Category: George W. Bush

When the Bush administration launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003, many news media outlets at the time portrayed the invasion as a response to 9/11. However, evidence suggests that a different motive was the primary reason for invasion, and that 9/11 among other reasons such as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and oil fields, were nothing more than excuses to justify the invasion. This essay will argue that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq in 2003 in order to strengthen America’s national security by expanding American-led hegemony as well as liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Contrary to popular belief, the invasion of Iraq was already pre-planned by the U.S. before the turn of the century. Echoing Lyndon B. Johnson’s involvement in the Vietnam War, Bush believed that world stability rests on the shoulders of American-led hegemony and its dominance over world politics and that potential threats can only be engaged with strident policies and the disposition to act unilaterally when required. Some of these beliefs would later become what is now known as the Bush doctrine, which would define the hallmark of the Bush administration. Through the doctrine, Robert Jervis explains that America is intent on shaping itself as the defender of the world and promoter of democracy. America believes that it must take tough measures so that countries in the Middle East would be more willing to embrace democracy once Saddam is overthrown, thus stabilizing the region. Bush asserted that a democratic reform in the Middle East will progress should Iraq be liberated, which at the time, even analysts skeptical of the ordeal believed that the impact of an Iraqi regime change can be large and beneficial. Donald Rumsfeld messaged Condoleezza Rice saying “If Sadam’s regime were ousted, we would have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere”, which indicates that America’s mission to spread democracy has always been a long-term goal. This supports the view that America desires to establish hegemony using the invasion as a means to do so.

Before the events of 9/11 the Bush administration was already driven by a sense of vulnerability and fear, in the likelihood that rogue states will rise up to challenge American-led hegemony. The administration considered the option of a preventive war in Iraq to ensure American dominance, in fear of reports of Saddam’s regime developing a WMD program. The Bush Doctrine insinuated that predicting future threats are not too difficult, because the domestic political system is often shaped by the state’s foreign policy. This is likely due to America’s experiences with the World Wars, which has led to the belief that the costs of inaction are grossly high, while taking the initiative is the optimum choice. America’s fear-fueled belief, however, has led the administration to overestimate the actual extent of the threat posed by the Iraqi regime. In a CIA report in 2003, the Iraqi regime was found to be defying UN resolutions and restrictions by engaging with its WMD program. The report claims that Iraq is deceiving the U.S. by denying engagement with WMD, and outlines Saddam’s intentions on acquiring nuclear weapons despite the absence of solid evidence. The CIA further assumed, with good confidence, that should Iraq receive the necessary materials to create nuclear weapons, then the regime will have one completed within less than a year, and 5 to 7 years without proper materials. However, the report also indicated some doubts from the CIA, partly from their moderate to low-level confidence of Iraq actually having nuclear weapons, and having the necessary components to build one, and when would they use WMD. This document suggests America’s desire to find, or create, a justifiable reason to launch an invasion of Iraq. This makes America seemed like it desires the Iraqi regime to harbor WMD to further America’s goals of maintaining itself as a global hegemon. A meeting between Rumsfeld and Franks in 2001, revealed that policy makers were already searching for reasons to justify an Iraq invasion. That being said, the Bush administration’s interest in asserting WMD as the main reason for invading Iraq was politically convenient as well. By declaring Iraq to possess WMD the U.S. has an excuse to invade Iraq that was deemed acceptable to everyone, which supports the idea that the U.S. is responding in a climate of fear.

