Breaking with Bush

© Dr. Gary D. Lemmons, February 26, 2006

George W. Bush has gone too far!

Over the past five years, I have attempted to be supportive of the President.  I thought he got off to an unfair start after the 2000 election, and I believed that the American media, which is dominated by the liberal element in our society, was out to get him.  I felt that he needed an opportunity to show exactly what he could do.

Immediately following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, he demonstrated competent, decisive, and effective leadership.  His actions in Afghanistan, initially, were effective and brought about the desired results.  I felt that it would be just a matter of time before Usama bin Laden would be in our hands and the terrorist network would be neutered.

On the domestic front, I knew early on that George W. Bush was a corporatist, that is, one who supports wealthy interests.    His massive tax breaks for the rich and his efforts to improve the lot of big business in this country were a clear indication of where his allegiance lay.  I could live with that.  There is some reality to the notion that, if the rich get richer, everybody on down the food chain benefits.

While the religious right embraced him, I suspected all along that he was not as pro-life, pro-working-people, and pro-family values as he appeared to be.

But, then, some strange things started happening. 

First, Congressional spending exploded. Even allowing for military increases in response to the September 11^th attack, the growth of federal spending increased under this President unlike any other.  There has not been one, NOT ONE, spending bill that the President has had the courage to veto!

Second, the President, who harps on the merits of local control and less government, embraced the No Child Left Behind Act.  While I was irked by his support of this illogical legislation, I put his error down to negligence in his own education, which is apparent when he speaks for more than 20 minutes.  Also, I tried to tell myself that he was just overwhelmed by the educational elitists and reformists who dominate the national education scene right now.  As the years progressed and the President consistently under-funded the mandate, I became increasingly suspicious.  Was this President using the same approach on teachers as Pharaoh did on the children of Israel almost 4000 years ago when he ordered them to make “bricks without straw”?

Third, it became clear to me that George W. Bush was not a good judge of talent or character.  His appointments of John Ashcroft and Rod Paige as Attorney General and Secretary of Education, respectively, demonstrated this lack of judgment.  During the Hurricane Katrina debacle, in mid-2005, I learned that his director of FEMA, Mike Brown, had actually been a political crony and had about as much business directing FEMA as I would have performing knee surgery.

Fourth, the President clearly has failed to protect American borders, especially our southern boundary.  Clearly, he has catered to the business interests who use illegal Hispanic labor and pay less than prevailing wages and no benefits to these people.  This action has led to a drain on the resources of schools and other social services of the states and local governments, but the President doesn’t care, and the Congress is too inept to do anything about it!

Fifth, the President and the corporatist controlled Congress attempted to provide a drug benefit for senior citizens via Medicare and Medicaid.  This has turned out to be one of the most expensive and inept debacles since Hillary Clinton, when first lady, tried to reform health care.  It takes an etymologist with a law degree to understand the vocabulary, not to mention the ins and outs, of this legislation and, as a result, over 70% or about 6 million of the people who should be on this program have not signed up!

Sixth, after a stoke of brilliance in nominating John Roberts, first as Associate then later as Chief Justice, for the Supreme Court, the President stunned his supporters by nominating Harriet Miers, his personal attorney, to the nation’s highest tribunal.  Not only was Ms. Miers something of a judicial unknown, she had never held a judgeship.  Still, I thought the President must know something the rest of us didn’t.  A couple of weeks of conservative pressure and Bush caved-in.  Miers was withdrawn and Samuel Alito, a conservative’s dream, was nominated.  I didn’t like the President’s performance in that instance.  If he felt Miers was the best choice, the conservatives not withstanding, why didn’t he forge ahead and let the Senate do its worst?

Then, there is the issue of Iraq.

Like many Americans, I believed the President when he said that the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction.  I reasoned that representatives of the national government, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell, would not go on national television and assert the existence of these weapons if it were not true.  The clincher was Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion on the March 30, 2003 edition of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos that, “We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

Even after there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction, I still supported the President’s actions in Iraq.  I reasoned the only reason Saddam didn’t use a weapon of mass destruction was that he didn’t have one.  The moment he secured the weapon, he would have either used it or arranged for Islamist terrorists to unleash it on us or our allies.  I bought the President’s secondary rationale for the Iraqi War…the removal of Saddam Hussein.

As the war progressed, I began to hear stories from, among others, acquaintances of mine who are actually serving in Iraq.  These stories told of lack of body armor, lack of armored equipment, especially transport equipment.  But the most disturbing reports were of insufficient numbers of troops on the ground to control the rising insurgency.

It became clear that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was fighting this war “on the cheap,” and our troops were paying the price for it.  As I have listened to the Secretary being questioned about this, his responses have sounded more and more like the suicidal remarks of McNamara and others of the Johnson Administration of the 1960s: arrogant, self-serving, and treacherous.  Bush should have cut Rumsfeld loose long ago, but he didn’t.  Perhaps he was just unsure, I thought.

Now, comes this latest idiocy.

The President is supporting a deal worked out by members of his administration to allow the management of shipping operations at six of our major ports to be handled by Dubai Ports, a business owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, a nation in which two of the September 11^th hijackers were born.  This issue has spawned strange bedfellows.  Senators Hillary Clinton and Bill Frist, two political opposites, are in agreement that much more consideration and involvement of the Congress should take place before this deal is consummated.  Radical conservative talk show host, Michael Savage and liberal New York Senator, Charles Schumer, almost had a “love fest” in agreement that this is a bad decision.  Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert asked the President for a moratorium until full understanding and safeguards could be achieved by the Congress.

The President’s position?

He insists that the deal should go through.  In fact, he threatened to meet any legislative injunction against the deal with a veto.  Said, the President, "…they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

So, he does knows what a veto is!

He went on to say, "I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

Once again, it seems the President is saying that the American people just need to trust him. 

It may all be true.  The Dubai Ports company may be the best thing since sliced bread for the operation of our ports.  However, I am sorry, Mr. President, but given your record of “being right” on education, government spending, weapons of mass destruction, sufficient military equipment and personnel in Iraq, border security, Katrina response, medical prescription benefits, and Supreme Court nominations, you have lost my trust.  I urge the Congress to enact legislation to block the transfer of control of shipping at our six national ports to Dubai Ports.  If you veto said legislation, I urge the Congress to override your veto, which I believe they will have the votes to do so, most coming from your own political party. 

The last great Republican President we had in this country wisely said, “Trust, but verify.”  He was right, Mr. President, and for the remainder of your term, Sir, that is what the American people should do with you!