« The End of the World on Drive-In Saturday Night | Home | SiCKO’s Impact »

My problems with (King?) Bush

By David W. Shelton | July 6, 2007 |

In 2000, we were met with a very interesting choice for President of the United States. The Clinton administration was coming to a close with Vice President Al Gore emerging as the heir-apparent. Gore was everything that Clinton was not, apparently. Gore was from Tennessee (he had a home in Carthage), he was a successful senator, and now had a bird’s-eye view of the Federal government as Vice President of the United States.

Alas, Gore also had the appearance of being a stodgy dullard with no personality whatsoever. Further, Americans weren’t too sure about electing yet another member of the Executive branch that might have been a part of “Monicagate” (or is that “Lewinskygate?”). Gore was perceived as an “evil” liberal, and talk radio show hosts had a field day with his lack of charisma.

Enter the popular governor of Texas, the only Republican who could have unseated the equally-popular Democrat, the late Anne Richards. George W. Bush was well-liked, had a sense of southern charm, and loved to wink at audiences. He instantly rose to stardom as the Republican nominee for President in the 2000 election. His message of “compassionate conservatism” won the hearts of the media as well as voters. He won my vote as well.

The 2000 election became the longest Presidential election since the 1824 election, the last time the son of an American president ran against a popular Democrat from Tennessee. In that election the race was so close, that John Q. Adams made a controversial agreement with opposing candidate John Calhoun. In the end, Congress had to vote, and Adams was selected.

The endless recounts of the Florida votes frustrated all Americans and gave the media a limitless supply of photo opportunities (remember the shot of that guy with the magnifying glass as he carefully inspected for hanging chads?). In the end, the Supreme Court of the United States stepped in and put a stop to it. Gore finally conceded, and George W. Bush became the 43rd President of the United States.

Since then, President Bush was met with the devastating attacks of September 11th, 2001. The whole world was both shocked and awed at the destruction of the World Trade Center, and the attack at the Pentagon. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives that day. It was an event that not only shaped the way we would travel from that point on, but it shaped the Bush presidency as well.

Since then, “Terror” became a clear enemy. It was no longer left to law enforcement. The FBI wasn’t doing enough. We had to declare war. And we did. When it became apparent that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was also harboring Al-Qaeda, they were first in the sights of the President. The bombing began on a Sunday morning, on October 7th.

For a time, most Americans were behind the President. Patriotic fever was everywhere. It was less than a month after the fateful attacks which crippled our economy, and the Stars and Stripes were everywhere to be seen. If it were red, white, and blue, it sold like hotcakes. People fixed flags to their cars, their homes, their clothes, and their front yard. Full-sized flags were attached to pickup trucks and motorcycles everywhere. It was a resurgence of national pride and patriotism like we hadn’t seen since World War II.

Patriotic Fever was, alas, temporary. Like everything in American society, life went on. The flags began to fade, and our daily lives once again took over. Congress quietly passed the Patriot Act. President Bush started looking toward another target: Iraq.

There was an element of Patriotic Fever that didn’t go away, however. It was the kind of “patriotism” that would instantly label any critic of the President as “un-American” or even “traitorous.” This was a dark side of patriotism that would only grow darker. Immigrants everywhere began to be viewed with suspicion. First, it started with people of Arab descent. Whether they were from the Middle East or India, people with dark skin and funny accents were even more ostracized than ever before.

The War in Iraq started in 2003 with an invasion based on faulty information that there were weapons of mass destruction in the country that was already crippled by war in the early 1990s. Since then, there hasn’t been a single WMD found. Only a few empty canisters that once held chemical weapons have been located. Saddam’s two sadistic sons, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a firefight with the 101st Airborne in Mosul in July of that year. Saddam Hussein himself was later apprehended and imprisoned.

Once again, the country had reason to celebrate. We casually dismissed the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison. We ignored the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We ignored the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. After all, the President said these were enemy combatants. Among the hundreds of military prisoners there, only one was tried, and he gave a guilty plea.

