The Real Record of George W. Bush

(And the Hidden Agenda for His War in Iraq)

(Revised 6-26-2008)

I grant that George W. Bush may actually believe he's doing the right thing. He may even believe he is "doing God's will," as he claims. And he is probably a fairly good husband and father, and a good friend to his friends.

However, even though I am beginning to feel sorry for him, I must say that as a partisan politician and president, Bush has deluded himself and has in effect deceived most of those who believe in him. For in most cases he is not doing the right or correct thing, and he certainly does not serve God or humanity.

Bush instead serves what Jesus called "Mammon," because he sought and fought for worldly power, wealth and domain for himself and his wealthy supporters. Therefore I must say that Bush is extremely wrong in both his domestic and foreign policies. And, since he will not admit the truth, and since he is still unrepentant and arrogantly stubborn and self-righteous even though he’s been proven wrong, I am duty bound to tell you the truth as I know it.

Of course, part of the truth is that Bush’s policies and initiatives certainly benefitted the three million people who are the wealthiest one percent of Americans who provided 80 percent of the funding for his political campaigns. They were well rewarded and they are certainly grateful to him. And I will concede that some poor people in Africa and the Caribbean are no doubt grateful that Bush did go along with providing financial aid from U.S. taxpayers to deal with rampant diseases there, and he has done some good out of political expediency. But very few people have reason to be grateful to him. In fact, there is good reason for 297 million Americans and most of the people in the world to be resentful, as you will see.

I will cover the major reasons why Bush is a wrong and harmful leader, and I will include facts regarding both his domestic and foreign policies, as well as the hidden agenda and folly of Bush's War. But I'll begin with the things that came first.

Consider Bush's original campaign promises to be a "compassionate conservative" and "put an end to partisanship." Those proved to be very false promises, since both his domestic and foreign policies and his initiatives and executive orders have certainly not been compassionate toward all the people in America and in the world who have been harmed by them, and especially since he has proven to be an arrogant, hard-nosed right-wing ideologue and an extremely partisan and divisive president. He has only created more polarized and more bitter partisanship.

That has been demonstrated in nearly everything Bush has done, and it is the main reason he has ignored so much good advice, made so many mistakes and come under so much criticism, not only in America, but in many other countries in the world. His impact on the whole world has been negative and even devastating, and it just keeps getting worse, despite his on-going efforts to try to improve his image on television.

For example, let us consider Bush's Reaganite domestic economic record. After all, he followed the example of Ronald Reagan, and the initial result was a terrible recession right after he gained power. Ever since then the richest few have gotten even more rich while everyone else has become worse off, and we have been increasingly feeling and suffering from the consequences and impact of that.

If you wonder why I call Bush a Reaganite who followed Reagan's example, see the page titled The Real Legacy of Ronald Reagan. That explains how and why Bush followed Reagan's example with his recession and his economic policies and tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course, Bush tried very hard to blame his recession on his predecessor, President Clinton. However, the Clinton Administration balanced the budget and produced a booming economy.

Furthermore, even though Bush's recession was partially the result of Federal Reserve interest hikes that were designed to slow the economy down and prevent possible inflation, Bush's recession didn't really start to get bad until Bush and Dick Cheney used gloom and doom language about the economy. In fact, they started to do that even before they took office, falsely claiming that Clinton's economic policies were not really good. They kept it up even more after they took office, and the more they claimed that the economy was or would be terrible, the worse it got, because the business community and the stock market reacted to their pessimistic and gloomy portrayal and predictions.

That was a Reaganite tactic, and I suspect it was partly to worsen the economy to punish the middle and low income labor force and put them "in their place," as Reagan so deliberately did. I also suspect it was to justify their huge Reaganite tax cut proposal --- which was actually a huge windfall for the wealthy but was falsely and deceptively touted as a "tax relief" measure that would create a "trickle down" effect and be economically beneficial for everyone.

The horrendous result of Bush's recession was that unemployment increased 40 percent in 2001 alone, a year after he gained the power of the presidency, and 2.4 Million jobs were lost between 2001 and 2004 during Bush's first term. So, Bush managed to pretty much match Reagan's terrible deeds with the same results. He made workers fear losing their jobs, and be more content with unsatisfactory wages and decreasing benefits.

Of course, Republicans claim that Bush increased "productivity" between 2000 and 2003, even though what increased was mostly corporate profits. They also claim that Bush lowered the unemployment rate, and that his "tax relief allowed families to keep more of what they earn by cutting tax rates across the board." But, those claims ring hollow, to say the least.

I suspect they will vehemently deny what I say and claim I am simply ignorant of "economic realities." However, the historic record and the facts clearly reveal the truth, as you will see. For in fact the Reaganite and Bushite economic policies greatly benefit the wealthiest few, at the expense of the vast majority, at the expense of the environment, and especially at the expense of the working poor and the poor.

For example, during fiscal years 2002-2004, Bush succeeded in getting his tax cuts enacted, and they delivered about $197.3 Billion ($197,300,000,000) in new tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent of Americans. But those wealthiest few certainly did not need "tax relief," as Bush called it. Even the least wealthy of that wealthiest one percent had incomes of at least $337,000 per year. Most of them had incomes in the multi-millions, and some even had incomes in the billions. Therefore, Bush's claim that they needed "tax relief" to relive their "tax burden" was a blatant lie designed to mislead and deceive 99 percent of the American people.

While Bush's tax cuts did give a few dollars to the majority of tax payers, they were actually designed and certainly served to make the rich much richer by allowing them to pay even far less taxes, when in all fairness they should have been paying and certainly can afford to pay much more, which would only be fair and equitable.

