Detailing Bush's First Term

Written in 2004

As election time nears and many of my friends are undecided, I have taken some time to explain a couple reasons why I feel this country needs a change.  I have tried to be as factual as possible to strengthen my arguments and form a persuasive essay.  Most of you know I am voting for John Kerry in November; this paper is not to explain why I am voting for Kerry, but rather why I am not voting for Bush.  However, unlike the Bush campaign I will not use half truths pounded out by the media, I don’t need too.  There are too many factual examples of manipulation and corruption within the present day administration.

As this paper stands I wonder how many of you will take the time to read these viewpoints.  I have included many examples but left out even more.  I do not discuss Bush’s refusal to involve the Federal Government in the California Energy Crisis due to Enron’s involvement (Ken Lay was Bush’s third largest donor at close to $500,000).  I also left out the disappearance of the EPA’s lawsuit against Cintas and the contributions of the Cintas chairman.  I did not discus the economic policies of the current administration and how the effects will last until the interest rates begin to rise (right about the time of the elections…interesting).  I also fail to write concerning the 2,000,000 jobs lost or transferred over seas within the last four years (He is the only president to lose jobs in the history of the US).  I did not take time to detail Bush’s tax cuts even though 50 % of the cuts benefit the wealthiest 1 %.  I missed explaining how Bush has taken record surpluses and changed them into record deficits.  I did not take the time explaining how Bush rejected bills bolstering homeland security and the nation’s police force.  I do not go into Bush’s refusal to allow stem cell research even though the future of human life could be affected.  I did not go into many more points of hypocrisy and corruption, or just bad judgment.  This election will be about Bush’s leadership regarding 9/11 because there is very little else he can focus on.  The world rallied around a leader, but today, that leader does not rally around the world.

2000 Primaries

It is not ironic that the beginning problem to be addressed with Bush is the 2000 primaries.  Perhaps this paper on the GOP President would be nonexistent if Bush and his political attack team would have played nice when dealing with their own party.  The beginning of the 2000 Primaries saw John McCain, the Arizona Republican Senator, become the frontrunner for his party’s nomination.  Winning three of the first seven states[i] sent a message to George W. Bush; this would be race till the end.  That’s when Bush’s team went to work on McCain.  Using all forms of vile obscenities attacking both McCain’s policies and personal life, Bush with a seemingly unlimited treasure chest, went to work on the presidential candidate.  Bush went to great lengths to discredit the maverick senator, even creating a push poll about McCain fathering an illegitimate child.[ii]

The primaries were devastating to McCain with Bush using the media to leverage negative opinions about his opponent.  During the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000, rumors were spread by fellow Republican senators about John McCain's mental health as a result of his imprisonment as a POW. McCain immediately quashed those rumors by voluntarily releasing his entire military record, which confirmed no indications of adverse physical or mental conditions.

McCain has always been a viable threat to corporate agenda.  His continual call for campaign finance reform, limiting “soft” money donations, would undermine the influence big business maintained within the political arena.  McCain is the only Republican vocal enough to attack the tobacco companies (They gave close to nine million between '95-'01 to the Republican Party[iii]) and conservative enough to fight the media sleaze broadcasted by some of Bush’s largest donors.  Though “Bush’s silver-spoon fed business career”[iv] yielded many embarrassments, it did teach him the power of corporate money.  McCain was a threat to various corporations and Bush and friends were determined to keep him out.

John McCain is one of the last decent politicians.  A Vietnam POW, McCain understood better then any politician the great divide that occurs with decisions of such magnitude.  McCain retains job approval ratings of 70 percent among independents, and is a favorite of conservative Democrats.  His dedication to his constituents and the United States is never questioned.  His mere presence in office would discourage any Democratic presidential nomination.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek writes: “His [McCain] media platform is nearly as tall as the president's, and he is using it right now to outflank him on the "corporate responsibility" issue. His speech to the National Press Club and his appearance on "Meet the Press" give him a chance to list the sweeping reforms he favors: truly independent corporate boards, free of personal and financial connections with management; the counting of executive stock options as salary, thus making them subject to income tax; a ban on corporate consulting by accounting firms; an independent federal agency to oversee the accounting industry; a renewed distinction (first written into law after the Depression) between stock brokering and investment banking.”[v]  McCain is minimally influenced by corporate hierarchies, a model for Politicians and the opposite of George Bush.

