especially the region's aquifers) and retain security control of other parts, resulting in a Palestine in which it would have been impossible for the people to travel or trade without the tacit permission of the Israeli government, because Israel could close those routes at will. Indefinite Israeli control of the Jordan Valley between Palestine and Jordan would have been at the mercy of the Israeli military as well. Furthermore, none of these conditions could have been renegotiated, as the Israelis insisted upon the Palestinians agreeing to waive all further claims against Israel.

The Camp David meetings finished on 25 July, and the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. But matters on the ground were about to turn for the worse. On 28 July, Israel announced that it would not withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, abrogating the Oslo II agreement. Then in August and September, in Efrat and Har Adar, new construction on Jewish-only settlements was announced, along with the Israeli statistics bureau report that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of the year. Two Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem were demolished, while Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara lost their houses because they lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway.

When Israeli troops opened fire on rock-throwing Palestinians at Al-Aqsa, killing four and wounding over 200, demonstrations spread throughout the territories. The intifada had begun. Barak and Arafat were pushed back to the negotiating tables at Taba in Egypt, in January 2001. At Taba, Israel dropped its border-control demands, and the Palestinians made a counteroffer for a contiguous Palestinian state with changes to the 1967 borders. The Israelis broke off negotiations on 28 January, and the following month Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel.

Last updated 20 April 2004.