At work I will often turn on the ostensibly Christian radio station
at noon to hear the news reported from a
Christian worldview. Of course in keeping with the tone and tenor of
American Evangelicalism it's often anything but and often engaged in not only a
twisting and spinning of current events but of the Scriptures themselves.
But this week was over the top. With the death of Bush, it
seemed the whole of American media was obsessed in memorialising the
ex-president. The Mainstream wished and even overtly laboured to juxtapose his
'dignified' manner with that of the barbarism displayed by the current White
House occupant.
This was to be expected. Political leaders are rehabilitated
and their deaths are often politicised. GHW Bush was and is no exception. The
Right is keen to champion him as a way of steering the debate toward a
respected figure of the past... even though Bush wouldn't have a chance of
being elected in today's GOP.
But what really put me off was listening to the Christian coverage,
the homage and laudatory celebration of this now dead president.
Memories are short it would seem and there are very few
voices in the Evangelical world that are valiant for truth. They would rather
lie and re-write the history in order to score political points, than to even
attempt a sober, balanced and reflective presentation of Bush and his legacy.
This, is their 'Christian worldview'.
As is clear, there's nothing Christian about it. Professing
to follow the one who is Truth, they serve him by weaving a web of lies and deceit.
I became so irritated that on the spot I drafted a quick
list, just a few items that came to mind regarding GHW Bush. My goal wasn't to
be balanced but rather to recall some of the reasons why Bush was (at the time
and in the days after he left office) not liked by many Christians... reasons
that have seemingly disappeared down the memory hole. I wanted to remember some
of the reasons why Christians of that day rejected Bush and whatever religious
claims he might have made. He was never anything but a liberal Episcopalian, an
Establishment Christian. Supposedly humble, self-effacing and even pious there
are many from outside his immediate circle that tell a very different tale, one
that portrays him as an arrogant, conceited, sociopathic member of the old
Yankee elite, and certainly no friend to Bible-based Christianity.
My list began with the lies, deception and murder surrounding
Bush's 1989 invasion of Panama. We (the public) were deceived and Bush
misrepresented both the situation on the ground and the nature (and extent) of
the American relationship with Noriega. He was an old CIA asset who had
recently played a fairly important role in America's Central American wars
which raged throughout the late 1970s and 1980s. It's an ugly story of drugs,
death squads and guns and today's regional tumult is in many ways a legacy of
the Reagan Doctrine if not a direct consequence.
The violence of the (obviously premeditated) 1989 invasion was
hidden from the American public. At least 3,000 Panamanians were killed and yet
the true toll is probably much higher.
Coming just weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall the event
was connected to the conclusion of the Cold War. Washington was cleaning up a
rather messy account and also signalling the world that the US was not going to
stand down in light of Soviet collapse. Rather a new age of unipolarity,
unilateralism and empire were on the horizon. The invasion was as much didactic
as it was a military exercise. Given the deceitful nature of the conflict, one
must conclude that it was invalid (by any measure) and that Bush has the blood
of Panama on his hands. He is rightly viewed as a butcher by the unfortunate
people of that nation... a nation that has been from its inception an American
way-station for intrigue and dirty deals.
Additionally coming at a critical moment in the computer age,
it gave the Pentagon a chance to play with many of its new toys. It was a
harbinger of what was to come both in 1991 and after.
And of course this brings us to the Gulf War, another episode
of deceit. The US relationship with Baghdad was obscured and even today James
Baker continues to spin a web of lies about the history of US relations with
Saddam Hussein. There was deception about the Iraqi relationship with Kuwait,
about US signals given to Saddam and to crown the plot, there were the tales of
Iraqi armies on the border of Saudi Arabia and of Iraqi soldiers brutally
tossing babies out from incubators. It was all lies and it didn't take long to
expose them but for the most part the public didn't care and by now has
forgotten.
