by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 4, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

rapping up the Republican National Convention, President George W. Bush politely blasted Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry, telling delegates that the Massachusetts liberal was a flip-flopper, incapable of defending the country. For weeks leading up to the convention, “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”—a shadowy 527 non-profit group—battered Kerry's credibility, impugning his decorated military service. During the entire week at Madison Square Garden, the GOP shifted attention to Sept. 11 and the global war on terror. “We are staying on the offensive—striking terrorists abroad—so we do not have to face them here at home,” said Bush, promoting the myth that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were responsible for 9/11. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have stuck to the same story, insisting that Saddam posed a dangerous threat to U.S. national security.

      Since occupying Iraq in March 2003, the U.S. military and teams of weapons inspectors haven't found evidence of weapons of mass destruction. From time to time, Bush and Cheney rushed to confirm the presence of “mobile germ weapons labs,” despite knowing that the main source of intelligence named “curveball,” the brother-in-law of now discredited Ahmed Chalabi, fabricated the reports. Bush and Cheney still talk about finding WMD. Convinced that WMD will turn up, they now talk about Saddam's evil intent, not weapons of mass destruction. Without WMD, the White House shifted attention to Saddam's alleged connection to Osama bin Laden, something not believed by recognized terrorism experts. Bush and Cheney insist that the war in Iraq will keep terrorists off American soil, despite establishing no link between Iraq's insurgents and Sept. 11 hijackers.

      Nearly one-thousand U.S. soldiers have lost their lives defending Bush's fallacy that the war in Iraq will somehow keep terrorists off American streets. Seven-thousand more have sustained disabling injuries. For weeks, Kerry allowed Bush and Cheney to control the talking points about Iraq. Finally, following Bush's acceptance speech, Kerry spoke out at a late-night rally in Springfield, Ohio. “Well, here's my answer to them. I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and who have misled Americans into Iraq,” said Kerry, daring, for the first time, to question Bush's Iraq policy. Kerry's reluctance to challenge Bush's Iraq policy has cost him in the polls, giving Bush a free ride to tout his foreign policy. Questioning Bush's rationale for war opens up a chink in the White House's armor, staking claims to improved national security.

      Bush outlined his plan for “reforming” the federal establishment, alluding to baby boomers, expected to drain the Social Security and Medicare system in coming years. “We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared and thus truly free to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams,” Bush told cheering delegates, telling the audience, in effect, that his government plans to get out of the entitlement business—at least for individuals. Bush has no intention of stopping the whopping subsidies to publicly traded corporations, especially defense contractors and oil servicing companies that depend, almost entirely, on government grants. Bush sees nothing wrong with ending Social Security and Medicare, as we know it. He sees nothing wrong with more tax cuts, more defense spending and more red ink. He sees nothing wrong with cutting benefits to 70 million baby boomers.

      Bush's vision of an “ownership society” involves weaning the public off government largess, leaving the lion's share of federal aid to publicly traded corporations. Corporate welfare makes more sense than individuals struggling to lift themselves out of poverty. Since Bush took office, the poverty rate climbed to 17.6 percent, leaving nearly 36 million people below the line. Bush has a plan for transforming the Middle East but not one to provide health insurance to 45 million Americans—or, for that matter, to stop the spiraling price of oil, something expected to drop after conquering Iraq. So far, the U.S. hasn't seen any benefit to the Iraq war, only platitudes about improved global security. Yet Al Qaeda's terrorist bombings in Spain or, more recently, the Chechen massacre in Russia, suggest that the U.S. war in Iraq or the global war on terror hasn't made the world a safer place.

      Before Bush commits more U.S. assets—and U.S. troops—to transforming the Middle East, it's time to take a searching inventory. As a candidate in 2000, he promised to only use the military to “fight and win wars,” not nation building. Now embarked on the most costly nation-building project since World War II, Bush coins his acceptance speech as “Nothing will hold us back.” Squandering countless tax dollars and human lives on a global war on terror offers no relief to the U.S. military already stretched to the breaking point. Wasting U.S. assets reconstructing Iraq won't stop Al Qaeda from plotting its next attack, either at home or abroad—nor will it stop rogue nations like Iran and North Korea from threatening U.S. interests. Without a coherent plan and exit strategy, Bush leaves the U.S. more exposed to terrorism and rogue states currently building real weapons of mass destruction.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.