|
07/15/05
I was an agressive Kerry/Democratic anti-Iraq War campaigner during the recent election. I had very bad vibes on Bush when
he was first running for president.
I became active after doing what I advocate all should do - seek the information themselves, sift through it with as much
objective (and that's the difficult part) discernment as possible, and then act, respond and vote according to what you have
come to understand.
Having said that, I'll give you Arthur's answer to your question - reminding you that it's only my opinion (adjusted from
time to time) that is still subject to changes as I continue gathering information.
In the early 1980's with some prompting from lingering establishment types like Henry Kissinger, a group of intellectuals
(later to become known as neocons) launched a policy offensive geared at an ultra concern for greater American control of
oil.
With the end of the Cold War and augmented by frustration with an endless string of global social, political and military
disasters, these same intellectuals concluded that as the lone superpower, the U.S. had to ability not only to secure its
position forever, but to exercise a higher community duty to bring law and order to the globe.
This could only be done in a framework of a U.S. Presidential administration which meant winning an election with a Democratic
or Republican candidate. Regan demonstrated that the easier road to the top lay with Republicans whose political operatives
were already courting and being courted by Pat Robertson, Falwell, LaHaye, Dobson and co.
These neocons needed to elect one of their own or one who would do their bidding. Bob Dole was the last gasp of the old traditional
conservative value gang.
The bethrothal of Republicans and radical Christians plus the Texas successes of George Bush and Karl Rove presented the Republican
power brokers and religious voting block with an ideal candidate: a born again Evangelical candidate directly linked to national
political power and reputation by his own family.
George was invited along with other conservative candidates to appear before a select committee of Christian power people
(I believe instigated by Tim Lahay of Left Behind fame) as well as Republican power people led by James Baker who had decided
to groom someone new from outside the old conservative establishment (one reason why Pat Buchannan was forced to run as an
independent was because these Republican power people were already in synch with their Christian counterparts.)
There is a story out that Bush promised the Lahaye group that in addition to delivering their domestic agenda, he would export
American democracy plus war and terror to evil-doers all over the globe.
The rest is a history we live with. I wrote an article here last year addressing how I thought a Christian in the White House
ought to be. And this president is not that Christian.
His foreign policy is directly from the neocons. You can read neocon philosophy including imposing pseudo-American Democracy
all over the globe at their flagship site : The Project for a New American Century
The answers to your questions are all there for you to read. Understanding what I've said about the foreign policy basis of
Bush's presidency and the fact the the foreign policy is one provided for a highly non-intellectual president, you may then
understand why none of the prime neocon officals in his administration have been fired. © Arthur Ruger 2005
|