War on Iraq

Over the past year and a half, our nation has been in a state of war.  Many questions have been raised questioning the validity of motives, and the shifting position of the Bush administration.  It is possible to write endless amounts of analysis on this conflict so focus will be kept on the administration’s justification.

With the war on terror crippling the nation of Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden hiding like a rodent, Bush’s attention turned to Iraq.  Reports of Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction became the headline and the implication of their desire to use it against us.  Bush immediately stormed to the UN to demand weapons inspectors to search and destroy Saddam’s WMD program.  Hans Blix was sent to the scene to evaluate the situation with his team of UN specialist.  Reports continued to file in concerning Iraq’s resistance to the inspectors.  Unfortunately, the inspectors own comments contradicted the media’s interpretation.

Bush’s insistence that Iraq was a threat to our nation motivated an appeal to congress seeking authority to use force if Iraq did not cooperate.  CNN reports, “In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.”[vi]  Unfortunately, Bush didn’t understand the “if” part of the Senate resolution.

Five months after the resolution was passed, The United States attacked Iraq.  The president addressed the nation with these words of support, “Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”[vii] This statement has proven to be the exact opposite of what has occurred.  No WMD have been found, friends and allies are non-existent (see “Coalition of the Willing”), and the purpose of the US is less then sure…it has actually changed numerous times.

Since weapons inspectors entered Saddam’s régime, interesting exchanges have taken place.  Iraq challenged Bush’s accusations, "If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves."  The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.[viii]  However, when the decision to go to war was being debated by the White House, The United Nations was left out.  Hans Blix also spoke out about the insistence of going to war, “The invasion of Iraq was planned a long time in advance, and the United States and Britain are not primarily concerned with finding any banned weapons of mass destruction…you ask yourself a lot of questions when you see the things they did to try and demonstrate that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons, like the fake contract with Niger.”  Blix continued, “[The war] is a very high price to pay in terms of human lives and the destruction of a country when the threat of weapons proliferation could have been contained by UN inspections.”[ix] The US government was revolted by Blix comments and even went to the extent to tap his phones.  When Dr. Blix discovered his, “phone calls were tapped each time he flew into Iraq and his hotel in Baghdad,”[x] he demanded transcripts of his bugged talks to verify that the US would not twist his words.  Even, “a former US intelligence officer who saw much of the Iraq material told the ABC that the United States Government treated Dr Blix as though he was in "league with Saddam Hussein".[xi]

Who else has reported that there are no weapons of mass destruction and have resigned due to intelligence breakdowns?  David Kay, who led the government's efforts to find evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs until he resigned…said the C.I.A. and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf war, in 1991.[xii]  Kay also discussed the satellite images as, “crack cocaine for the C.I.A…They could see something from a satellite or other technical intelligence, and then direct the inspectors to go look at it."[xiii]

When decisions were made to attack Iraq, many Americans relied on the voice of Colin Powell, a trusted United States politician.  However, the findings of the bipartisan senate intelligence committee released last week paints an extraordinary picture.  Days before Powell was to address the UN, dozens of misleading and speculative facts were challenged by the State Department.[xiv]  Even after lengthy debates, Powell “ultimately presented material that was in dispute among State Department experts.”  Powell’s February 5th speech to the UN was created by the CIA at the request of the White House.  This presentation to the UN was, “the Bush administration's most compelling case by one of its most credible spokesmen that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein was necessary…the speech has become a central moment in the lead-up to war.”[xv]

“It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading, and for that I am disappointed and I regret it."

– Colin Powell.[xvi]

It has become a widely accepted fact that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction which has even been acknowledged by Bush.  So instead of admitting the many deceptions involved with the preemptive strike, Bush changed the entire justification for the war.  Liberation was the word of choice for our commanding leader.  One has to ask themselves if Bush tried to start this conflict with liberation in mind, if we would have lost 1000 American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.  If this war is truly about liberating individuals from wicked governments, one has to ask if Cuba, North Korea, or another dictator-run nation will be next and the price involved.

Half way through the war in Iraq, Bush realized that money was running short and went to the congress for another 87 billion.  Many members in the Senate rewrote the bill reversing tax cuts for the rich to pay for the unforeseen costs.  Bush, not wanting to reverse the cuts, sent the bill back to the Senate.  The bill passed (Republican majority in the Senate) but not without fierce debates from members of the congress.  Poor pre and post war planning was costing Americans the lives of their soldiers and their hard earned income.  Bush was unwilling to pull money from those benefiting the most from the conflict.  Senator Kennedy reminded President Bush, “Many of us have opposed the rush to war. But the Bush Administration cannot have it both ways. It can't be wartime for middle America, and peacetime for the rich.”[xvii]

Collation of the Willing

If there has ever been a more laughable phrase designed to invoke union, it is “The Coalition of the Willing.”  Upon pronouncing backing for the US led invasion on Iraq, Bush’s administration comforts the American people with this phrase on a daily basis.  After researching exactly who the coalition of the willing is, it is fair to believe we are flying solo.