The Bush administration’s obsession with securing national security out of fear of terrorism and threats of WMD goes back before the events of 9/11, as the Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were the main focus of chief Richard Clarke’s counterterrorism efforts, five months prior. Relating to the previous point of threat overestimation, the CIA endorsed the opinion of an analyst, who was not a nuclear weapons expert, who believed that Iraq acquired material needed to manufacture nuclear weapons, which was eventually passed on to President Bush. The administrations high interest in the materials, after gaining direct access, has led the CIA to notify Congress without prior arrangements with the State Department. This supports America’s fears of Iraq as a growing threat, revealed from America’s uncoordinated and reactionary responses to developments concerning the materials. After a report by the New York Times was released claiming that American officials believed that the materials were meant for nuclear weapons, White officials made attempts to draw attention to the report, where Condoleezza Rice was famously quoted for saying “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”. On this note, the expanding relative power of the U.S. amplifies its fear of national security. As major threats like the USSR disappeared in the late 90’s, the U.S. has come to elevate threats that were previously perceived to be manageable. Waltz noted that “the interest of the country in security came to be identified with the maintenance of a certain world order”, leading America’s desire to reshape global politics influenced by a combination of power, fear and perceived opportunity.

When Al Qaeda struck the twin towers in New York City, the Bush administration to saw the attack as an opportunity and justification for an invasion, where the president himself immediately presumed Saddam’s regime was involved. This sentiment was shared by Rumsfeld where he directed Pentagon Lawyer Jim Haynes and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to search for evidence and establish a connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. The opportunity to establish American-led hegemony in the Middle East was reflected in Bush’s statement to one of his advisers saying “We have an opportunity to restructure the world toward freedom, and we have to get it right”. Bush later expanded on the idea during a speech marking the half-year anniversary of the attack, proclaiming “When the terrorists are disrupted and scattered and discredited, we will see that the old and serious disputes can be settled within the bounds of reason, and goodwill, and mutual security. I see a peaceful world beyond the war on terror, and with courage and unity, we are building that world together”. Bush’s direct statements support the argument that the U.S. is determined to establish a world hegemony, using the invasion of Iraq as a stepping stone towards that goal.

However, as the U.S. attempted to establish a link between Saddam’s regime and Al-Qaeda, they found little evidence to support the suggested link. According to Richard Clarke, when Bush was informed that there was no real evidence, apart from Al-Qaeda, of Iraq being directly responsible for 9/11, Bush appeared to be irritated by the news. As a result, during an NSC meeting on September 13, Bush requested the CIA once more to search for a potential Iraqi involvement. And when Clarke’s office returned to report its analysis, they found a large ideological difference between Iraq and Al-Qaeda’s leadership, concluding that only flawed anecdotal evidence connected the two. The lack of convincing evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda was finally concluded in September 21 when the CIA’s intelligence community claimed that it had no clear evidence linking the events of 9/11 to Iraq.

Nevertheless, during Bush’s national address on 17 March 2003, he often made statements that were contradictory to evidence presented by the CIA. Statements such as “the regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. it has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al-Qaeda”, claimed that there is a link between Iraq and the terrorist group. Though flawed, Bush was likely using the statements as a means to gather support from the American people, drawing from recent memories of 9/11. This turned out to be successful as the ‘war on terror’ efforts gave the reason that the Bush administration needed to launch an invasion of Iraq.

In that same address, Bush made clear statements that relates back to the Bush Doctrine, emphasizing the need to secure American-led hegemony and uphold liberal democracy. Not only Bush justified America’s obligation to strip Iraq of, a possibly non-existent, WMD, but he also made optimistic-sounding messages of an Iraq under American military occupation where he stated: “As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free”. In this context, Bush shaped and consolidated the hegemonic role of America, as well as propagating the principle that liberal democracy is the ideological white knight of Iraq, stating that “in a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near”.

Through the address, Bush portrayed the Iraqi regime as the antithesis of American values, thus subtly progressing American ambitions to spread liberal democracy in the Middle East and maintain national security through Iraq’s liberation. Bush’s address was convincing enough to have members of the American public to put faith in the administration’s decision, believing that engaging with the Iraqi regime will encourage political reforms throughout the Middle East as well as protective measures against Al-Qaeda from regional governments. According to John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, Bush’s frequent claims that Iraq is an ominous looming threat is baseless, and argues that it should be regarded as a transparent endeavor to frighten the American public into supporting the war effort. But for many Americans, the threat felt real and largely owed to the events of 9/11 and the possibility that the Iraqi regime was cooperating with Al-Qaeda.