The Gulf War was but the first chapter in the rehabilitation
of Vietnam, a legacy the Pentagon was desperate to escape. Much more could be
said about figures like Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and others but the onus, the
burden of responsibility falls on Bush himself. It was his war, a war based on
lies in which tens of thousands died, many were massacred and the war opened
the door to more than a decade of American policy vis-à-vis Iraq that was in
the end tantamount to genocide. Bill Clinton bears more of the blame in that
regard but Bush certainly got things started. In retrospect it seems abundantly
clear that one major goal of the war was to establish a permanent US footprint
in the Middle East. This also makes sense when considered in light of the end
of the Cold War and the American attempt to establish unipolarity.
Bush was heavily criticised by the Right and the Christian
Right for not invading Iraq and removing Saddam. They were angry that his
administration had sent misleading signals to the Kurds and Shiites who indeed
rose up in the expectation of a US invasion, only to be slaughtered and broken.
At the end of his administration there was anger regarding his interventions in
Somalia even though Clinton would take the blame in light of the 'Black Hawk
Down' incident in 1993.
The American Right was furious with Bush as indeed their
anger only grew when he later reneged on his tax pledges. He was not loved by
them which is why many (myself included I must confess) were eager to vote for
an outsider in 1992. In my case I wanted to vote for anyone not affiliated with the mainline
parties. Though it's still an issue of contention, especially for DNC and
Clinton apologists, I firmly believe the bulk of the votes that went to Perot
in 1992 would have otherwise gone to Bush and it likely cost him the election.
That's apparently a controversial claim, but shouldn't be to those who remember
the climate leading up to the election. Regardless, what many Christians
seemingly have forgotten is just how much Bush was disliked.
Bush pardoned the key figures involved in Iran-Contra,
helping to shut down the investigation into what was probably the biggest
political scandal in modern American history. It was certainly a conspiracy
bigger than Watergate, but Bush stayed loyal to his party rather than risk
compromising the Deep State. Well that's hardly a surprise as he was one of the
figures connected with that very Deep State.
Along with the Iran-Contra scandal, or more properly
connected to it, there's also the question of BCCI, the failed bank which
inspired the 2009 film The International.
A labyrinth of mirrors, the BCCI along with Nugan Hand and the Vatican Bank
served as a repository and way-station for funding the Deep State's dirty deeds.
As the scandal broke the Bush Justice Department did what it could to stem the
tide of investigation, to obstruct and obscure. A then much less well known
Robert Mueller played his part in the cover-up.
While head of the CIA during the 1970's Bush furthered the
aims of Operation Condor, a brutal project in which the United States
coordinated and supported the many Right-wing and fascist regimes in Latin
America as they sought to crush any opposition. Conducted in the name of
Anti-Communism, the operation was in reality a brutal regime of death squads,
disappearances, kidnappings, torture and prison camps. As CIA director Bush
helped to cover-up Augusto Pinochet's role in the assassination of Orlando
Letelier in Washington DC. Letelier had been a diplomat under the Allende
government and was in exile when the US backed coup installed Pinochet in 1973.
The case is especially interesting in light of the recent Khashoggi scandal.
This political murder took place in the US capital and Ronni Moffit a US
citizen (and Letelier affiliate) was also killed in the car bombing.
George HW Bush helped to cover it up, knowingly leaking false
information in order to obstruct the investigation and point the finger at Cuba
and the Eastern Bloc. It didn't work and the truth came out. It was a Chilean
Secret Police (DINA) operation and it would seem was coordinated if not conducted
by the CIA itself. Michael Townley a onetime CIA agent (?) working with DINA
played a key role. It's a fascinating but dark tale involving multiple murders
and even Nazis based in Latin America. The cover-up was a Bush-CIA operation
and but a small window into a larger chapter of dark deeds.
Of course how quickly people have forgotten the Savings and
Loan Scandal of the late 1980s, a debacle which continued through the Bush
administration and into the Clinton era. But it was Bush who organised the massive
bailout, dumping what would eventually be billions of dollars on the US
taxpayer. The Right seethed over these deeds as they would in the 2008 Wall
Street bailouts but in 2018 it's not politically expedient to revisit Bush's
economic unorthodoxy. On that note it ought to be mentioned that while Bill
Clinton got the credit for NAFTA, the agreement was initiated and constructed
by the Bush administration. It continues to split conservatives torn between
their capitalist commitments and the practical realities of what the agreement
did to the working class. The agreement was not very popular in Christian
circles as indeed Bush was highly suspect. This was all part of his creepy New
World Order talk and many Christians believed him to be not only a bogus
Christian but worse, some kind of occultist. A member of Yale's Skull and Bones
many believed he was part of a Globalist movement which ultimately sought to
subvert and undermine not only American sovereignty but Christianity itself.
Personally I have a rather different narrative that would
explain and integrate these facts but I always found it interesting that the
same Christians so eagerly embraced his son in 2000... another member of Skull
and Bones. Apparently eight years of Bill Clinton and the possibility of a Gore
presidency were enough to curtail such fears.
Further Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act or
ADA which was opposed by many at the time. Their opposition was not due to some
kind of callous disregard for the plight of the handicapped but rather it was
viewed as an economic hindrance and I can personally attest this terrible law
has played no small part in ruining small town economies. It is a terrible
disincentive for those who would try and fix up old buildings in crumbling downtowns.
It is (I will attest) a terrible and unjust law and Christians hated it at the
time. Bush was not viewed as an economic conservative but this too has been
conveniently forgotten.
Bush's relationship in general with the Christian Right was
quite poor. They never viewed him as one of their own and he never really tried
to pander to them. In fact he was known to speak disdainfully of them. He was
all smiles with Dobson and Falwell but all agree he didn't like them and despite
whatever nonsense has come out in recent days... they didn't like him either.
By the end of his term they were often angry with him. His Middle Eastern
policy had failed. Many believed he wasn't aggressive enough toward the collapsed
USSR. Little did they know that already under Bush the former Soviet republics
were being looted and there was an aggressive attempt to steer them into the
American orbit.
And while some were angry with Bush and Baker for
'concessions' made to Moscow, the truth is Bush and Baker lied to Gorbachev and
misled him. They unified Germany under false pretenses and were already at work
in dismantling and appropriating the Eastern Bloc. Plans for NATO expansion
were underway.
Though he angered the sodomite community in his ignoring of
AIDS, Bush was actually friendly enough to the homosexual community and
outraged Evangelicals when he signed Hate Crime legislation in 1990, and
allowed his campaign to work with homosexual lobbyists and activists.
Evangelicals vocally denounced Bush as relations with Israel
reached an all time low. Though strong during the Gulf War and the scud missile
attacks, later that year relations all but broke down and formal diplomacy all
but withered. He publically opposed the settlements in the occupied territories
and thus earned the ire of both Likud and American Evangelicals.
What more could we say? Apart from a probe of Skull and Bones
we can in conclusion mention the long history of corrupt business dealings, his
oil deals in Texas as well as the many 'arrangements' with the Saudis, Kuwaitis,
bin Laden's and of course the Carlyle Group. Bush could probably have been
investigated if not indicted over his conduct with regard to Carlyle. Privy to
inside information and CIA briefings Bush used his knowledge to enrich himself
and his friends.
Bush was an evil man and yet the world's praise of him is
neither surprising nor (to me) much of an issue. I reject his apostate
profession of Christianity as indeed many conservative Christians did at the
time of his presidency. He was preferred over someone like Dukakis or Clinton
but he was not admired. Most thought he was creepy, superficial and represented
a corrupt sector of the American landscape. But I expect the conservative political
order to whitewash his crimes and romanticise his memory. The same was done
with Reagan who was admittedly a lot more popular than Bush.
But it's strange to me that almost 26 years after he left
office, on the occasion of his death, today's Evangelicals praise him and
uphold him as this wonderful standard to be emulated. The coverage has been
nauseating.
His record speaks for itself but again a more careful probe
of his life will reveal that he's not even half of what they've made him out to
be. They praise his marriage and family. Well, perhaps. But perhaps not. For
those willing to seriously look into things, it's not quite the Normal Rockwell
scene some would make it out to be.
But for the folks running so-called Christian Media, the
praise of Bush and the whitewashing of his legacy is in accord with a
'Christian Worldview'.