There are over 47 nations listed as part of the coalition against Iraq.  Half of which, 99% of Americans could not find on a map.  Of the 47 nations only eleven (wait! Spain backed out…make that ten…) countries have provided troupes.  Of those ten nations, only two have provided more then 3,000 troupes, The United States and The United Kingdom.[xviii]  The United States also has sent six times the number of soldiers of The United Kingdom.  Who really is the Coalition of the Willing? Us.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post writes, “There must have been shock in Baghdad and awe in Paris last week when the White House announced the news that Palau had joined the "coalition of the willing."   Palau, an island group of nearly 20,000 souls in the North Pacific, has much to contribute. It has some of the world's best scuba diving, delectable coconuts and tapioca. One thing Palau cannot contribute, however, is military support: It does not have a military.”[xix]  Even Morocco has offered to contribute. Morocco's weekly al Usbu' al-Siyassi claimed that Morocco has offered 2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines.[xx]

Bush uses manipulative phrases to create the idea that we are not challenging Iraq alone; however, nothing could be further from the truth.  We have generated a pre-emptive strike without proper justification.  In the course of our rash decision we have alienated various allies.  Our president has ventured from post 9-11, where the world was unified fighting terror in Afghanistan, to fighting an enemy who has no proven ties to Al Queda or threatens the United States.

No Child Left Behind

One of the greatest disappointments with the Bush administration is the empty legislation of the enacted No Child Left Behind Act.  The passed program was designed to require schools, teachers, students, and parents to achieve more than ever before. Some of the goals included that schools must have a qualified teacher in every classroom within four years. All children must make progress on reading and math achievement every year. All limited English proficient students must make progress on learning the English language and academics every year.  Bush campaigned on this promise, to focus on the education of our children.  However, when budget decisions were to be discussed, not only did Bush cut funding for schools, he also cut spending for No Child Left Behind.  Members of the Senate released this statement in response to the decisions of our President, “There is no room for school reform in a budget that is monopolized by more and more tax breaks for the super-wealthy.”[xxi]

"The president's first education budget after he signed his much-touted No Child Left Behind Act proposed $22.2 billion, a cut of more than $90 million below the previous year and more than $7 billion less than Congress had authorized. They need to change the name of the law to the Quite a Few Children Left Behind Act."[xxii]  With college costs rising 20 % in the last three years, Bush’s budget proposed no increases for the Pell grant.  Education cannot survive without funding, and the nation cannot survive without education.

Gay Marriage Amendment

Perhaps this amendment should be called the polarizing amendment.  In an election year in which each candidate talks about bringing the two Americas together, the Gay Marriage Amendment was designed to do the exact opposite.  A tactical strategy designed to alienate his opponents, George Bush pursued support for this amendment in order to gain moderate voters.  If Bush was serious about the sanctity of Marriage he would drop his running mate and focus on state courts.

In a heated debate during the 2000 elections with VP candidate Joe Lieberman (who is against gay marriage) Dick Cheney spoke out criticizing such an idea.  His view was that the decision should be left up to the states as he appeared sympathetic to gay unions.  However, Last month he “said he would support ‘whatever decision’ Bush makes.”  Why the apparent flip-flop.  Cheney’s daughter, Mary, is an open lesbian.  It’s interesting to watch Cheney sell his daughter out for Republican votes.[xxiii]

Why is it impossible for a Gay marriage amendment to pass?  Never in the history of the United States has an amendment passed limiting rights of the citizens.  In order for the constitution to be altered, thee-quarters of all states have to back it, as well as two-thirds majority in both the house and senate.  While some might argue that this is obtainable, it should be remembered that Republicans, not Democrats, are split on the subject.  In last week’s Senate vote to move the amendment forward this year, it was blocked due to a few prominent Republican Senators voting against it.  Interestingly enough, a few Democratic Senators did not even bother showing up to the voting knowing the split between the GOP party.[xxiv]

The real question that should be asked is: do we really know what banning Gay Marriage does?  Does it prohibit Gay couples from adopting children? No, this is already legal and this amendment would not reverse this.  Does it prohibit Gay couple from sharing medical benefits?  No, most companies have changed the wording on forms from “spouse” to “partner”. Does it stop Gay couples from living together?  No.  OK, so what then are we fighting about?  The benefit that a legal marriage would provide for the gay couple involves transferring assets upon death and taxes.  Now you need to ask yourself, is letting less then 1% of the people not marry worth dividing this great nation?

