[Peace-discuss] debunking Bush's inaugural address

[ppatton at uiuc.edu]

The Rhetoric of Bush's Inaugural Address versus the Reality 
of Bush Policy  
by Stephen Zunes  
  
President Bush’s second inaugural address has received 
widespread praise for its recognition of the imperative of 
advancing human freedom worldwide, not just for its own sake, 
but for America’s own national interest. 

Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that the United States 
has long been the number one military, diplomatic, and 
economic backer of the world’s most repressive regimes, a 
pattern that has only been strengthened under the Bush 
administration. 

Correctly recognizing the roots of terrorism, President Bush 
noted that “as long as whole regions of the world simmer in 
resentment and tyranny prone to ideologies that feed hatred 
and excuse murder violence will gather, and multiply in 
destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and 
raise a mortal threat.” For much of the second half of his 
first term, he has emphasized that as a necessary means of 
curbing the threat of terrorism the United States much push 
for reform and democratization of the autocratic governments 
of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, and the Palestine 
Authority. 

It is important to note, however, that none of the 9/11 
hijackers came from those countries. Instead, they came from 
U.S.-backed dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the 
United Arab Emirates, which continue to receive billions of 
dollars worth of U.S. military equipment annually. Oman, 
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, 
Tunisia and Morocco are also among the autocratic regimes in 
the Islamic world which continue to receive unconditional 
support from the United States. 

A look at the six family dictatorships of the Persian Gulf 
region propped up by American arms and advisors underscores 
the irony that the nation founded in one of the first 
republican revolutions against monarchial rule is now the 
primary supporter of the world’s few remaining absolute 
monarchies. 

It is presumably no coincidence that the only autocratic 
regimes toward which the Bush administration has pressed for 
reform have been those which have traditionally opposed 
American hegemonic goals in the region. 

In addition, while Israel serves as an exemplary democracy 
for its Jewish citizens, the right-wing government of Ariel 
Sharon has engaged in a pattern of gross and systematic human 
rights violations in its occupied Palestinian territories, 
practices made possible in large part through billions of 
dollars worth of unconditional military and economic 
assistance sent annually courtesy of the American taxpayer. 

If U.S. policy is indeed so contrary to the promotion of 
freedom and liberty, why has this become such a focal point 
of the Bush administration at the start of its second term? 

Perhaps it is a means of diverting attention from the 
administration’s disastrous policies in Iraq. Though claims 
that Saddam Hussein still possessed “weapons of mass 
destruction” and had operational links with Al-Qaeda have 
been proven false, no one can deny the repressive nature of 
his regime or the Iraqi people’s right to live freely. 
Unfortunately, American forces have been responsible for far 
more civilian in the nearly two years since the U.S. 
occupation began than during the final two years of Saddam’s 
regime. 

It may also be a means of silencing opposition. If, for 
example, the American public can actually be made to believe 
that the primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy under 
President Bush is to promote democracy, critics of Bush 
administration policy can therefore be depicted as not 
supporting democracy. Indeed, in the only reference President 
Bush made to critics of his policies in his inaugural 
address, he blithely dismissed them as those who 
have “questioned the global appeal of liberty.” 

President Bush promised that “All who live in tyranny and 
hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your 
oppression, or excuse your oppressors.” If this is actually 
the case, President Bush must immediately make it clear to 
all governments that oppress their own people or those under 
their military occupation: unless and until you respect human 
rights, including the rights of people to choose their own 
government, the United States will immediately cease all 
economic and security assistance, withdraw American advisors 
to your police and military, block all transfers of American 
armaments and other implements of repression, and encourage 
other countries to do the same. 

Unfortunately, there are currently no signs that President 
Bush is prepared to do this or that either party in Congress 
is willing to pressure him to do so. 

Unless or until that time comes, President Bush’s noble words 
at his inauguration can only be seen as self-serving 
hypocrisy of the worst kind. 

 
__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
spring semster 2005
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Biology, Williams College
Williamstown, MA
phone: (413)-597-3518

Research Scientist
Beckman Institute  Rm 3027  405 N. Mathews St.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Urbana, Illinois 61801
work phone: (217)-265-0795   fax: (217)-244-5180
home phone: (217)-344-5812
homepage: http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ppatton/www/index.html

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the
source of all true art and science."
-Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________