Among the reasons for the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq, the subject of Iraqi oil supplies is often raised as a key motivator of the invasion. However, similar to 9/11, I argue that controlling supplies of oil was not the primary motivator of the invasion, but was a key influence on the administration’s decision to take the initiative to invade instead. In the late 90’s Saddam’s regime was faced with international sanctions which led him to accept a UNSC resolution to create an Oil-for-Food program. The program resulted in oil revenues surging from $4.2 billion to $17.87 billion within three years, enabling Saddam to have more control over revenue distributions. The increased oil revenues likely influenced the Bush administration over its decision to invade Iraq, because at a September 17 NSC meeting, Bush administered plans to occupy Iraq that involves the seizure of their oil fields and revenues. To further support this argument, the occupation of Iraq’s oil supplies was also used as a form of leverage in case Iraq acted against American interests.

The Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 suggests a strong link between American hegemony and its interests of national security. Bush’s fear that Saddam’s regime poses a threat to American interests not only reveals America’s anxieties over diminishing influence, but also America’s expansive interest in being a world hegemony by promoting liberal democracy. The U.S. was already on its way to war with Iraq before 9/11 had occurred, determined to find a justifiable reason to carry out its ambitions, which the U.S. vaguely argued for Iraq’s possession of nuclear weapons. This determination resulted in the CIA to abrasively pass on reports to Congress and President Bush without proper analysis and review. America’s desire to liberate Iraq in order to fulfill its goals was observed by the covert Iraq Operations Group in April 2002 where a ‘regime change’ in Iraq was already in Bush’s plans. Therefore, the events of 9/11 and Iraq’s oil fields were not the main reasons of the administration’s decision to invade Iraq, as much as they are additional motivating factors that pushed the administration in that direction. The events of 9/11 potentially had the public associating terrorists with the Iraqi regime through Bush’s national address on March 17 2003, while occupying Iraqi oil fields will only bolster America’s already large presence on the world stage, legitimizing its hegemonic power. For these reasons, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the result of the Bush administration’s desire to secure America’s national security through promoting liberal democracy in the Middle East and becoming a world hegemon that no country dares to challenge.

Bibliography

1. Bush, George. “Address to the Nation” Address to the Nation. March 17, 2003.
2. Bush, George. “Address to the Nation” Address to the Nation. March 19, 2003.
3. Battle, Joyce. 2010. ‘THE IRAQ WAR – PART I: The U.S. Prepares For Conflict, 2001’. The National Security Archive. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm.
4. Central Intelligence Agency. 2003. ‘Iraq’s Continuing Programs For Weapons Of Mass Destruction’. Central Intelligence Agency.
5. Ignatieff, Michael. “THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 3-23-03; I Am Iraq”. The New York Times Magazine. The New York Times, March 23, 2003. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-3-23-03-i-am-iraq.html.
6. Jervis, Robert. 2003. ‘Understanding The Bush Doctrine’. Political Science Quarterly 118 (3): 365-388. doi:10.1002/j.1538-165x.2003.tb00398.x.
7. Rumsfeld, Donald. Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleezza Rice, July 27, 2001. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc06.pdf
8. Solingen, Etel. ‘Iraq’. In Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East, 143-63. Princeton University Press, 2007. http://www.jstor.org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/stable/j.ctt7s0kp.10.

Thirteen years later Americans are still vaguely knowledgeable about the United State’s rationale behind the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration informed Americans the war was going to begin with claims that are still to date, proven to be inaccurate. The true arcane reasoning of president, George Bush and vice president, Dick Cheney’s desire for the Iraq war is hidden behind their imperialistic attempt to economically benefit America and themselves. Despite the intense focus on the destruction of Saddam Hussein and Islamic extremist groups, fewer researchers have examined how the Bush-Cheney administration took advantage of the opportunity of war to benefit America, this research will concur with how the war on terror was sparked for American sovereignty.