In America, Reaganite/Bushite policies and laws have produced increasing subsidies, tax loopholes, tax shelters and government giveaways which amount to "welfare for the rich," and consequently the wealthiest few pay about 7 percent of their income in taxes.

In Western Europe, by contrast, the wealthiest people pay about 50 percent, which is only fair. And it works well. Most Europeans get from four to six weeks of paid vacation per year, free universal health care, free prenatal care, long maternity leaves, longer parental leave, free child care, and much longer sick leave than in America. Furthermore, such benefits are guaranteed by the government. They are not something that had to be fought for by labor unions, and the workers there don't even have to collectively bargain for a lot of worker benefits.

By contrast, due to Reaganism (and Bushism) American businesses and corporations have been enabled to rake in record high profits while they cut workers benefits, health insurance, and even pensions. America is going way backwards, while many other countries in the world are going forward because they realize that the better workers are treated, the better off everyone is. And yet, in spite of that, George W. Bush has berated the European models, and said that America "doesn't want to be like Europe." Certainly he and his wealthy cohorts do not.

Now Americans really need to understand how divisive, harmful and unfair the absurdly huge income disparity and disproportionate distribution of wealth is, and we also need to understand how much worse Bush made it by serving the interests of the wealthiest people who invested in him. They certainly received their reward, but the rest of us were betrayed.

That fact has become very evident in a variety of ways, especially since the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently revealed that the Bush Regime is going to cost the American taxpayers 32 Trillion Dollars. And the disproportionate brunt of that cost is being and will be paid by middle and low income taxpayers, since the taxes of the wealthiest few have been so unfairly reduced by the Bushites who have put us deep in debt.

Indeed, the whole Reaganite/Reaganomics unfairness, inequity and disproportionate distribution of wealth was continued and made even worse by the Bushites. Thus the U.S. political-economic system enables and rewards greed and selfishness more than it ever has. It allows, enables and ensures the unfair and inequitable accumulation of excessive surplus wealth, and enables employers to pay average employees far less than they deserve, and to pay low income employees less than a living wage.

That is why money totally rules in America, and it is why we are essentially ruled by the wealthiest few and their corporations. Corporate financial power is dominant because it is so immense, which is why it has been so successful in putting right-wing conservative puppet politicians in office. Of course, the so-called "Christian" Right has helped them significantly, but it's the wealthiest few who have enabled them most. Furthermore, many Democrats have colluded with them, because in recent elections 80 percent of the financial contributions to the political campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats has come from the wealthiest one percent of the population. And they have gotten what they paid for.

However, George W. Bush would not have been able to gain the power of the presidency with just the power of the money that he got in campaign contributions from the richest one percent of the population. That money was certainly part of the reason he was able to get people to vote for him, but money alone was not enough. The only way Bush was able to gain the power of the presidential throne was by hook and by crook.

Bush used the "hook" of his original campaign promises, which, as I said, were to unify the country, put an end to partisanship, and serve as a so-called "compassionate conservative." Of course, his using that misleading term was actually an unwitting acknowledgment that conservatives had proven themselves rather heartless and selfish in the 1980s and 1990s. (In fact, Bush's father did something similar when he campaigned for the presidency, saying that he wanted a "kinder and gentler nation," subtly acknowledging that his predecessor Ronald Reagan had not been very kind or gentle.) But the fact is that George W. Bush's campaign promises have been proven to be very empty and false, because he has done quite the opposite. He has caused greater division and more bitter partisanship, and he has shown little compassion in his actual initiatives, actions and policies, the impact of which belie his desperate efforts to try to defend and justify himself and improve his image on television.

Bush also won the presidency by crook, because he actually stole the 2000 presidential election. Of course, Bush and the Republicans deny the facts about that. But the facts fly in their face, and should make them ashamed. For example, it's a fact that Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote by at least 400,000 votes in 2000, and he surely would have won the electoral vote (and even more of the popular votes) if all the ballots in Florida had been hand-counted as the law called for. All indications but one showed very clearly that Gore had won, and that one single indication to the contrary was due to the faulty machine count that rejected 179,914 Florida ballots, most of which were undoubtedly in Gore's favor because they were in heavily Democratic regions. Therefore, if Bush were an honorable man and truly meant what he had said during the campaign about putting an end to partisanship, he would have either conceded the election to Gore on the day after the election, or, if he really thought he had won, he too would have insisted on a hand-count of ballots to try to prove he was the winner.

It should be obvious that Bush did not do that because he knew Gore had actually won. That is why, instead of doing the honorable and fair thing, Bush and the Republicans fought to stop the hand vote count in Florida, and they managed to do that. They actually stole that election by "legal" partisan maneuvers and a lot of skulduggery and misleading street theater, thereby dividing and polarizing the American people even more, along even harder and more bitter partisan lines. Those are the facts that right-wing conservative Republicans don't want to face. (And it is poetic justice that Bush will leave office in disgrace while the man he stole the presidency from, Al Gore, has received an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize for his good works.)

I can’t help but add that when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was recently asked about that crucial Supreme Court decision, he tried to dismiss it by saying, "That’s so old. Get over it." He even falsely claimed that Al Gore was the first one to seek a legal decision from the Florida Supreme Court about the vote count. The truth, however, is that Scalia simply had his "facts" wrong and tried to mislead people, because it was in fact Republicans who started the whole "legal" process in the first place, and finally resorted to going to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled and handed down the partisan decision that stopped the vote count and put Bush in the presidency.