Microsoft, Ashcroft, and Bush

For the past decade the software giant, Microsoft, has been building a small empire.  Their operating systems are the standard for 90 % of PC based hardware.  They have been observed by the government for many years protecting the competition from crippling monopolistic activity.  It is interesting to see the history and the amazing change in total donations over the past decade to political candidates (See Below Chart[xxv]).

In 1998 a civil lawsuit was brought forward against Microsoft challenging its business practices regarding the production of browser software.  With the Clinton Administration leading the charge Microsoft was facing stiff penalties, possibly company division, to control their domination of the software industry.  Microsoft’s strategy?  Give millions of dollars to get their man in office.  To the delight of Microsoft, Bush’s Attorney General Nominee John Ashcroft was no stranger to this software giant.  Ashcroft’s personal joint committee received tens of thousands of dollars from Microsoft. A watchdog organization, Open Secrets reports, “Microsoft, of course, is hoping the new attorney general drops the justice department’s antitrust suit against the company.”[xxvi]

After the White House became occupied, the first item of business was budget cuts. What was one of the first cuts to be administered? The prosecution team for Microsoft.  With no money directed to the lawsuit, Microsoft escaped with a slap on the hand and no federal intervention into their activities.

Election Cycle Total Contributions Contributions from Individuals Contributions from PACs Soft Money Contributions (Individuals) Soft Money Contributions (Organization)
2004 $1,702,481 $796,481 $906,000 $0 $0
2002 $4,215,698 $709,253 $815,201 $234,057 $2,457,187
2000 $4,624,353 $1,446,128 $860,999 $581,895 $1,735,331
1998 $1,364,821 $373,005 $212,000 $15,000 $764,816
1996 $251,474 $127,979 $45,500 $995 $77,000
1994 $104,702 $61,961 $32,741 $0 $10,000
1992 $59,733 $38,483 $21,250 $0 $0
1990 $3,800 $1,000 $2,800 N/A N/A
TOTAL $12,327,062 $3,554,290 $2,896,491 $831,947 $5,044,334

Negative Campaigning

Over the course of this election, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all” and said the senator from Massachusetts “promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office.”  President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.  Bush campaign also charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.  Later Kerry was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.   The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading.  Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.[xxvii]

History remembers Bush as no stranger using negative ads to destroy his competitor’s credibility.  This administration uses such attacks largely to excuse themselves from answering the real questions that need to be resolved.  Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist, explains, “instead of offering his own agenda, Bush has poured tens of millions dollars into television ads attacking Kerry, a strategy they believe was successful in casting Kerry as a flip-flopper.”[xxviii]  Patricia Wilson, a Reuters reporter, comments “the better-financed Bush campaign's $80 million advertising effort to portray him as an irresolute Northeastern liberal who flip-flops on important issues like the Iraq War.”[xxix]

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total.[xxx]  “The balance of misleading claims tips to Bush, in part because the Kerry team has been more careful."[xxxi]

Bush’s strategy requires Americans to be gullible constituents.  It is time to start asking the harder questions of accomplishments and plans for the next four years.  We as citizens of the United States require direction and a governing purpose.  Last years humorous State of the Union Address is an excellent example of what these past four years have been like.  Beside the blatant distortion of pre-war intelligence, Bush used the phases “I have proposed” or “I have sent to the Congress” throughout the duration of his speech.  The past three years Bush continues to “send” but never seems to “pass” his promises to the America.  Even if he is able to push his agenda through the Republican Congress, he quickly cuts budgets like No Child Left Behind.