Invasion of an oil-rich country on the Persian Gulf was great for the Bush administration because they saw attacking Iraq as the solution to U.S. problems. To understand their point of view, one should shift their focus from security threats to the U.S., and centralize around threats to American strategic power in the Middle East and it’s hegemony over the oil market.1

The first significant problem the Bush administration encountered was justifying the invasion of Iraq because they never threatened the United States. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was working with the terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, in attempts to aim the war on terror at Iraq. Although sources quickly discredited the claim, Iraq had possession of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in the country, which Bush and Cheney viewed as an alibi for invasion.2

Bush’s claim of Iraq having a strong supply of weapons of mass destruction within the nation was fully true, but misleading because the munitions were nearly two decades old along with out of Hussein’s access.3 The ordnance, in this case, chemical weapons, were fabricated by Iraq while in combat with Iran in war during the 1980s. Being funded by many Western nations, including the U.S., Iraq built up a healthy amount of chemical weapons to fight Iran.3

Through the duration of devising the Iraq war, many men involved must have faced the realization that engaging in the war was by no means completely necessary. Starting conflict with Iraq came with pressing risks, after no explicit threats, nor significant dangers presented. Urgent action was moderately aimless and undoubtedly not needed to maintain American safety. National issues of oil reserves and economy boost had solutions sitting much more conveniently than beginning a long and expensive foreign war. The decision to invade Iraq is merely a mystery because prior political interests would not have aligned with dismissing such major risks.

Even though there was no evidence of Islamic extremist groups basing out of Iraq, or furthermore any Iraqi involvement in 9/11, Iraq was the perfect location to show the strength and dominance of American military to the world. In Bush and Cheney’s recently transformed authoritative and dangerous government, they were ready implement their right to attack any foreign nation the U.S. classified as a threat. Iraq could be an exemplary country to prove this to the world. An Islamic state like Iraq could be effortlessly villainized by America, especially so soon after the tragic 9/11 attacks. Saddam Hussein possessed a sizable ego claiming that he had conquered the maximum U.S military power.14 Discontinuing Hussein’s leadership would amplify the military hegemony of the U.S., along with alert near-by terrorist groups to the the legitimacy of Bush and Cheney’s American military strength.15

The Bush-Cheney presidency has been considered to have steady economic ambition in mind when making national decisions. The U.S. economy by the year 2000 had slowed down following the vast expansion and development made in the preceding decade. Corporation merging and acquisitions, along with international investment growth, drove the rapid economy boost.17 The accelerated growth soon transformed into a national dilemma of deflation and overproduction of goods. With inflation of the USD as a priority, oil prices were the most effective booster to make it happen. Oil prices fluctuate primarily based on the situation of conflict in Middle Eastern nations. The Bush administration saw inflation as a path to the redistribution of wealth in America. Administered oil price inflation would move money where it needed to go. The Iraq war could simply solve this issue, if all tasks were followed out as planned. If the attempt failed, it would result in damage of the Middle East’s ability to supply oil across the world. The world economy flourishes off stable prices and mistakes in the Iraq war could easily upset the price stability. When minding popular societal interests, the U.S. should pressure war to be recognized as harmful, rather than as profitable.17 Powerful corporations can rarely afford to take economical risks the size of the U.S. government, so imperialism begins to benefit legal entities without major risk of loss involved.17

Saddam Hussein’s power prevented the U.S. from using the oil, due to sanctions. The U.S. believed that Hussein’s involvement with the oil reserves meant the majority of oil moving out Iraq would stay off the market. Concern lingered that if Hussein were to overcome challenges, he would be able to obtain political leverage through Iraqi oil. We have seen this happen before in attempts to make access to oil contingent on U.S. policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.10

The Pax Americana was state of peace among the western hemisphere where the U.S was at a point of political preponderance that established after WWII in 1945. The collapse of the Pax Americana weakened the U.S. hegemony over Middle Eastern oil and its overall political power in the region.11 The invasion of Iraq would establish control over these countries again. Before the Bush presidency, the Clinton administration enacted the policy of dual containment. Dual containment originated from the U.S. interest of being in control of Iran and Iraq.12 Due to inhumane treatment of Iraqi people, the sanctions continued to be omitted, as Iraq was increasingly transacting oil into rival foreign nations. Sales proceeded into France, China, and Russia.13 European engagements with Iranian included shipping oil and concessions out of the Persian Gulf, beating the U.S. goal of isolation. American companies remained out of the oil fields in Iraq and Iran, but rivals of the U.S. began penetrating both.13

As the Clinton presidency concluded and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continued, the Bush administration neglected to assist in balancing policies. Bush openly supported a far-right, Israeli favoring policy. The U.S. control of Iraq worked as a substitute for balancing policies, along with the solution to the militant element of hegemony throughout the Middle East.13

Along with interests in the U.S. economy through oil prices and increasing military authority, placing a military base on conquered land near the Persian Gulf would be very advantageous. If a military base was built on land gained during the Iraq war, it would permit the U.S to raise concern and intimidate any rival forces in the area. The more Iraqi soil that becomes obtained by the U.S, power and control will continue to increase the hegemony that Bush and Cheney are after. As regimes fall from U.S. war domination, the American influence would spread throughout the region. Islamic states would be exposed to Pax Americana and ideals previously only shared in nationalist states. If this theory were to flawlessly perform, imposing American beliefs and making an effort to discontinue violent regimes and Islamic views that disagree with the priorities of the United States.15

The Bush administration utilized a terrorist attack on U.S. soil to spark a prolonged war in the Middle East. Politicians working in defense tasks are known to find loopholes where they can put American taxpayer money into certain companies by awarding a high percent of military contracts to them. These businessmen working in the government are called “Military Hawks”.7 The ‘Ruling Coalition’ or ‘The revolving door’ is the term for when the “Military Hawks” utilize excessive taxpayer money to aid the growth and wealth private companies. Very frequently there is a form of connection to men in political power and the men working in the companies they favor. The connections in private firms are most commonly, former jobs, family members, or large investments. For example, Bush and Cheney wanted as much money to go into Halliburton (KBR) Military contracting as possible.4 Cheney was formerly the CEO of Halliburton until 2000, when he left to run as Bush’s vice president. As the Iraq war started shortly after, benefitting Halliburton began as well. Once Bush left office, Cheney returned into work at previously Halliburton, now known as KBR. The second time through Cheney took positions as chairman and chief executive officer.4

The U.S. government put around 138 Billion USD of taxpayer money for military contracts into Private and public listed firms. A large amount of money went to services including, but not limited to “providing private security, building infrastructure, and feeding the troops.” Nearly 30% of all that money went to Bush and Cheney’s Halliburton, profiting 39.5 Billion USD.5 The desire to dump wealth began to get too obvious when many deals between Halliburton and the U.S. Government were completed, without any bidding from competitive firms. A 568-million USD contract renewal was completed without any competition, which later led to a Justice Department lawsuit about suspected kickbacks between Halliburton and the U.S Government.5

Donald Rumsfeld, the American secretary of defense, and Cheney, represented the oil/arms lobbies through the Bush presidency. The republican duo had interests beyond the aggressive war strategies, they considered the high possibility that required occupation and reconstruction of post-war Iraq would be necessary to fund.20 This only allowed another valuable opportunity for Rumsfeld and Cheney to eye profits in the reliable and desirable company, Halliburton. Unofficial alliances orchestrated by political figures/businessman will continue to thrive whenever taxpayer money is being bid on government needs.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were the faces representing war and defense under the Bush administration. They were well known for being far-right of the mainstream and having nationalist priorities. A vast majority of the men working alongside Rumsfeld and Cheney in foreign policy were like-minded, extremists, and militarists.16 The concern in compromising ideology with Arab regimes diminished during Bush presidency, along accommodating beliefs of the Zionist lobby, Supporting the ‘Likud-National Liberal Movement’ of aiding to develop and protect a Jewish nation, currently Israel.19

Even though Iraq never posed as dangerous or having any intents to harm the U.S., Iraq could vastly enhance America’s global hegemony. With a sturdy supply of resources, particularly oil, Iraq was a gold mine that had potential to be fully utilized by the U.S.