According to the Human Rights Watch:

The federal courts in the United States have proven far better equipped to try terrorists than military commissions. In the past five-and-a half years, the federal courts have successfully convicted hundreds for terrorist offenses, including dozens for terrorist acts committed abroad. By comparison, the military commissions have secured just one conviction – by guilty plea. That was Australian David Hicks, who received a nine-month sentence that he is serving at home.

People have been detained without charge, and without representation. The rule of law is thrown out the window, and due process is denied.

In the meantime, President Bush had other battles to fight. He banned genetic research using any new fetal tissue, research that could lead to effective treatment or even a cure of diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. Indeed, it was too close to the abortion issue. Aborted pregnancies would be completely discarded instead of put to possible good use.

Also, Bush called for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. By this time, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had handed down its ruling which mandated legal gay marriage, which began on May 17th of 2004. As expected, the issue polarized Americans against each other. Twenty-five states have since passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. Other states have passed laws granting civil unions to same-sex couples, while other states and municipalities have passed domestic partnerships.

The Patriotic Fever wasn’t over yet. Our distaste for immigrants has added Latin-Americans to the list of those of whom we are suspicious. President Bush has done little to quell this growing xenophobia, even though is own nephew is half Cuban. There’s been a lot of talk about how the 14 Million “illegal immigrants” are wrecking the country.

Bush’s response has been to sign a law that builds a 500-mile wall between the United States and Mexico. Passport requirements have been tightened (to the point that it’s actually causing problems—passport applications have exceeded the workload of INS officials). Bush has been completely irresponsible in his actions, by actually encouraging this growing xenophobia. Mexicans, Cubans, and other Hispanics are all treated by native Americans with growing contempt.

This contempt has grown to the point that life-long native Hispanic Americans are often asked for their “green card.” Here in Clarksville, one woman was asked for her green card when she applied for her driver’s license renewal. She explained that she was born in Puerto Rico, an American territory. She brought back her birth certificate. The employee again asked for her green card. Naturally, she was incensed. She was born a citizen, and had no need for one.

Similar demands for “green cards” have popped up throughout the country, with growing frequency. The President has a responsibility to ALL Americans, and he has failed in that responsibility toward our Hispanic citizens. This is “patriotic fever” at its worst, and it’s only getting darker. Hispanics, Arabs, and gays are all on the “un-American” list, and the list is getting longer.

Our President has been a divider, not a uniter. He has polarized our country against each other, and has done so during a time of war; an unjust war. More than 3500 American men and women have been killed in Iraq. Most Americans are critical of the war, and rightfully so. His approval rate has remained low, and now even many soldiers wonder why they’re still in Iraq.

In a final blow to the Constitution, President Bush has signed a new National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which effectively suspends the Constitutional separation of powers in the event of a “national emergency.” This new Directive revokes a directive from then-President Clinton which mandates a continuation of operations and a continuation of government under their rightful authorities. Bush’s directive is succinct in its application: All government will continue with himself as “leader.” One clause says this clearly:

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

Even conservative columnists are critical of this new directive. An article in the right-leaning World Net Daily website says:

“Catastrophic emergency” is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

Conservative activist Jerome Corsi is a little more blunt:

Translated into layman’s terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

“King” George has clearly sacrificed the good of the country for his own agenda. The United States of America was founded to escape from tyranny. It’s tragic that while the country celebrates the anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence, we are forced to deal with a much more subtle, but no less prevalent, form of tyranny which is much closer to home.

It’s tyranny that says that we should not criticize our government, we shouldn’t question our president, and we shouldn’t ever protest. Tyranny is a systemic belief that we should always do as we’re told, and never, ever, even ask why. The government knows best, and we should comply.

No, my friends. The government does NOT know best. The Fatherland has no place in our pantheon of liberty, and the more we sink into the darkness of xenophobic and homophobic attitudes, the deeper we’ll sink into a quagmire of tyranny where freedom is once again the fleeting hope of subversives and where democracy becomes the doctrine of rebels.