Now in Bush's second term it has become even more obvious that his attitude comes not only from arrogance and self-righteousness, but also from defensiveness and denial. After all, for him to actually believe that he deserved to be president, and believe what he says, would require extraordinary indulgence in rationalization and blatant denial of a lot of widely known facts that have been and are increasingly pointed out by critics. And I’m not speaking only of his words, policies and actions as president. In his book, Witness to a Crime: A Citizen’s Audit of an American Election, Richard Hayes Phillips has concluded, after amassing an irrefutable body of evidence, that the last two presidential elections were essentially rigged by means of voter suppression, ballot tampering, ballot box stuffing, failure to count all the votes, and wholesale alteration of the vote count. Thus the winner has lost and the loser has won the last two presidential elections.

I think Bush has refused to face facts, though, because they are contradictory to his staunch right-wing imperialistic view of the world. He has tried very hard to create the impression that he is right and the facts are somehow not factual but wrong. He has even tried to mislead people with his contrived view of the world, which is based not on facts but on a hidden agenda to rule and control the world by military force in the name of Christian "divine right," just like many kings, popes and emperors have done during the last sixteen centuries. After all, in his self-delusion he believes he is "doing God's will" and fulfilling prophecies. That is extremely ironic, because while he is certainly not doing God's will, he IS fulfilling prophecies as the "beast-king of Babylon" who lives by the "sword" (gun and bomb) trying to rule the world in the name of God and Country.

Unfortunately, hypocritical, inappropriate and improper imposition of "religion" into official governmental affairs is not the only thing Bush has done that is damaging to democracy. Equally damaging to democracy is Bush's right-wing conservative political ideology which, as I will show you, requires a hidden agenda and a false front. As I've said, the only way Bush could have gained power was by hook and by crook. That is why the reality and the actual purpose behind Bush's deceptive words and actions must be exposed, because Bush is wrong and deceptive in both his foreign policy and domestic policy.

For example, most of his domestic initiatives are deceptively named and not what they were touted to be. Consider the very deceptively named "Clear Skies" initiative. It rejects the Kyoto Protocol (which deals with global warming by reducing greenhouse gasses), because Bush chose to serve the interests of corporate polluters. Bush's business-friendly plan does not regulate carbon emissions, and allows far more sulfur and mercury emissions. Bush's plan was designed to help big business and corporate polluters, and consequently it jeopardizes the environment and the lives of many Americans. Moreover, it ignores and denies the fact that global warming is an extremely serious problem that we must address immediately! We must do everything possible to sharply reduce and prevent the future production of "greenhouse" gases that produce global warming, because the polar ice caps are melting and shrinking, glaciers are melting and shrinking, oceans are warming, which makes hurricanes much worse, etc. And if we foolishly continue to ignore this problem, it will be to our peril.

Another example is Bush's deceptively named "Healthy Forest" initiative, which actually allows lumber companies greater access and freedom to further decimate our vanishing natural forests in order to rake in greater corporate profits and avoid greater development of alternative building materials. According to the great and laudable Sierra Club, Bush's initiative gives free rein to the timber industry to cut down trees in all National Forests under the phoney guise of "forest fire fuel reduction." But it will do little or nothing to protect communities and homes from forest fires. Instead, it is designed to decrease public involvement, reduce environmental protection, and increase timber company access to our National Forests and other federal lands. Even worse, Bush initiated a series of new National Forest management proposals to limit the analysis of environmental impacts, repeal the ability of the public to appeal bad projects, and increase the degradation of wild forests. In other words, Bush's proposals will increase harm to forests and forest habitat and wildlife, and will turn scientific forest management back 40 years!

Another example of Bush's deceptive initiatives is his so-called "No Child Left Behind" education "reform" initiative. It was predicated and modeled on a fraudulently touted Texas school program, and I suspect it was secretly designed to gradually undermine public education and make way for a privatized, profit-making education system. I suspect that is the hidden agenda of right-wing conservatives regarding education. I think that is why they push for "school choice" and the voucher program (which, by the way, takes money away from public schools). I believe that is why Bush cut $8 Billion from the promised funds for public education, and then imposed an education law and unfunded mandate that has created more bureaucracy and more paper work for public schools. It wastes their precious time and money, and it endangers many public schools and sets them up for failure. It threatens loss of funding if they do not meet standardized testing requirements that most educators find unrealistic, counterproductive and detract from real teaching and learning. It ostensibly creates "greater accountability," but it actually forces attention on very narrowly defined academic achievement. Like "merit pay," it forces teachers to "teach to the test" and focus on test results, which is usually at the cost of wider and more comprehensive learning, and also at the cost of social and emotional character development. After all, we should be motivating and inspiring our students and instilling in them a desire for comprehensive liberal arts education, rather than coaching them to be able to regurgitate a narrow, given set of answers to predetermined questions. "No Child Left Behind" forces schools to do the latter.

Yet another deceptive, misleading and harmful Bush/Republican initiative is to repeal the federal estate tax. Bush and the Republicans deceptively call it the "Death Tax" and falsely claim it must be repealed to "save family businesses and small farms from being liquidated in order to pay estate taxes," and to "save you from paying half of your net worth in taxes when you die, so that your beneficiaries can receive all that you bequeath to them." But those claims are deliberately misleading, blatantly dishonest, and false! The Bush/Republican call for repeal of the so-called "death tax" is a deceptive ruse designed to create a huge windfall for the wealthiest few. It is very costly to the rest of us, because it reduces revenues even further for both the federal and state governments.

The fact is that only a small fraction of the estate tax has ever been paid on small family businesses and farms, and an estate of any size could be bequeathed to a surviving spouse free of estate tax. Almost all estate taxes come only from the very wealthiest people. Only about two percent of all Americans have estates that are subject to estate tax when they die, and 98 percent of Americans who die face no estate tax whatsoever! So we must save the estate tax because it is actually fair and just. It ensures that about half of the largest fortunes that were produced in the country are returned to the country and thereby to the people who actually generated the wealth. It's the only way we can ensure that at least some of the wealth generated by the people of this country is rightfully returned to the people.

