NEWS

In the October 11 diary entry I began listing the reasons that George Bush, if elected President, will turn our country into an American wasteland. I listed He'll Screw Up the Environment as number one due to his absymal record in Texas. Today I'll cover foreign affairs.

When you approach them (foreign affairs) with superficial clichés, an unwillingness to master details and an over-reliance on military power, you end up with Americans in Lebanon in 1982--one of George W. Bush's preferred foreign policy moments. Scary. Thomas Friedman, "The Wrong Answer", New York Times on the Web, October 17.

While Thomas Friedman, well-known columnist for the New York Times, describes George Bush's second debate approval of Ronald Reagan's Lebanon policy in 1982 as scary, other Bush remarks on foreign policy during the course of this election have been equally distressing.

During the same debate on October 10, Bush, trying to show off his knowledge and pronunciation of former Russian Prime Minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin's name, claimed that Chernomyrdin stole IMF(international monetary fund) money. As a result of Bush's impulsive accusation, the former prime minister, referring to the Texas Governor as an irresponsible politician, is threatening to sue him. "Such statements," Chernomyrdin said at a press conference, "are not only damaging but they are also dangerous to the public." Bush's statement does not bode well for US Russian relations during his possible tenancy of the White House.

Another troubling moment during the October 10th debate, was Bush's stated belief that the United States should not become involved in foreign countries unless it promotes our strategic interest.  Although he failed to define the parameters of our strategic interests, it's obvious that poor countries like Haiti or Rwanda don't fit the bill. The Republican Party's definition of strategic interest actually includes their own selfish business interests and not much else.

Looking at the G.O.P's past foreign policy record in this regard is very disturbing. I'm thinking of the Eisenhower/ CIA overthrow of the elected government in Guatemala in the 1950's, because United Fruit, an American company, was going to have to pay an equitable price for their Guatemalan land under the new government's policy. Major stockholders in United Fruit at the time were Allen Dulles(head of the CIA) and his brother, John Foster Dulles(Secretary of State). The CIA backed overthrow of the Guatemalan government ushered in years of murder and torture of the Indians. One of the worst Guatemalan dictators was Rios Montt. He was supported both by Ronald Reagan and Pat Robertson, who liked him because he was a so-called born again Christian. Rios Montt is really a born again demon.

Then there was the Nixon-CIA backed overthrow of the Allende government in Chile which led to the historically democratic country being under the murderous dictator, Pinochet, who was recently supported by ex-president, George Bush, in his pitiful plea for clemency for war crimes. Nixon, by the way was our first and only sociopathic president. As outlined by Anthony Summers in Arrogance of Power, Nixon committed a treasonous act by promising special favors to the then president of South Vietnam, Thieu, if he boycotted the peace talks with the North Vietnamese which were being held right before the 1968 US presidential election. Nixon got what he wanted. Thieu stayed away and nothing was settled before the election, giving Nixon the edge in the contest against Vice President Humphery.

More recently, there was the tacit Republican support of the Hitler clone in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, before the Gulf War. We wouldn't have had to fight that particular war if we'd had a humanitarian policy that condemned Saddam Hussein when he poisoned the Kurds and used poison gas on the Iranians during the Iraq/Iran war in the 1980's. But once he invaded Kuwait and threatened our strategic oil supplies, and George W. Bush's Harkin Oil Company, we had to reevaluate our tacit support. After defeating the Iraqis in battle during the Gulf War, apparently, it wasn't in our strategic interest to remove the bloody butcher from power.

I guess it also wasn't in our strategic interest to stop the slaughter in Bosnia. At least nothing was done about it until Clinton and Gore came into office, and Gore insisted on a more aggressive American stance in Bosnia. Nor was it a Republican idea to go up against Milosovic in Kosovo. Had we not taken an assertive action against the villainous dictator, Milosovic would still be in power in Serbia and millions of Moslems in Kosovo would be dead.

I'm damn sick of Bush and his fellow Republicans' strategic interest policy. It's not easy being a psychic when a deaf and brain dead Republican is in the White House. I say deaf because they don't hear the cries of the victims of a selfish foreign policy that puts the interests of a few rich businessmen ahead of global humanitarian concerns. But the victims of murderous oppression in Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo entered my dreams and turned them into nightmares, and I don't want to go back to an American foreign policy that ignores evil. We need a president, a leader like Al Gore or Bill Clinton, who will stand up against malignant individuals that seek to turn their countries into killing grounds rather than relinquish their ill-gotten power.