|
Litany Of Lies
George
W. Bush has not told the truth about a great many matters -- WMD in
Iraq, tax cuts, global warming, homeland security, Social Security, the
deficit, his own past and political practices, and more. We asked David
Corn to pull together a sampling of lies and distortions from the
voluminous examples in his new book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers) -- you can read more about the book at www.bushlies.com.
Grease the Way to War During Bush's 2003 State of the
Union -- which included those 16 controversial (and disputable) words
in which he charged that Saddam Hussein had gone uranium-shopping in
Africa -- Bush maintained that the International Atomic Energy Agency
"confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program." Bush had left out the fact that the IAEA
also reported then it had demolished this "advanced" nuclear program
during the inspections process of the 1990s. And the day before Bush's
speech, its inspectors had said there were no signs of a vigorous
nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Bush had spoken words that were
technically true, but they were designed to mislead the American
public. Bush's aim was not to tell the truth but to grease the way to
war.
Outspent? In his first debate with Democratic nominee Al
Gore, Bush refused to accept Gore's invitation to endorse a campaign
finance reform bill. And Bush exclaimed, "This man has outspent me."
Not even close. Bush at this point had spent more than $121 million on
his campaign-more than double the $60 million Gore had doled out. And
in the July-to-October 2000 period, the Republican Party had banked
$100 million to the Democrats' $55 million.
Budget Dreams To prove his first set of proposed tax cuts
were responsible, Bush had to demonstrate that the projected ten-year
budget surplus was large enough to cover them. "There is enough money,"
he told White House reporters. And in an address to a joint session of
Congress, he maintained his budget, even with his tax cuts and his
promise not to touch the Social Security surplus, would still leave
"almost a trillion dollars... for additional needs." But to get the
numbers to line up right, the White House engaged in two shifty actions
at once: it low-balled the fiscal impact of the tax cuts, and it
inflated projections of the budget surplus.
The Bush administration claimed the cost of the tax cuts would be $1.6
trillion over ten years. But the White House's cost estimate ignored
two key elements. It did not include the presumed cost of fixing a
design flaw in the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was created to make
sure corporations could not use loopholes to escape all their tax
liability. This glitch was about to cause the AMT to be applied to
middle-class taxpayers. Most tax experts assumed the out-of-control AMT
would be reined in, but Bush's estimate was counting on $200 billion of
these unintended AMT revenues to offset the full $1.8 trillion price
tag of his tax cuts. The Bush estimate also did not include the higher
federal interest costs that would result from the tax legislation. Put
this all together, according to the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, and Bush's proposed tax cuts could be expected to draw $2.1
trillion over ten years from the projected surplus.
As for the size of the surplus, the Congressional Budget Office was
forecasting a $3.1 trillion surplus. Using this CBO figure and its own
too-modest estimate of the tax plan's costs, the White House could
claim that Bush's package would consume only slightly more than half
the available surplus. But the Brookings Institution, the Concord
Coalition and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- policy
groups of different political stripes -- each pointed out that the CBO
included in its calculations various tax increases and program cuts
that were highly unlikely to occur. When these groups used real-world
assumptions, the available surplus became $2.0 trillion or less -- and
that was less than the estimated full cost of Bush's tax cuts.
According to the realistic numbers, Bush's tax plan, contrary to what
he was saying, would gobble up the entire surplus.
Enron? What's Enron? During a brief session with
reporters in the Rose Garden on January 28, 2002, Bush was asked if his
administration had afforded Enron special treatment, particularly
regarding the energy plan Cheney had produced the previous year. "Enron
had made contributions to a lot of people around Washington, DC," Bush
answered. "And if they came to this administration looking for help,
they didn't find any." That may have been the case during Enron's final
days -- when Lay was on the phone to members of Bush's cabinet and
apparently received no help -- but that was not true during the
preceding months when Enron was not yet radioactive. Before Enron's
crack-up, the Bush administration had been of tremendous assistance to
the company on several fronts. In response to requests from Ken Lay and
Enron, the Bush administration had appointed Enron-favored regulators
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, opposed wholesale price
caps during the California energy crisis (which was exacerbated by
Enron's underhanded market manipulations), and helped Enron in a
billion-dollar contract dispute in India.
Testing, Testing At a Republican debate during the 2000
presidential campaign, Steve Forbes, the
millionaire-publisher/candidate, accused Bush of having dumbed down
education standards "to the point where in Texas your SAT ranking has
gone from 40th in the nation to 46th in the nation." Bush chuckled, "So
many half-stories, so little time." He then replied, "Test scores in my
state, on the NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] test,
which compares state to state, showed dramatic improvement. And that's
-- objective analysis after objective analysis has ranked Texas as one
of the best education states in the country.... Our SAT scores have
improved since I've been the governor. You need to get your research to
do a better job."
