I Cogitate
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |
What does George Bush believe?
It's impossible to actually determine the answer to this question but let's give it a shot--here are a few puzzling examples of this conundrum:
One of the grander pronouncements early on in Bush's presidency was his emphasizing that he would restore integrity to The White House. Yet his administration is currently making Richard Nixon's look like the rank-and-file of a church choir and will certainly plumb new depths before all is said and done--if it hasn't done so already.
Bush needs to be asked at a press conference how he defines integrity?
Bush also stoutly promoted his idea that liberty and freedom were God-given and, along with democracy, were mightily important to him as integral components necessary for implementation as part of a Middle East makeover.
Yet he continually falls painfully short of practicing domestically what he preaches internationally. He's the decider, so apparently the appropirate response to his decrees are to shut up and get with the program. And no, he's not going to talk about situations like whether he gave the order to send henchmen Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card to rouse John Ashccroft from his sickbed. Because you see, he just can't. That has to be secret or the enemy will benefit.
Well, not unless the enemy is the American people.
Bush's desire to bring faith-based assistance to social services might actually be worth a look-see under certain circumstances if his hirelings had been instructed to also fully consider, if not include, Jewish, Muslim, and other religious social service organizations. To limit the financial largesse of the federal government to organizations coinciding with Bush's faith and his political supporters is yet one more abridgment of sound and fair government policy.
Also, Jesus was George Bush's absolute favorite political philosopher when he was asked such back in 1999 but, apparently it's currently a tossup between Rasputin and Attila the Hun. It's quite telling and extremely curious that Bush assigns Jesus a historical political role. Was it a situation where he was boxed in due to not knowing any political philosophers and being simply taken by surprise by the question? If pressed, could he really have offered a second name? A third?
In a January 21, 2000 Hartford Courant opinion piece, Trinity College religion professor Frank Kirkpatrick compiled a nice little set of press conference questions for any member of the media to pose to Bush as a followup:
*** Jesus counseled nonviolence … and refused to counter-attack with violence when nailed to the cross. In light of the words and example of Jesus, what role do you see for the military in … the United States?Of course, no one has proffered such inquiries in any presidential debates, let alone, press conferences.
*** Jesus … said that a person should abandon his mother and his father, son and daughter in order to follow him: How would you apply this teaching to family values?
*** Jesus said "Give all that you own to the poor" …. How does this inform your understanding of tax policy and the redistribution of wealth?
*** Jesus included foreigners, strangers, and aliens in his compassion. How would this practice inform your understanding of America’s immigration policy and its responsibilities to people in other nations?
*** Jesus said to his disciples that the best way for them to serve him was by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and housing the homeless. How would this teaching inform your understanding of domestic policy and the revenues necessary to put it into effect?
The lone followup at the time of Bush's 'Jesus pronouncement' asked for elaboration which resulted in this key response:
"Well, if they don’t know, it’s going to be hard to explain."Doesn't this sound familiar? He scrambles here, first having to dig deep to answer an inquiry he was clearly unprepared for and cannily sends out a red meat offering to his evangelical base. Then he cannot or will not elaborate about his choice.
Is it because it wouldn't be politically wise to delve any further--that he has accomplished his 'mission' and it is favorable to leave it as is?
Or is his truncated followup more due to not truly having given his formulation much or any thought to begin with?
Here's more on actions betraying words.
In a September 23, 1999 at The Citadel, these Bush words were uttered in a delivery about the need for military transformation:
"...Those who want to lead America accept two obligations. One is to use our military power wisely, remembering the costs of war. The other is to honor our commitments to veterans who have paid those costs...Yep, this was classic George Bush.
...if elected, I will set three goals: I will renew the bond of trust between the American president and the American military. I will defend the American people against missiles and terror. And I will begin creating the military of the next century...
...I have great faith in those who serve our nation in the temper of their will and the quality of their spirit. These are men and women who love their country more than their comfort. Men and women who have never failed us, wherever there is honor to be earned, or interests defended. But even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, and rapidly declining readiness...
...Something has to give, and it’s giving. Resources are over-stretched. Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life...
...The problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military missions...
...America will not retreat from the world. On the contrary, I will replace diffuse commitments with focused ones. I will replace uncertain missions with well-defined objectives...
...We must be selective in the use of our military, precisely because America has other great responsibilities that cannot be slighted or compromised. And this review of our deployments will also reduce the tension on an overstretched military. Nothing would be better for morale than clarity and focus from the commander-in-chief...
If challenged about doing exactly what he said he wouldn't, Bush, of course, would simply cryptically intone that '9-11 changed everything' and offer nothing more--no elaboration, no fleshing out, no connecting the horrific events of 2001 and his radical shift in thinking. No answer regarding his empty and failed promises.
This man is a champion bondbreaker.
He has stated time and time again that the American people should just trust him yet he continuously supplies evidence contrary to do so.
His personal inability to exhibit, let alone, require rigorous and disciplined thinking and planning by those surrounding him, is astonishing.
The combined results of his administration are that of a greenhorn, peter-principled-promoted CEO, an imposter way over his head but vainly attempting to publicly perform the role.
The lies he and his administration have perpetually cast out are simply unmatched in presidentially embarrassing the United States.
All this goes beyond mere fundamental human flaws, which can so often be understandble and forgiveable since we all exhibit ownership of such. Simply put, there is an ominous pattern here.
Bush's breaches of faith with the American public are handcrafted (thank you Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, et al) and then institutionally implemented regardless of whether that involves cannibalizing the U.S. Army, the Justice Department, FEMA, the judiciary, the Corporation For Public Broadcasting, the Food and Drug Administration--the list is endless.
This is not kust simple hypocrisy over an utterance, an item or an event. It is more hyper-partisanship above all else, a monumental jump to a level of uber-selfishness of all George Bush, all Republican Party, all the time.
It teaches our children that nothing matters in the pursuit of a goal--that the fulfillment of a desire is always first and foremost, by any and all means. It is selfishness to the nth degree.
It leaves one wondering what, if anything, George Bush actually believes? That is, besides in himself.
Kris Kristofferson long ago wrote a song about his friend Johnny Cash and it certainly has some applicability to George. W. Bush. Here's an excerpt, with heavy emphasis on the third line:
"PILGRIM CHAPTER 33"top
"...He's a poet, he's a picker, he's a prophet, he's a pusher
He's a pilgrim and a preacher and a problem when he's stoned
He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction
Taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home..."
RSS feed
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |