George W. Bush supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. He has become an ersatz Republican elitist, who still thinks he is right to oppose President Trump. He remains a sore loser, who did not get his way. He is worse than the Democrats who continue to moan and groan because they lost the election. George is a Democrat in Republican’s clothing. It appears that his mission is not yet accomplished.
“Wolf in sheep’s clothing” is a term for something that seems innocent, but is a lethal enemy. Nothing could be a worse disguised enemy than someone who pretends to be in the same political party, but who attacks the president, being not too careful in hiding his true feelings.
Who would want the return to elite political power more than GWB? He was born, raised, and steeped in the rarified, upper echelons of the Republican party.
The Associated Press published part of a recent interview, at a book promotion in Simi, CA. Bush asserted that receding from global interaction creates a vacuum that would be filled with “… people who don’t share the ideology, the same sense of human rights and human dignity and freedom that we do,”
On his assertion of what will fill vacuums: Just exactly what countries does he mean? Does he really think we have friends in every nation into which we pour money? No, they still hate us, but they love our money. Does he think adversarial ideology will take over Europe, Britain, Mexico, etcetera? It must be much more complicated than I thought.
Whoever tries to fill the “vacuums” will do so at their financial peril. Estimated total foreign aid by Russia and China combined was less than half of US expenditures. If these evil forces had enough money, they would already have forced us to find other places to put our dollars.
What would be lost by focusing on our internal problems? I read recently that our foreign aid expenditures total about 1% of our budget. I also read that only 34% of our budget is discretionary.
That means 1% is really 3% of our discretionary expenses. With a total 2016 budget of about $4.15 trillion, $42.4 billion goes to “foreign assistance.” (And everyone made a big deal about Trump’s proposed $54 billion increase in military spending; just 1.35% of the total budget.;)
In the interview, Bush stated that he, “… didn’t intend to criticize Trump when he said recently that a free press is essential to democracy. Trump has referred to the press as the “enemy of the people.” Bush said at the library, the nation needed an independent press, but added that it needs to be accurate.”
The “independent press” used to be 98% news, and 2% editorials; today, editorials are more like 50 to 100% from many sources on both the left and the right. That changes the character of the press from providing information, to publishing propaganda. This is an abuse of the public platform and audiences. This is a perversion of journalism.
Wikipedia says, ” Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the “news of the day,” and that informs society to, at least, some degree.” Note that the word “reports” means relays, or conveys factual information about what happens, without interpretation. Also note the chagrin of “at least some degree.”
Spin, commentary, opinions, editorials, exaggerations, conflation, are not reports. Neither are unbalanced, “soft ball” interviews with only strongly opinionated, partisan, advocates or critics, selected to advance an ideological agenda. (e.g. Fox, MSNBC, CNN) That is propaganda.
The BBC is the best example of journalism today. They clearly delineate news from opinion, and entertainment. Walter Cronkite is a shining example of the qualities of journalists, and the journalism of the past. Persuasion is not the intent of true journalism.
What if a news source is not accurate, on purpose? What if the “free press” is vicious, verging on hate speech? What if their articles contain accurate facts, wrapped in overwhelming opinions, “newspeak,” “analysis,” and commentary that is clearly inaccurate, subjective, and savagely slanted in scope and innuendo? What do you call an organization that is staunchly, and consistently opposed to the elected government of the USA, almost to the point of sedition, subversion, insurgence, even insurrection? What kind of “free press” pounces on, and amplifies every mistake? What good is a free press that fearfully, and angrily projects, and postulates every possible, negative, future outcome of executive proposals? Does a free press overlook, denigrate, and downplay every positive possible scenario to extinction, or discredit?
I appreciate GWB’s talent as a painter; he was president during the most shocking attack on American soil since WW II. His standard-issue ideas, elitist disloyalty, and blindness to the enemy within is not what we need right now. We do not need disgruntled words from a veteran patrician. But I do not mean to criticize him.