President Bush, I voted for you in 2000. I sincerely regret that vote, and I’m not entirely convinced that it would have mattered if I didn’t. You will indeed have much to answer for one day. I just hope that day is sooner, rather than later.

About David W. Shelton

Posts by David W. Shelton are copyright (c)2006, 2007, 2008 by the author. All rights reserved. David W. Shelton is a writer, speaker and activist in Clarksville, and serves on the Clarksville Human Relations Commission. His passions include film and complete equality for all people, and he has worked in various capacities to work toward this goal. He is currently an illustrator, graphic designer, trainer, and is the owner of Imagine Media Solutions. He is an Adobe® Certified Instructor in Photoshop®.

Web Site: http://www.skippingtothepiccolo.com/

Email: dwshelton@att.net

Sections: Opinion, Politics
Topics: Cuba, Gay Marriage, George W. Bush, Guantanamo Bay, Human Rights Watch, immigration, King George, Patriotism, Security Directive, September 11th, tyranny

7 Responses to “My problems with (King?) Bush”

1. Jeff Mack Says:
   July 6th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

   Well written, but mis-informed on some things. Namely the immigration issue. I think your a bit hypersensitive to homosexual issues. No surprise, as are most homosexuals. Rightfully so in some cases, not in most. Your being a Christian, I’m a bit surprised at you view on abortion and stem cell research. I disagree on most of your article. but a very good read, thanks.

2. Gena M Says:
   July 7th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

   I agree that Bush has done more harm than good for this country and you are dead-on about his abuse of power. I am shocked you voted for him against Gore. My family has supported Gore Sr. and then Jr. for several generations and know them to be fine people who would not abuse power and I still say Gore won in 2000… but… Your article was great and I appreciate the research and effort you put into it. I hope you will do more articles like this one. I disagree with Jeff Mack that to be Christian one must oppose abortion and in particular stem cell research. Plus I didn’t notice you took a stand on abortion one way or the other; you simply stated the unused fetus cells would be thrown away. Let’s just hope 2008 brings better days!!

3. David W. Shelton Says:
   July 8th, 2007 at 8:56 am

   Gena, thank you for commenting. My vote for Bush in 2000 was based on several factors. Chief of which was that both candidates tried to present themselves as being similar to the other. American voters didn’t have much to go on, really. Gore’s largest problem in the 2000 race was that he, like John Kerry in 2004, spent an incredible amount of time in “reinventing” himself at every speaking engagement. To the teamsters, he was a trucker-type. To the NAACP folks, he was a black-preacher-type. This went on ad-nauseum. Bush, in stark contrast, was the same old folksy kind of guy from one group to the next. He was *consistent*. Republicans have done a far better job in recent history in selling their message. Democrats simply MUST learn to package their message better. I’ve written on this before: http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2006/10/08/democrats-sell-me/ The recount fiasco was clearly a sign of things to come, which was America’s first look at the abuses of power that we would see from our current president. I’ve long disagreed that every Christian should always oppose abortion for the sake of opposing abortion. I disagree with abortion, but I also see why the choice is so critical. Alas, that choice is sometimes abused. As a Christian, I’m grieved that there are so many abortions performed across the country. I believe every life is precious. I also understand if abortion were to be made legal, it would once again be relegated to the back alleys and dangerous butchers who prey upon girls and women in need. I also understand that some people feel like they have no other choice. However, as a man, I have little ground to say about abortion. As an openly gay man, I can safely say that I’ll never have one, nor cause one. Therefore, I have nothing to say about what a woman does with her body, and I believe that the woman’s choice is critical and that choice must remain. For the record: I held my nose and voted for Kerry in 2004.

4. Jeff Mack Says:
   July 9th, 2007 at 10:25 pm

   Does God compromise? Should he?