Now, Bush's so-called "Faith-based-Charitable Choice" initiative is not quite as deceptive, but it's just as wrong. It disregards the clear intent of the founding fathers and the ideal of separation of church and state. It provides taxpayer funds directly to religious institutions that provide social services, and it allows the churches of the Christian Right to use those public funds to proselytize and attempt to recruit and convert people to their brand of religion. It would even allow them to discriminate in certain ways on the basis of religious belief. The results would actually harm both government and religion.

We should realize that in the past and until now, religiously affiliated organizations have been able to participate as grantees or contractors in federal charitable programs. That idea is not new. Catholic Family Services and Lutheran Family Services are traditional examples of that, and they have done a wonderful job. However, they have not been able to try to proselytize or "sell" their religious beliefs to those who come to them for help. They have acted more or less like secular organizations, even though they were mostly staffed by people with private religious conviction. Until now, government has been barred from providing direct assistance to religious organizations that are "pervasively sectarian" and that openly proselytize. Bush's "faith-based" initiative changed that, specifically for the benefit of partisan sectarian churches like those on the Christian Right.

Bush’s initiative puts government in the position of choosing which religions and which of their denominations should receive grants. This makes it impossible to make any fair decisions, and any decisions that are made would be harmful to both religion and government. Even worse, it would actually decrease funding for needed social service programs across the board. Additionally, because of Bush's huge tax cuts for the wealthy, it is very likely that federal social service spending will ultimately be cut even further, causing an even greater decrease in funding for needed social service programs.

In that respect, Bush merely followed the lead of Reagan, ignoring the fact that most Americans really don't mind pooling their money so that the common wealth can be used for the common good. Most people like to help those who need help. Just look at how many of us give freely to food drives to help the food banks try to relieve some of the hunger in the land. Look at how many of us give freely to the toy drives to give a Christmas present to some of the children of poor families. And look at how many of us give freely to all the relief drives for victims of natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc. That willingness to help those who need help is built in us, innately, to ensure the survival of the species. We want to use the common wealth for the common good. But, we should be doing that collectively, fairly and equitably through our taxes and public service agencies, so that needed assistance and relief is fair and steady and certain, not dependent on the whim of individuals and on temporary, sporadic and sometimes less than successful efforts to collect voluntary private charitable donations and contributions from individuals.

Another Bush initiative is equally wrong, but he doesn't talk about it much. It involves his plans for a nuclear weapons revival with new weapons development, and it is a part of his overall plan designed to "further ensure U.S. global nuclear dominance in the future." But he doesn't talk about it much because he knows it would not be accepted by the American people. And rightly so. It's not only an insanely foolish idea, but it has been proven scientifically to be unreasonable and inadvisable. Despite that, Bush is proceeding with it. A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council revealed that the DOE spent $6.5 Billion on nuclear weapons in 2004. Bush requested $6.8 Billion more for 2005 and a total of $30 Billion over the following four years, and those amounts don't even include his anti-missile program costs.

Bush's folly pushes us backwards into more danger, more conflict, more competition for global power, and more waste of taxpayer's money, putting us in greater jeopardy of another nuclear arms race. In fact, Bush's arrogance and folly has spurred the Russians to start asserting their military power in the world again, which is leading us into another cold war with Russia. So, rather than follow the insane, backward, foolish path Bush is on, we must show leadership forward, in the opposite direction. The U.S. and all other nations must simply destroy all nuclear weapons, put an end to the nuclear weapons era, and an end to military imperialism.

Another example of misleading and deceptive tactics of the Bush Regime is their use and reliance on avoidance/diversion tactics with regard to the news media, and the tragic thing about it is that reporters do not even bother to press issues or follow up or investigate. Most of the time reporters simply allow the Bush Administration to dictate the news and ignore or dismiss criticism, rather than be held accountable for mistakes, offenses, transgressions, and abuses of power. Fortunately, that doesn't work all the time, but it works far too often.

This has become a very dangerous trend and it is very damaging to democracy. In fact, it has already damaged our democracy. It's one of the reasons George W. Bush and the spokespersons for his administration were able to ignore the international community and make false claims to mislead the American people so he could launch his preemptive and mostly unilateral war against Iraq. Journalists simply did not do their job as they should have, and that enabled and allowed the Bush Regime to get away with it. That has become clear to all those who have recognized it, and it was inevitable that the truth would come out eventually.

The truth is that if American journalists had been doing their job correctly, the American people would have known about most of the intelligence, reports and evidence that the Bush Administration simply ignored because it didn't support their opinions and justify their war plan for Iraq. After all, they ignored all the reports and evidence that: 1) Saddam Hussein did not have a relationship with al Queda; 2) that Iraq was not trying to buy materials from Niger for an Iraqi nuclear weapons program; 3) that Hussein was not planning an attack on the U.S.; and 4) that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The Bush Regime ignored all the intelligence, reports and evidence. Instead, they claimed otherwise, and the mainstream American news media failed to investigate or report the real truth about it.

More importantly, if the news media had done their job we all would have known the real reason why Bush insisted on invading Iraq, because it was unwittingly and brazenly revealed two years before the war in a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, written in September 2000 by a right-wing conservative think-tank called Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

According to the PNAC web site when I read it in 2002, it was the brain child of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, William Kristol, and Jeb Bush. Others who are associated with the PNAC and probably had a hand in developing the ideas expressed in the document were Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennet, Dan Quayle, Ellen Bork, and other lesser-known, like-minded right-wing conservative ideologues - and it's difficult not to assume that George W. Bush was a major player even though his name was left off the list for some reason.

