Although it is now long forgotten, if one tries
one can recall that, during the 2000 presidential election,
one of candidate George Bush's rallying cries was that he would
'bring morality' back to the White House. Some gullible voters,
although not in sufficient numbers to actually elect him, bought
into this peculiar fantasy, having watched spellbound for years
as an overzealous prosecutor delved into the sex life of President
Bill Clinton.
But the will of the voters notwithstanding, Mr. Bush became
president by Supreme Court decree. He brought with him his bizarre
brand of morality. Let us review some of the more blatant examples.
With a sense of shame unknown to Mr. Bush, Americans can recall
his words to the United Nations and the world on September 12,
2002. Said he: "Today, Iraq continues to withhold important
information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement
logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and
documentation of foreign assistance." He further asserted
that "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength
aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
And the crowning statement in his fear-based speech was this:
"And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous
meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists,
leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these
weapons." Unfortunately for any sense of morality, these
statements were not true.
(Article continues below)
His adoring minions continued the farce. Secretary of State
Collin Powell, addressing the U.N. five months later, showed
blurred satellite photos that he claimed showed "active
chemical munitions bunkers" that Iraq was successfully
hiding from weapons inspectors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), who were scouring the nation. Somehow, it seemed,
they were able to keep these 'active chemical munitions bunkers'
from the inspectors, which is not surprising since five years
of occupation by the United States has still not resulted in
their discovery. One may also wonder why, with 130,000 U.S.
soldiers at their border and poised to invade, the Iraqis didn't
use any of their weapons of mass destruction. Could it be, perhaps,
that they had none to use?
Be that as it may, Mr. Bush piled more immoral atrocities upon
the lies he told the world to justify his invasion. Calling
it 'Shock and Awe,' he started his second war by bombing population
centers in a nation where over half the population was under
the age of 15. It may be worth noting that the concept of 'Shock
and Awe' was the brainchild of one Harlan Ullman, a military
strategist who is currently caught up in the money-laundering
and racketeering trial of Deborah Palfrey, who operated a high-priced
'escort' service. The morality Mr. Bush promised to bring back
to the White House is certainly of a most unusual kind.
Mr. Bush has used his own brand of rhetoric to demonstrate
what he might define as his strong moral fiber. While he has
stated repeatedly that the U.S. does not torture its prisoners,
he has approved 'enhanced interrogations techniques.' The fact
that the entire civilized world condemns those 'techniques'
as torture, and that they violate not only the Geneva Conventions
but national law, once again shines a rather bright light on
Mr. Bush's claims of morality. He has proclaimed his love and
devotion to Jesus Christ. Perhaps he needs a tee shirt with
the letters 'WWJT:' 'Who Would Jesus Torture?' Or more appropriately:
OWWJUEIT: On Whom Would Jesus Use Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?'
In December of 2006, America again watched as Mr. Bush faced
the television cameras, this time from the Walter Reed Medical
Center, praising the service of soldiers who had fought and
suffered wounds in Iraq. His seemingly heartfelt statements
could not be argued with: "We owe them all we can give
them. Not only for when they're in harm's way, but when they
come home to help them adjust if they have wounds, or help them
adjust after their time in service." He met with several
injured soldiers and offered encouragement to them, while demonstrating
to the nation and the world the excellent treatment that the
richest country in the world provides its wounded heroes.
Unfortunately, like most of what Mr. Bush says and does, the
obvious hides a far darker interior. In early 2007 the true
conditions at Walter Reed were exposed: suffering veterans languishing
in roach-infested rooms, lying under rotting ceilings amid walls
coated with black mold. Their needed treatment was often neglected,
as records were lost and the victims ignored for weeks at a
time. Mr. Bush, during his Christmastime photo opportunity,
remained in an area kept ready for public inspection; most of
the hospital's resident remained amid the most deplorable conditions.
The fact that Mr. Bush lied about the treatment wounded veterans
were receiving only compounds the immorality of his allowing
them to be so mistreated.
On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the city of New Orleans,
causing devastating damage. Among the emergency measures taken
was to provide temporary refuge for thousands of evacuees in
the Convention Center. This was to be a short-term solution;
the center was overcrowded and quickly ran out of necessary
supplies. On September 1, Mr. Bush's personally-appointed head
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Michael Brown,
appointed for political reasons since he had absolutely no qualifications
to head such a vitally important agency, announced on national
television that he was unaware of the Convention Center being
used as an emergency housing facility. Most Americans were well
aware of it, since it had been widely reported on television
news for at least a day. And on September 5, Chicago Mayor Richard
M. Daley said that, despite his offer to send firefighters,
police officers and other resources to assist the beleaguered
city, the request he received was for one truck only. As the
people of New Orleans suffered due to the tragic and shocking
neglect of Mr. Brown, Mr. Bush weighed in with his opinion.
Said he: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
Allowing tens of thousand of people to continue to suffer after
losing their homes and, for many of them their loved ones, earned
Mr. Brown the president's praise. Mr. Bush's brand of morality
in action, once again.
One could also mention Mr. Bush's veto of a bill that would
have provided health care to an increased number of children
living in poverty. Or his approval of sending Iraq war veterans
back to the battlefield after a shorter time at home than they
had previously been in Iraq. Or sending them there without the
life-saving equipment that they required. Or his tax cuts which
provide great financial benefits to the wealthiest Americans
and pennies to those farther down the economic ladder.
Or his expenditure of trillions of dollars to kill Iraqis and
steal their oil while America slips into a major recession,
with citizens out of work and losing their homes. Or his complete
disinterest in providing Americans with health care while the
health care industry achieves record-breaking profits.
One is hearing less about morality in the current, tedious
campaign. Republican nominee Senator John McCain will no doubt
steer clear of such topics, not wanting to wear a shirt with
a scarlet 'A' emblazoned on the front. Democratic contenders
Senator Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have found other areas
in which to criticize each other, and have left the morality
issue alone.
But it is bound to come up again. Once the conventions are
over, and the Democrats choose their candidate, we will all
be subjected to a variety of worthless and meaningless rhetoric,
and certainly the topic of morality will be raised in one of
its many forms ('family values,' religious observance, patriotism,
etc.). The candidates will attempt to show their morality by
being photographed with their children (for Mr. McCain it will
be the children by wife number 2; they are still young enough
to be cute). They will wrap themselves in the American flag
and defy anyone to question their morality, as they describe
how they plan either to boldly continue to kill Iraqi citizens
and U.S. soldiers (Mr. McCain's plan), or do it more timidly
(Mr. Obama's and Mrs. Clinton's plan). They will visit New Orleans
and decry the horrendous conditions that remain there; talk
about the tragedy of children and adults without health care
and make some minimal but well-publicized effort to prevent
some U.S. citizens facing foreclosure from losing their homes
as they themselves retire to their mansions to prepare for another
arduous day of campaigning.
Incredible as it seems, many Americans without health care,
losing their homes, and burying their children as they return
in coffins from war, will vote for the person most likely to
continue these immoral atrocities, Mr. McCain. Should sufficient
numbers do so to elect him president, they will only get what
they deserve. The fact that they will drag down the rest of
the nation, and much of the world, with them is yet another
immoral tragedy.