But it was Bush's research that required fact-checking. Texas' NAEP
scores, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, had
risen significantly in only one category: mathematics. Not so on
reading and science. And according to the College Entrance Examination
Board, the average verbal/math combined SAT score in Texas had dipped 3 points during Bush's administration; over the same period, the national average had improved 9 points.
Positively Smearing After the Republicans succeeded in
the congressional elections of 2002, Bush maintained that his party's
candidates had fared well because of their clean campaigns. "Their
accent was on the positive," he remarked. "If you want to succeed in
American politics, change the tone." But the accent had not been on the
positive. In mid-October, Bush had attended a fundraiser for
Representative Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican trying to unseat
Senator Max Cleland, and Bush blamed Democrats (and Cleland by
association) for trying to stop him from carrying out "one of our most
solemn duties, which is to protect the homeland" - all because they
disagreed with him on workplace rules for the new Department of
Homeland Security. Weeks earlier, Bush had said at a campaign stop that
Democrats were "more interested in special interests in Washington and
not interested in the security of the American people." While Bush was
stumping for Chambliss, Chambliss was airing a television ad that
flashed photos of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as it assailed Cleland
for supposedly voting against "homeland security" and lacking the
"courage to lead." The Republicans were smearing Cleland, a Vietnam vet
who had lost three limbs in a grenade accident, as being weak on
national security. Bush had decidedly not changed the tone while
campaigning for GOPers who had hit low and hard. As The Washington Post noted, "some of [Bush's] hand-picked candidates ran tough negative campaigns.... Bush occasionally joined in the attack."
Abortion Contortion On his first workday in the Oval
Office Bush signed a directive reviving a controversial 1984 Ronald
Reagan order known as the Mexico City policy, which had been rescinded
by Clinton. This policy prohibited U.S. government family-planning
funds from going to overseas groups that provide abortion services,
lobby for abortion rights, or counsel pregnant women that abortion is
an option. In a two-paragraph announcement, Bush noted, "It is my
conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions
or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad."
But the funds in question -- $425 million in foreign aid -- did not
underwrite abortion-related activity. This money could only be used by
these groups for their family-planning activities that did not involve
abortion. A 1973 law had rendered it illegal for any organization to
use U.S. government funds to pay for abortions overseas. The Bush White
House, though, was selling the reinstatement of the policy as a direct
step in defunding abortions overseas. At a White House press briefing,
Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer defended the directive by saying
that Bush "did not support use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion
abroad." A reporter pointed out that these funds did not finance
abortion overseas: "Is the president aware that under the 1973 law, the
use of American money for abortions abroad is banned? This money isn't
used for abortions." Fleischer replied: "I would urge you to wait until
you read the executive order, and then you'll be able to see this for
yourself." But that executive order -- issued two months later -- in no
way explained why the Bush White House had promoted the policy's
revival with misinformation.
Energetic Distortion When Bush released the Bush-Cheney
energy plan, he declared, "We've yelled at -- we've yelled at each
other enough; now it's time to listen to each other." Yet he and Dick
Cheney had not been keen on listening to environmentalists. In February
2001, while the plan was being drafted, the Green Group -- a collection
of the leading environmental outfits in Washington -- requested
separate meetings with Cheney and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to
discuss the energy proposals under construction. Both men slammed the
door on the greens. Abraham's office claimed his schedule was too
"busy." But Energy Department documents released a year later showed
that Abraham had possessed enough time to meet with 109 executives,
trade association leaders and lobbyists from the energy industry during
the drafting of the plan.
As for Vice President Cheney, he passed off the Green Group to Andrew
Lundquist, his energy task force staff director, and Lundquist waited
nearly two months before seeing the enviros. The session, according to
the Natural Resources Defense Council (one of 14 groups represented at
the meeting), lasted less than an hour and was mostly consumed by
introductions. Not until June 5, six weeks after the plan had been
issued, did Cheney meet with a delegation of environmentalists. (In
January 2002, Cheney appeared on Fox News Sunday and
said of his energy task force work, "I talked to energy companies, I
talked to labor members, talked to environmentalists." He was trying to
make it appear he had solicited advice from environmentalists and
neglected to mention he had spoken to the enviros only after his energy plan was out the door.)
Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch and get the latest on what's new at TomPaine.com before everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your information to any other entity.
Published: Sep 30 2003
|