As I wrote in a couple of my books, the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document reveals their shameless and blatant plan for world domination and imperialism. It reveals that even before they gained the power of the presidency, the leaders of the Bush Administration apparently planned to invade and occupy Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was still in power, so they could gain a better and more permanent foothold in that oil-rich region. It discusses "American global leadership" that will "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests," and it calls for a "dominant American role in the Mid-East." It describes American armed forces abroad as "the cavalry on the new American frontier." And, as incredible and amazing as this is, the imperialistic PNAC blueprint supports and expands an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that says the U.S. must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

Considering that, it is apparent that Bush wants to gain and keep control in Iraq. And, because has "privatized" his war, he is serving the interests of corporate profiteers like Blackwater and others like Cheney's company, Halliburton, and its subsidiaries like Brown & Root. Clearly their long-term plan is to the benefit of Halliburton and other American corporations and oil companies.

In fact, that's why Halliburton and its subsidiaries were given a no- bid contract, not only to control Iraq's oil, but to also profiteer by providing other services formerly done by the military. It's Bush's new privatization of war, which is highly beneficial to American corporate war profiteers and highly expensive for American taxpayers. It's just another part of their "globalism" movement, which is designed to enable American mega-corporations to virtually dominate business in the whole world in the name of God and Country.

That's really what it's all about. After all, it's extremely difficult to believe Bush has any love for Arabs or Muslims. In fact, his closest "religious" advisors are actually right-wing bigots and hypocrites who claim to be Christian authorities while they erroneously judge and condemn Islam as an "evil, wicked religion." That's one of the reasons most Muslims know very well what Bush's real motivation is, and it's one of the reasons so many of them want to kill Bush's occupying American forces. They know about Bush's hidden agenda.

You see, Bush's hidden agenda is not only about the U.S. becoming a dominant, controlling force in that oil rich region. That's a big part of it, but Bush also persists in the occupation of Iraq because his "religious" advisors have convinced him that his war in Iraq is "God's Will" and fulfills the prophecy of the warring "sixth angel" who "poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates..." (Revelation 16:12) They don't realize that chapter is mostly symbolic, just as so many things are in the New Testament, and they know not what they do.

Granted, that symbolism may have meant some killing in Iraq was foreseen and foretold. However, that does not mean this long horrible war must continue, and it certainly does not mean that God caused it or would sanction it. John's symbolism in the Book of Revelation was mainly designed to portray that those who "blaspheme" against God suffer in many ways. But it's not because God is not merciful and loving. In fact, God loves us all and does not want anyone to be killed. It's because those who judge, hate and curse their enemy actually curse or "blaspheme against" God, because they do not realize what God really is. In hating and cursing their enemies they unwittingly hate and curse God and themselves, and they are at war with God and their own spirit-soul. That's why Jesus said we should not judge, and if we are tempted to judge we should resist not evil but love good, overcome evil with good, and love even our enemy, because our enemy is usually just a reflection of our self.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush doesn’t see that, and that’s why yet another example of Bush's folly and arrogance is in his so-called "Patriot Act," which has deprived many Americans of long-standing civil liberties and rights. That’s largely because there has been no official oversight of surveillance activities. That was clearly revealed in December 2005 when Bush was forced to admit that he had ordered government agents in the National Security Agency (NSA) to tap the phones of American citizens without necessary legislated court approval.

You see, Bush was very well aware that there was a FISA law that was established before Bush became president, and it requires court approval for wiretapping to spy on people suspected of being terrorists. However, even though he knew the FISA law has a provision that in the case of dire emergencies a wiretap could be performed and the court could be notified afterward to provide a proper check to ensure compliance with laws; and even though Bush had even gotten the FISA law amended to allow him wait 72 hours after a wiretap to notify the court, rather than the 24 hours that the law originally stipulated, Bush STILL had ordered his security forces to wiretap and eavesdrop on whoever they wanted at any time, without ANY court oversight whatsoever.

Even worse, Bush then falsely claimed that those who criticize him for it are simply against surveillance activities and are obstructing his ability to wage the war on terror. He deceptively tried to avoid the real issue, which is that his regime has illegally, without required court oversight, assumed unchecked power to covertly spy and wiretap, just like dictatorial regimes do.

In January 2008 the story thickened, because in order to do this, Bush and his NSA had enlisted the help of telecommunications companies, so it has been with the collusion of large telecoms that Bush spied on American citizens without the FISA required warrants, violating the 4th Amendment and the right to privacy. In August 2007, Congress had betrayed the people and gave the telecom companies temporary immunity for their complicity in breaking the law until February 2008. And now Bush and his loyalists in Congress want to give the telecom companies permanent immunity from prosecution, knowing that otherwise they could be prosecuted for breaking the law. They are pushing a bill that will protect the telecommunications companies, and will also indirectly protect them.

Bush obviously thinks he is above the law -- above U.S. law and above international law -- because he thinks he is "doing God’s Will." And he arrogantly and falsely claims or believes that his American critics are merely "godless, unpatriotic and un-American." He even hand-picks his audiences in speaking engagements, so it will appear on television that everyone approves of him and his policies. He has even gone so far as to say, "I'm the Decider," which means he believes he must be a dictator. That is also because he believes he is doing God's Will, and that is very convenient because it enables him to believe he is absolutely right and can do no wrong.

All this is similar to what all deluded despots and tyrants do, and, thank God, most of the American people are at last realizing that. As I have written in my books, Bush symbolizes and even epitomizes the prophesied "King of Babylon," and that is why, as the prophet Daniel envisioned, the "stone" of truth will "shatter his image and become as a great mountain that shall fill the earth." The truth will prevail over falsehoods, and the image of Bush, who is very deluded with and guided by falsehoods, must be shattered.

Granted, Bush is nowhere near as bad as the terribly wicked and murderous Osama bin Laden, even though Bush has much more destructive power at his command and wields it wrongly. However, they are both just as deluded with self-importance, and just as deluded in the false belief that they are doing God's Will. Nothing, but nothing, could be further from the truth.

I tell you the truth knowing that it will be devastating to the families who have lost a loved one in Bush's war, and it will be particularly devastating to the American veterans who have lost limbs or been maimed permanently by their wounds. My heart goes out to them, and my heart aches for them. But, they can take comfort in the facts that removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing, and that U.S. forces have done other good things in Iraq, such as beginning to restore infrastructure that was destroyed. However, even though U.S. forces have certainly done some good and should be proud of that, I must tell you that America must stop the occupation of Iraq and let the United Nations take over with a truly international force that includes Arabs and both Sunnis and Shiites.

It is impossible to accomplish what Bush wants to do in Iraq. In the first place, his hidden agenda is wrong (to establish a firm foothold there, and maintain American control of Iraqi oil). Secondly, continuing to try to control Iraq by military force would only mean the killing or maiming of many more tens of thousands of Iraqi and American military and police forces, along with many innocent civilian men, women and children. The American occupation only provides radical Muslims justification for the insurgency "to drive out the American occupiers and infidels."

Bush is so invested in his beliefs that he cannot see that. In spite of the facts, Bush has been blatantly arrogant, insolent and stubborn because he wants to stick to his plan for the U.S. to be a dominant force in the region, and he pretends and acts as if he is a "holy warrior who will conquer evil." But he knows not what he does. Ultimately, the solutions to the problems in Iraq can only be political and diplomatic, conditional upon the complete end to American occupation, an end to American corporate control of Iraqi oil, and sufficient involvement of United Nations peace-keeping forces made up of truly international forces that include Arabs and all Muslim sects of Islam. The insurgency against the American occupation will stop as soon as the American occupation stops.

That fact has been confirmed by three studies by very different authors who reached the same conclusion about modern terrorism against Americans and Europeans. One study is a book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, by Robert Pape. Another study is by the Global Research in International Affairs Center, and another study was done by the conservative Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. All three studies reveal that the anti-American insurgency in Iraq is actually not motivated by a desire to preemptively attack the West. It is motivated by a fervent desire to retaliate for and fight against foreign occupation of Arab/Muslim lands. All these studies and the facts show that the main motivation of militant Muslims in the Mid- East is to remove foreign occupiers of Muslim lands. And, significantly, the research also shows that the vast majority of Arab insurgents killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activities prior to their arrival in Iraq.

It is also noteworthy that the facts reveal that al Queda did NOT operate in Iraq prior to Bush's occupation of that country. Al Queda began operations there only after the American occupation began to drag on. So the Bush regime's claim that Saddam Hussein and al Queda were in cahoots is simply not true, and it is also not true that the insurgents in Iraq would attack the U.S. after a U.S. pullout. They just want the U.S. out of Iraq and out of the Mid-East.

It is also not true that Muslims are upset with the West (Americans and British) because they are just "jealous" of our way of life. That is a very simplistic and misleading idea concocted by rich Republican Americans. The truth is that Muslims have very legitimate grievances against the British, Americans, Russians, and Israelis. Muslims are fighting for their land, their rights, and their independence, and against imperialism and occupation of their lands by foreign forces.

By the way, I can’t help mentioning that when, out of desperation, Bush later resorted to claiming that Americans against his war in Iraq are like the Americans who were against the war in Vietnam, and claimed that it just "aids and comforts the enemy," it was very typical of Reaganites like Bush. After all, they still claim that the only reason the U.S. lost the war in Vietnam was because of a so-called "lack of resolve on the part of the American People." They blame American anti-war demonstrators for the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, and of course they claim that "if America had really tried to win, we would certainly have won."

That is absolutely not true. It is a blatant lie to try to denigrate the peace movement of the 1960s, and Americans should understand the truth. The U.S. military leaders tried their damnedest to win the war in Vietnam, but they lost for a couple of very basic reasons. First, they ignored or did not understand the desire and the will of the vast majority of the Vietnamese people. Instead, they served the interests of the relatively few Vietnamese who had become part of the French colonial establishment based in Saigon, and in waging war as they did, American leadership demonstrated ignorance, carelessness and disregard for the majority of Vietnamese (as well as Cambodians and Laotians). And the second key reason they lost that war was because they grossly underestimated the tenacity and ingenuity of the Vietnamese people, who were simply continuing a very long and hard fight for independence from any foreign influence -- first Chinese, then French, then American. Of course, there were other reasons as well, but those were the two biggest ones, and it's time Americans realized and admitted it.

After all, as early as 1954 America had been warned of such folly by experts on the Far East. Of particular concern at that time was the American support in the early 1950s of the French, who ruled South Vietnam as a French colony but were starting to lose control of it. The U.S. support of the French rule in Vietnam only fueled Vietnamese desire for independence, and it enabled and justified communist influences. The experts even made it known that American efforts were becoming "an extremely ineffective and ultimately hopeless defense of the status quo, showing how absurdly wrong we are to battle Asian nationalism and independence instead of aiding it."

Granted, when the U.S. military actually stepped into South Vietnam with full military fighting forces in 1964, the U.S. government claimed it was to aid South Vietnamese nationalism. And that was partly true, because U.S. leaders by then believed in the "domino theory," which claimed that the communism of China and North Vietnam would greatly spread if it wasn't stopped in South Vietnam. History, however, proves that was not true.