5. Beaz Says:
   July 17th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

   David, I would take issue with the comment regarding THE REASON we went to war in Iraq being WMD’s, there were MANY reasons given and some have been found, not “empty” but certainly not as potent as they had been , though not the stockpiles they were believed to have possessed. Among the other reasons were the violation of UN imposed sanctions, 17 of them over the past 12 years and the constant trouble the weapons inspectors had with conducting searches, there was the oil for food scandals, and though I don’t buy it being a reason for invasion, there was the element of Saddam’s torture of his own people. In essence, the concept of not waiting for a threat to fully materialize before acting upon it was widely viewed as acceptable. As far as abortion, you say you have no right to say what a woman does with her body, yet you have no problem with them killing their baby? The issue is no about choice, we ALL have the choice to do things, it is about ending a life and I am pretty sure you have written that you believe abortion is murder, if I am not mistaken. Forgive me if I view it as a bit illogical to say you view it a s murder, but have no problem with someone “choosing” to murder another. As far as gay marriage, I have no problem with civil unions, but calling it marriage is where you are losing support. Marriage is by definition, between a man and a woman, according to most biblical interpretations, so I truly believe it is your right to have equal access to all the entitlements that married couples get, I think your best bet is to promote this cause by removing “marriage” and using the term, civil union. As you know, I have no problem with homosexuality, but we have some differing views on orientation and I respect your views, but many are threatened by this lifestyle because they don’t fully understand it. Here’s a shocker, I actually voted for Kerry in 2004(before I voted against him). HA!

6. David W. Shelton Says:
   July 17th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

   Beaz, I don’t want to get sidetracked into an abortion debate on this thread, especially since it’s such a minor element of what I wrote here. It is inarguably one of the most difficult issues that is facing the American public right now. I simply think that as a gay man, I just don’t have any right to tell a woman what she’d do with her own body or baby. I DO think that we need to provide VIABLE alternatives for women in crisis situations. That’s one of the reasons that I supported the local Hope Pregnancy center for as long as I did. I’m for providing REAL alternatives, not arbitrarily outlawing abortion. I’ve said that from the beginning. I actually agree with you on the marriage/civil union… AS LONG as all the rights are there. When my father (a judge) performs a marriage in his chambers, it’s a civil union. Gay unions should be no different. No church should ever be forced to perform or even recognize gay unions. However, the rights are needed. I think we can agree on that. Of course, after the death of more than 3500 of our soldiers and tens of thousands more of them wounded… the question remains as to why we’re still in Iraq. President Bush stood before a banner that said, “Mission Accomplished.” I guess it wasn’t all that accomplished, was it? Lately, the office of the President has been less than stellar on several fronts (especially for the last 30 years). Of course, politics always reigns. Regarding Iraq, clearly the Iraqi army wasn’t even a threat to Iran. They were already useless except as a police force for their own brutal practices. I just don’t see how they were such a threat to America at this point, especially since we know now how gutted they really were.

7. Beaz Says:
   July 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

   “President Bush stood before a banner that said, “Mission Accomplished.” I guess it wasn’t all that accomplished, was it?” Well, that’s obviously open to interpretation. If your mission was to invade a country, defeat their military and remove a dictator from power, that mission WAS accomplished. Common sense must take precedence as if what you suggest truly meant the war was over, why didn’t the troops leave at that moment? Because there was still MORE work to do. ” I just don’t see how they were such a threat to America at this point, especially since we know now how gutted they really were.” I think much of it can be attributed to the “potential” of a threat. The same view could have been taken regarding Afghanistan prior to 9/11, could it not? They were just a crappy little backwards country, what possible damage could stem from them? 9/11 changed our way of thinking and for me it still resonates in my mind EVERY day. I see your views regarding Bush, I just don’t agree with him. I have problems with other areas of his performance and mistakes have been made, as in any war. I believe he has the best interests of the nation at heart and his motives are under speculation and riddicule. I don’t think he’s that complex of a man, I truly believe he says what he means and means what he says. Now that being said, the Iraqi people have to take a stand, NOW is the time, they have had a taste of freedom and perhaps they don’t veiw it a precious as we do. If they don’t step up, DRASTICALLY, it may be time to withdraw. We have suceeded in establishing a democracy, so there will never be a question of “losing” this war in that sense. We gave them a chance and in reality, that’s all we can do.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Feeds

• Full
• Comments