ON TUESDAY, Critical Mass screened "Hijacking Catastrophe," a new documentary narrated by University professor and NAACP Chair Julian Bond, which explores the Bush administration's imperial ambitions in Iraq dating back to the year 2000. The film also describes the administration's tactics for turning Sept. 11 into a rationale for invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism against America.
According to veterans' testimony contained in "Hijacking Catastrophe," the Bush administration selectively presented intelligence to American citizens and the world community in order to portray Saddam Hussein as a terrorist conspirator and a threat to American citizens' safety. The Bush administration understood that these claims were false when Bush included them in his State of the Union address and Colin Powell included them in his speech to the United Nations, stated Karen Kwiatowski, who worked in the Pentagon at the time.
What motivations lie behind the deceit? "Hijacking Catastrophe" suggests that we invaded Iraq first to secure the world's second-largest known source of oil reserves. The New York Times reports that, at current levels of consumption, American oil reserves will last less than a half century, regardless of how many wildlife refuges and other public lands we open to exploration. Since most oil is in the Middle East, Venezuela and Russia, it is logical that we would desire control over our economic and military lifeblood (Americans consume 20 million barrels of oil daily). Second, the administration wished to cow potential rivals through our bold display of military strength, a strategy recommended by a recent book entitled "Shock and Awe," by Harlan K. Ullman, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which, not coincidentally, became the name of the invasion.
With Election Day less than a week away, we as voters might consider the implications of re-electing a president willing to lie to Congress and to the country about waging war. If he will lie about war, does he lie about health care, education or environmental policies? If he really cares about education, why did he block funding for No Child Left Behind? If he really cares about health care, why did he prohibit the government from negotiating lower prices for drugs acquired through Medicare, and why did he prohibit re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada? If he really cares about the environment, why did he roll back portions of the Clean Air Act, and why does he support opening 58 million acres of our National Forest to taxpayer- subsidized logging?
If George W. Bush had our interests at heart, then he would not have to lie to us. However, because his policies benefit corporations at the expense of American workers, multinational agricultural companies at the expense of small farmers, HMOs at the expense of Americans who need affordable health care and defense contractors at the expense of our troop's safety (by creating a missile defense system, for instance, rather than body armor or armored Humvees), he can only run for re-election based on chicanery and will only be elected if a substantial portion of the American populace is as gullible as he believes.
While it was possible in 2000 to guess that George W. Bush is an extreme right wing ideologue, his record over the past four years illustrates precisely what sorts of policies Bush will pursue if re-elected. Most importantly, he will work toward privatization of social security through private investment accounts, leaving average investors at risk of major losses through Enron-type scandals. He could also work to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a more regressive revenue stream, such as the national 23 percent sales tax proposed by the South Carolina Republican candidate for Senate. Bush will also continue to freeze or cut funding for social programs like Pell Grants while increasing funding for the military.
What Bush will not do if re-elected is most important, however. He will not work toward energy independence, which is the first step we must take to permanently protect ourselves from terrorism. He will not solve the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, which is equally important in terms of ending terrorism. He will not raise the minimum wage, will not provide an effective prescription drug benefit and will not work to curb global warming.
John Kerry will work to accomplish all these important goals, and even if he accomplishes only a tenth of his goals, he will have served this nation far more effectively than Bush did in his first term, if only because his policies will not be attacks on our welfare as citizens.
Zack Fields is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s ressponse falls short
By Carly Burstein | 2 hours agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 23 hours agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | YesterdayWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