In spite of all that, even today the proud Reaganites like Bush utterly hate the idea of admitting error or wrong-doing, and refuse to face the fact that the U.S. government and its military have committed errors, wrong-doing and even atrocities. After all, Ronald Reagan gained power in 1980 by claiming that Americans had absolutely nothing to be ashamed of, even with regard to Vietnam. But Reagan was extremely wrong and in denial. In fact, he was a demagogue who simply appealed to American nationalistic egotism, and he wrongly fostered false pride by waving the flag and claiming that the U.S.A. is the greatest and strongest nation in the world and has done no wrong. But Americans should now show real strength and acknowledge and admit the truth for our own sake, for the sake of our children's future, and for the sake of the future of our world.

I mention the Vietnam War because Bush's folly in Iraq is somewhat similar to the U.S. folly in Vietnam, especially in that Bush was also warned against it. Experts on Iraq and the Mid-East clearly warned the Bush administration well before the war about the folly of invading and occupying Iraq, and they predicted what would happen (and has happened). Unfortunately, Bush went ahead with his war plan anyway, in spite of those warnings, and he waged his preemptive war even in spite of all the reports and intelligence that were contrary to the false claims he made to try to justify it.

Granted, Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power in Iraq, because he was a murderous tyrant. However, as I said, United Nations forces comprised of international troops including Arabs and Muslim Sunnis and Shiites should have done it in the first place. And as soon as U.S. forces can pull out, such U.N. forces should step in to prevent violence and keep the peace.

Preventing violence and keeping the peace in Iraq will be considerably less of a problem when the insurgents can no longer claim that they are fighting American imperialism and defending Islam against imperialistic Christian Crusaders.

In fact, radical Muslim insurgency and "jihadism" in the whole region will also be far less of a problem when we enlist the help of moderate and progressive Muslims in a concerted strategy to emphasize the teachings of the Qur’an (Koran) that are resonant and compatible with the teachings of the Bible. For as I stated on the home page, the prophet Muhammad knew and respected the teachings of Jesus. Muhammad stated that killing is always evil, and that indiscriminate killing is especially evil. Moreover, like Jesus, he advised against retaliation and against force or coercion in religious matters, and he commanded Muslims to "be very courteous to Jews and Christians because we all believe in the same God."

Even the most radical and militant Muslims will find it difficult to deny the truth when they are faced with it on local television by loving, peaceful, understanding, humble, sympathetic Muslim peacemakers. For truth and love will ultimately overcome false beliefs and hate, and it’s the only thing that will. And if the Americans, British and Israelis demonstrate a willingness to establish fairness and justice, and make amends for the injustices the Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims have suffered at their hands, we can indeed make peace.

As it is, the aggressive American occupation of Iraq is only fueling more violent opposition to it, because in the eyes of many Muslims and even in the eyes of many Christian American troops, it amounts to a modern "Christian Crusade."

This is not just my opinion. Most Europeans believe the United States under the Bush regime is among the worst contributors to world instability, along with Israel, according to a poll and survey conducted by Gallup in Europe. In addition, according to an annual survey of global attitudes conducted by the Pew Research Center, which covered people in 15 European, Asian, and African countries, the continued U.S. presence in Iraq is seen as a great threat to world peace, and favorable opinions of the U.S. fell again this year. The Pew survey has been carried out annually since 1999, and has shown a continued decline in support for the U.S. because of Bush foreign policy. In fact, America's global image has been severely damaged, and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq continually lowers opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited as a great obstacle to world peace.

Of course, the Bush Regime originally created the problem by denigrating and virtually usurping the power of the United Nations in 2001, 2002 and 2003. But now the problem in Iraq is really Bush's War and the American occupation. The problem is not and never has been the conscientious critics of Bush's occupation of Iraq, because his critics are correct. It was wrong from the start, and his hidden agenda is utterly wrong and imperialistic.

To make matters worse, on September 30, 2007, Bush announced that he may authorize "surgical air strikes" against Iran. He obviously felt that the time was right, since most Americans were angered at Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who visited the U.S. the week before and spouted off about his absurd beliefs. That gave Bush "justification" for making plans to widen his war, and to expand his "Christian Crusade" or "holy war" against radical Anti-Western Muslims.

Ironically, however, even though radical Muslims are quite wrong, and even though Ahmadinejad is seen by many Americans as a deceptive and hypocritical hatemonger and warmonger, Bush is not really all that much better. In fact, Bush has, through his arrogant, misguided folly, has made a terrible situation ten times worse with regard to Muslims since 2001. Because he believes he is fighting a "holy war" against radical Muslim extremists, he is nearly as deluded as the Muslim extremists, and he is far more dangerous because he has much more military power at his disposal. And his cohort Dick Cheney has more recently made moves to indicate that the Bush Regime just might wage war against Iran before they are forced to leave office, and if they do I’m sure their rationale and justification would be that it’s "the right thing to do to fight evil."

But all of the Bush Regime’s foreign policies are foolish, counterproductive, and damaging. For example, in December 2007 Bush said something so hypocritical I must comment on it. He was speaking in response to a question about what he thought of Vladimer Putin’s strategy to cling to power in Russia, and Bush’s response was that he hoped Russia in the future would "realize they need checks and balances." That, in my view, was ironic and extremely hypocritical, because Bush has scorned all efforts to provide checks and balances on his power. He has called any and all efforts to rein him in and curtail his abuses of power as "unpatriotic" political posturing. That is not only arrogance, but insolence.

In fact, because of the Bush Regime’s nationalistic, imperialistic, militaristic world view, Vladimer Putin’s Russia has been becoming more and more nationalistic and has been deliberately developing world-wide ambitions in its young people. Growing numbers of Russians have put freedom of speech very low on their list of priorities, while one of the highest priorities is establishing Russia as a great world power once again. This is in large part in response to the imperialistic actions of the American Neo-Conservative Movement led by Dick Cheney and the Bush Regime. It is especially in response to the growth of American military bases in foreign countries, increase in U.S. military operations, expansion and growth of U.S. nuclear warfare capabilities, all of which has been used to justify Putin’s call for Russia to compete with and surpass America as a world military power. And they are already well on their way toward doing that.