Bush’s Military Service

Recently United States Senator Max Cleland challenged George Bush’s service within the National Guard.  Senator Cleland revived the discussion of Bush’s non-service speculation as no documents have been found to show he reported for duty as ordered in Alabama in 1972.  Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey also stated, “it's a matter of character that Bush avoided duty overseas by joining the Texas Air National Guard.”[xxxii]

The Washington Post writes, “It was May 27, 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War. Bush was 12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft at a time when Americans were dying in combat at the rate of 350 a week. The unit Bush wanted to join offered him the chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas. It was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age, and usually had a long waiting list.”  Through political connections, Bush was able to grab one of four available slots for the year.[xxxiii]

The Bush White House has cut funds for veterans[xxxiv] at the same time they are attacking the patriotism of leaders like Max Cleland.[xxxv]  In order to undermine the credibility of Cleland, political allies of the Bush Administration stated, ”Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombatant mission where he was about to drink beer with friends.”  Distorting the truth has become an art form for friends of Bush.  In reality “Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam when a grenade accidentally detonated after he and another soldier jumped off a helicopter in a combat zone.”[xxxvi]  Interestingly enough, comments like these are what motivated Senator Kerry’s wife to remove herself from the Republican Party.

Contrast these events with Senator Kerry’s: “I signed up for the Navy right out of college – 1966. I had a sense of responsibility to serve -- Lyndon Johnson had asked for more troops and I thought I'd be a part of that. I also very specifically remember not wanting to go to grad school just to avoid serving, I wanted to one day go to grad school on my own terms instead.”[xxxvii]

Instead of flying dangerous missions from Texas to Florida as did Bush, Kerry spent time cruising South Pacific. “I think anyone who has been in combat believes at some point they're not going to make it - there's a moment when you're knocked out or you feel a bullet cut through your flesh - or you spot an ambush.”[xxxviii]  Here is a man who voluntarily responded to the government’s need for soldiers yet all we discuss is His protesting of the war.  It should be remembered that if anybody has the right to question motives, it should be the man who put his life in jeopardy for the cause.

"Funny, isn't it? When Bill Clinton was running against Republican war veterans in 1992 and 1996, the most important thing to GOP propagandists and politicians was that Clinton didn't fight in Vietnam. Now that Republican candidates who didn't fight in Vietnam face a Democrat who did -- and was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts while he was there -- the Republican machine wants to change the subject."[xxxix]

Americans fall into the trap identifying President Bush as the only individual who could wage the war on terror.   The destruction of the trade towers and thousands of lives lost continues to pull at my emotions as I read various accounts.  After the tragedy of 9-11 incredible bipartisan support was felt throughout the nation.  Every complaint against the current administration was forgotten and the President was given a chance to shine.  Sometimes I wonder if a president who perhaps had experienced the stresses of war would have been quicker to respond then trying to figure out what happened next in a children's book.  Molly Ivins, a savvy Texas political reporter, commented that Bush has no foreign policy experience whatsoever and is completely stymied by the entire perception.  Can you imagine if John McCain or Bob Dole were president?  What about Max Cleland or John Kerry?

[1]  Arizona, New Hampshire, Michigan



[1] Newsweek.  McCain Remains Bush’s Top Nemesis.  July 10, 2002.

[1] Ibid.

[1]  Senate Approves Iraq War Resolution.



[1] Hans Blix: War Planned 'Long in Advance'

[1]  Blix wants transcripts of bugged talks. April 7, 2004.

[1] Ibid

[1] James Risen. Ex-Inspector Says C.I.A. Missed Disarray in Iraqi Arms Program.  NY Times. January 26, 2004.

[1] Ibid

[1] Greg Miller. Flaws Cited in Powell's U.N. Speech on Iraq. LA Times. June 15, 2004.

[1] Ibid.

[1] Seattle Times. Powell says his Assertions Were Wrong. May 17, 2004


[1]  Constantine von Hoffman.

[1] Washington Post.  White House Notebook.: Many Are Willing, But Few Are Able. March 25, 2003.

[1] Ibid.


[1] Ivans, Molly. A Few Words From Our President. February 6, 2003.

[1] Newsweek. Something About Mary. February 23, 2004.

[1] Associated Press. David Espo.  Gay Marriage Opponents Pin Hopes on House. July 15, 2004

[1] Center for Responsive Politics. Campaign Finance Records.


[1] Milbank, Dana. From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity. May 31, 2004. Washington Post

[1] Balz, Dan.  President is Still Mum on Second Term. Washington Post. July 18, 2004

[1] Wilson, Patricia.  Kerry Rises from Political Ashes to Face Bush. Reuters.  July 18, 2004

[1] The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

[1] University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication.


[1] George Lardner Jr.  At Height of Vietnam, Bush Picks Guard. The Washington Post. July 28, 1999.




[1]  Interview with John Kerry.

[1] Ibid.

[1] E. J. Dionne Jr. Stooping Low to Smear Kerry. Washington Post. April 27, 2004

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

Subscribe Share


get updates