March 28, 2004 – P. T. Barnum - Meet George Bush
When Bill Clinton first ran for President against Bush I, the mantra used during his campaign was “It’s the economy stupid.” During that campaign, much as today, many in Middle America and the middle class were fighting to maintain their economic status quo, health care costs were spiraling out of control even for those lucky enough to have insurance, public schools were failing, and it appeared that jobs and opportunity were slowly but methodically dripping out of reach. Today, though many folks think that this upcoming election will be “It’s the economy stupid – part II,” I am not so sure. No, I have a strange feeling that the upcoming election is going to be as much about a candor as it is about jobs, and delve into a discussion of where we are as a nation and what exactly we are doing in and to the rest of the world
We all know the world today is very different than it was twelve or even two years ago. Though many believe that as a nation that the current administration is doing its best to battle terrorism wherever it may surface – just as many of us question whether the methods adopted by this Administration are in fact encouraging more long–term mayhem than it will stop. I think that this election may come down to one core issue – character, and more particularly whether or not the current administration has the veracity and character to not only explain how it has battled terrorism, but to also justify another four years in office.
I could go on about all of the matters I disagree with the Bush Administration – the insinuation of religion into our daily lives and the corresponding attempt to impose restrictive moral values on all Americans, the abandonment of the working poor and middle class in favor of corporate contributors; proposing a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; blocking stem cell research, the abandonment of the Middle East peace process which has lead to the further death and destruction of innocents on both side of the table; using slogans like “no child left behind” to hide a failed educational policy that really does not seem to care about public education and actually educating kids. But many of these issues can be characterized as Democrat vs. Republican philosophical differences (with the added twist of the Bush Administration evangelical religious beliefs thrown into the mix.). None of these issues strike a chord in anyone but the party faithful and an election cannot be won by playing solely to your base. No, I think one word is going to determine this election, and that word is terrorism, and more particularly, the Bush Administration’s response to the attacks on 9/11.
These past weeks Richard Clarke has been on many a show talking about the inadequacies of the Bush Administration as it took office and before the 9/11 attacks took place. Richard Clarke has worked for a number of Presidential Administrations, with both Republican and Democratic Presidents. As he tries to sell his book, he states that the Bush II Administration did not heed his warnings and to respond to the apparent threat of Osama Bin Ladin and his al Qaeda Network. Apparently, he begged, jumped, stamped his feet and demanded that someone pay attention to the growing threat, and no one did. Indeed, no one seemed to appreciate the gravity of the risk or the level of concern Mr. Clarke expressed. Then, well, we all know what happened.
You know what, this may surprise many of you, but I do not blame the Bush Administration for 9/11. Indeed, this past week it was almost comical watching former members of the Clinton Administration and the current members of the Bush Administration pointing fingers at the other trying to escape blame for failing to see the coming attacks. To me, the matter is moot – there is plenty of blame to go around: Bush may not have reacted quickly enough to the growing threat, but that threat was allowed to grow and develop under President Clinton. Bush did not nothing but continue the status quo – in any other situation we would say that it was to be expected. After all, do any of you even remember the issue of terrorism being discussed during the 2000 campaign? It was not a priority – it was not on our radar. But . . . (you knew that was coming didn’t ya).
I do, however, fault the Bush Administration for its reaction to 9/11 and how it purposefully used the tragedies of 9/11 to advance its own geo-political agenda, all in the name of fighting terrorism. First General Wesley Clark, then Paul O’Neill, and now Richard Clark, all in sickening detail, state that after 9/11, the focus of the Bush Administration was not so much on responding to terrorism per se, but on how to use the attacks as a justification to go after Saddam Hussein and Iraq. By noon on September 11th, the question on everyone’s mind seemed to be how can we bootstrap Iraq into this fight on terrorism and get rid on Saddam Hussein (who after all, tried to kill Bush I and therefore must die). This issue, in my mind, is the most dangerous and damaging to the Bush Administration because it reveals the Administration for what it is: a bunch of privileged bullies with scores to settle and the willingness to use any means necessary to do so, regardless of the long term consequences of their actions.
Recently and the annual dinner for the Washington television and radio folks, George Bush, as all sitting presidents, did a “bit” that is supposed to poke fun at himself and his Administration. What did he find funny? The failed search for weapons of mass destruction – that almost forgotten (if the Bush Administration has its way) justification for the invasion of Iraq. While this “bit” apparently went over well with those in attendance, so did Howard Dean’s primal scream at the end of the Iowa caucuses – and we all know how that played out. Hey George, maybe I am too sensitive, but when thousands of Iraqis and Hundreds of Americans have been killed, with thousands more maimed, it just is not funny to make fun of the pretext for the war that you started. A war that your Administration was itching to start the day you came into office – a war that many believe has further destabilized the Middle East and hardened the hatred held towards the United States. War is not funny, and I have a hunch that many Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, agree with me: billions of dollars of American taxes have been used as monopoly money in this somewhat manic pursuit of Saddam.
If Karl Rove agreed with your “weapons, weapons, where are the weapons” skit, then maybe he is finally losing his touch. You to go ahead and tell everyone until you are blue in the face that that the Iraqis are better off without Saddam. You may be right, but that is not the point. You, as commander in chief hold a precious asset in your hands – the lives of those men and women volunteering to defend the safety of this country – and you mocked their sacrifice and commitment, a commitment and responsibility that almost every member of your Administration was able to avoid during Vietnam. Truth be told, the Iraqis would have been better off had Bush I not backed off his promise to support them when they rose up – instead, he abandoned thousands of Iraqis willing to fight and die to get rid of Saddam to poisonous gas and certain death. And, truth be told, we would be better off if the billions of dollars spent fulfilling the failed policies of your father’s administration had been put to use here – rebuilding our roads, our factories, our schools, our hospitals: feeding our children and our poor.
We all know that the world is a very different place today, and unfortunately, terrorism is here to stay. But, what does it say about your Administration when it is willing to divert precious resources and lives to settle old scores when your Administration knew there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. To me, this truth is the most telling character trait of all. Who knew that the good old “bait and switch” routine would work so well on a gullible and frightened American public? I guess P. T. Barnum was right, and there is a sucker born every minute – and we have all be had. Character does count. And I believe, or at least hope, that come November, the character of this Administration in responding to 9/11 and the threat of terrorism will speak louder than the Bush Administration could ever imagine.