In other words, George W. Bush has not made Americans safer. In fact, he has worsened America’s status in the world, weakened America’s military, created, increased and strengthened its enemies, and put Americans in far greater jeopardy than they have been since 1941.

Bush sought the presidency to hold the most powerful position in the world to do what he believes is "God's will." That's what makes him extremely self-righteous, divisive, dangerous and harmful, as he has proven to be. After all, most misguided, power-hungry, egocentric, self-important people who seek, fight for and gain positions of personal power justify themselves by actually believing that they are doing the right thing, when they really serve themselves and the wealthy minority of people who support them. They choose the way that seems right to some men, but leads to conflict, division, and destruction. That’s the biggest reason why America is divided and in conflict. It’s also why so many other nations are divided and in conflict, and why there has been and is so much death and destruction. As Jesus put it, they are the blind leading the blind.

Of course, Bush and the American Christian Right are not the only ones that must be exposed and rebuked. All religious bigots and hypocrites must be exposed and rebuked, especially the murderous zealots who claim to be Muslim Jihadists and Jewish Zionists. They don’t realize how little they understand their religious scriptures, and how much they simply ignore in them. They all must share the blame for the terrible situation we are in now. (See the pages on The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and on The History of the Sunni-Shiite Conflict, and What They Both Ignore in the Qur'an), which exposes Muslim hypocrites.)

I need to add that it is not enough to expose the hypocrisy and error of hatemongers, warmongers and murderers who claim to serve God, and it is not even enough to bring them to justice. We must also recognize why young Arab Muslims are willing to die for their cause, and we must understand what their cause is. I have covered that in the books, and fully discussed the roots of conflict in the Mid-East, from 1917 to the present. (See the page on The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.)

We must learn and understand that history, and then we must let it be known that we understand, and that we will do something about the injustices and offenses perpetrated against Arabs and Muslims by the British, the Americans, and the Israelis. The Bush Administration has utterly failed in that regard, because for the most part they have blindly and unfairly supported Israel. They have even ventured naively, blindly, arrogantly and offensively in their own ill-advised wars. And the consequences of Bush’s folly is that thousands of people have needlessly lost their lives, and tens of thousands have been wounded and maimed.

In spite of that, Bush is unashamed and unrepentant. Even as the end of his reign nears, Bush has visited Gaza and tried to appear more fair to Palestinians in order to try to improve his historic legacy. But, his words are far too little, far too late. In fact, I suspect they are mainly for show, considering his eight year record, and considering that his "religious" advisors are "Christian Zionists" who believe that Israel must be victorious over the "godless" Muslims in order to fulfill prophecy, especially in their battle over the holy site known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount. (And, by the way, that is what triggered the latest long-lasting round of violence between Palestinians and Israelis, when in September 2000 Ariel Sharon provoked new conflict and violence, and helped himself and then other hawkish hardline Israeli leaders rule with an iron fist since then). So, in other words, Bush’s Gaza visit in January 2008 and his "peaceful" rhetoric was, at the very least, disingenuous, and in my view it was grossly hypocritical.

Still, as his reign draws to a close, Bush desperately tried to improve his legacy. His recent visit to Africa to claim credit for U.S. financial aid to help deal with disease there is another example of that. And, in his last State of the Union Address, he asked Congress for $300 million for poor kids in the inner cities. But, considering that there are, even according to the government’s underestimated official reports, 15 million children in America living in poverty, that means only $20 per child.

It was a feeble attempt to sound compassionate, and he even said, "In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams. And a decent education is their only hope of achieving them." But how much educational dreaming will $20 buy? And what’s $300 million compared to the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars he’s spent on trying to establish an American foothold in Iraq to control the oil there for U.S. oil companies?

Bush also demanded that Congress make his tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. That would cost us taxpayers $4.3 trillion over ten years. The big recipients are multi-millionaires and billionaires, and their government giveaway and windfall would amount to $287,000 apiece. So, if Bush were a real Christian, he would have turned all that around and given each millionaire $20 and each poor child $287,000. But then, I know the Christ, and Bush is no Christian.

The fact is that Bush’s un-Christian War in Iraq is the second costliest war in the history of the world, financially, not even considering the cost in human lives and limbs. Only World War II was more expensive, and the main reason is Bush’s privatization of the war, with U.S. taxpayers money being bilked by corporate war profiteers that supported Bush. (Read the book by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes in their book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, published on February 28, 2008. Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank and won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2001. Bilmes is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.)

This judgment was not only prophesied and foretold by Jesus and by preceding Jewish prophets and the prophets of other religions, it is totally called for and it must be delivered. The stone of truth must "shatter the image of the King of Babylon," which is what Bush represents (as is explained somewhat on the page titled The Fall of Babylon, and more comprehensively in Chapter 6 of Memoirs of a Prodigal Son of Man and previous books).

This "pen" can and in due time will prove mightier than Bush's "sword," and it will do so because the weapons of the Lord are not carnal or lethal, but they are mighty through God for pulling down strongholds of misused military power. The real weapons of the Lord are words of truth, and the truth is that despite what Bush claims and may believe, he does not serve God.

As the Christ Jesus said, you cannot serve both God and Mammon. And Bush definitely serves Mammon in that he fought for worldly power, wealth and domain, and serves the interests of the wealthiest few and their giant corporations and monopolies. And he deserves to be exposed and rebuked for his arrogance, bigotry, and hypocrisy, at the very least.