1. Halliburton, KBR, and Iraq war contracting: A history so far. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/09/arianna-huffington/halliburton-kbr-and-iraq-war-contracting-history-s/
2. Jake Thomas. “Reminder: Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion From The Iraq War.” The Intellectualist, The Intellectualist, 26 Mar. 2018, mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/reminder-halliburton-made-39-5-billion-from-the-iraq-war-dHTPvtFKjUKqhblyAp_luQ/.
3. O’Brien, Connor, et al. “Military Hawks Win Big in Budget Deal – for Now.” POLITICO, 9 Feb. 2018, www.politico.com/story/2018/02/09/budget-deal-military-hawks-333128.
4. Joseph Cirincione Jessica T. Mathews George Perkovich, (2003), Iraq what’s next?, Washington, D.C., United States https://carnegieendowment.org/files/iraq_report_final.pdf
5. Edward L. Morse, Chair Amy Myers Jaffe, Project Director, 2001, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, New York, NY https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/energycfr.pdf
6. Duffield, J. S. (n.d.). ‘Oil and the Iraq War: How the United States Could Have Expected to Benefit, and Might Still. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/political_science_facpub/19/
7. Bryant, L., Lovseth, C., Murata, C., Potter-Henderson, L., & Ferris, T. (n.d.). Ray W. Howard Library: Global Affairs Center: The Waning Pax of Americana. Retrieved from https://library.shoreline.edu/GAC/Pax
8. Myers H, 1997, THE US POLICY OF DUAL CONTAINMENT TOWARD IRAN AND IRAQ IN THEORY AND PRACTICE, 2019 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.5940&rep=rep1&type=pdf
9. Post-Saddam Iraq: Linchpin of a New Oil Order. (2014, May 09). Retrieved from https://ips-dc.org/post-saddam_iraq_linchpin_of_a_new_oil_order/
10. Lynch, M, 2003, Taking Arabs seriously. Foreign Affairs, : 81–89, 2019 http://www.marclynch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Taking-Arabs-Seriously-Marc-Lynch.pdf
11. Cirincione, J. (n.d.). Origins of Regime Change in Iraq. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/2003/03/19/origins-of-regime-change-in-iraq-pub-1214
12. MMN International inc. (n.d.). Iraqis To Bush – Where Did All Our Money Go? Retrieved from http://www.mafhoum.com/press8/248E17.htm
13. Pieterse, J. N. (2004). Globalization or empire?New York, NY: Routledge. https://epdf.tips/globalization-or-empire.html
14. Theintercept. (2015, April 10). Twelve Years Later, US Media Still Can’t Get Iraqi WMD Story Right. Retrieved from https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/
15. How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War by Michael Lind April 10, 2003. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html
16. Report: Ties that Bind: Arms Industry Influence in the Bush Administration and Beyond. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://worldpolicy.org/report-ties-that-bind-arms-industry-influence-in-the-bush-administration-and-beyond/

The Presidency of George W Bush

George W Bush was sworn in as the President of The United States on 20 January 2001. He was the 43rd President of the United States and his term ended on 20 January 2009.

George W Bush , a Republican, took office following a very close and controversial victory over Democratic incumbent Vice President Al Gore. Four years later in 2004 Bush defeated Democrat John Kerry to win a reelection, something that his Father George HW Bush could not achieve. The 2000 Presidential Campaign was based on the Vision to Improve Education (No Child be left behind), Quality Health Care, Cut Taxes, Strengthen Social Security, and Help Charities and Faith base Groups serve those in need, A dangerous World requires a strong Military. Richard B Cheney (Dick Cheney) with no Presidential ambitions and wealth of experience in politics having been the White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defence offered expertise and weight to the Bush Presidency. As Bush had no foreign policy experience, he brought him an entire package of people who had served in his father’s tenure.

Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz formed the core members of the team.

The Promise to cut Taxes was the mainstay of the Presidential Campaign and Bush wasted no time in putting this to action. Even though he was handed over a Budget Surplus by the Bill Clinton Administration, the reduced economic growth had already accounted for the surplus and further Tax cuts would result in deficits. But he could not go back on an important election promise. The surplus in 2001 turned into a huge deficit by 2009 and debt rose from 31.2% to 52.3%.

President Bush teamed up with Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy to pass the ’No Child Left Behind Act’ in 2002. However, the promised Federal funding via ‘School Vouchers’ as proposed by the President was dropped.

The Nation was polarised as a result of the 2000 Elections. The unfortunate and tragic terrorist attacks happened nine months into Bush’s Presidency. This was the moment to unite the country. President Bush was upto the task and choice of returning to the White House after the attacks rather than moving to the safety of the bunker gave an important message that he was in charge and his leadership during the crisis was admirable. This led to the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban. But the capture and elimination of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden the Al Qaeda leader, was elusive. The United States got stuck in Afghanistan much similar to the Russians earlier on. The creation of Homeland Security and the passage of The Patriot Act into law happened soon after 9/11. The Act resulted in sweeping powers to the Government to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists. This along with the creation of the Office of Faith based and Community Initiatives further alienated many who thought Government money should not be funding organisations that are attached or connected to the Churches.

To detain and extract information from suspected terrorists, prisons were erected in the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Vice President Cheney advocated a suspension of compliance with the Geneva Conventions this resulted in torture of many in those prisons. The war mongering in the highest office was reaching a crescendo and even without a shred of evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda or WMD (weapons of mass destruction), the Vice President was instrumental in convincing Bush that the United States and its Allies have to invade Iraq to send a ‘larger message’ to the terrorists. The evidence shown was not convincing and despite Colin Powell assuring the UN Security Council, very few NATO Allies and those in the Middle East were convinced. Thus the coalition that struck Iraq was mostly American and British troops.

Although President Bush was inclined to the United States being Non-Interventionist at the beginning of his term, he changed dramatically after 9/11 to come with what is known as ‘Bush Doctrine’ and he coined the phrase “Axis of Evil’ which comprised Iraq, North Korea and Iran. In order to bring in Democracy world wide President Bush stated in 2005 ‘The survival of Liberty in our Land depends on the success of Liberty in other Lands’. Thus war mongering became a permanent feature of the Bush Administration. Thus the Defence expenditure rose from 304 billion USD in 2001 to 616 billion USD in fiscal year 2008.

On the home front the fiscal deficit was increasing and the debt rose to about 50% of the GDP by 2008. The financial deregulation and acceleration for years under the Bush Administration led to banks lending more and more to home buyers. The onset of the Economic Recession in 2008 and the falling Home prices led to the fear of the ‘housing bubble’ collapsing at any time. Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers all were on the verge of collapse The Bush Administration came up with the Economic Stabilization Plan 2008 which created the700 billion dollars TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Programme). The House and Senate passed the bill in October 2008. TARP almost certainly helped end the financial crisis but could not prevent the onset of the Great Recession.

By the end of the second term, President Bush was clearly unpopular. Did the Vice President exceed his brief on several matters, more importantly on matters relating to the war on Terror. At times it appeared that he was completing the unfinished tasks of the father of George W Bush. The war on Iraq without proper evidence stands out like a sore thumb. At times it was difficult to see who was calling the shots.

Ultimately, The few positive achievements that can be credited to the Bush Administration were entirely swamped by the mess created by the War on Terror, the bleak Economic outlook, and poor handling of the situation post-Katrina. George W Bush led the Nation into War, and enabled Human Rights Violations which left the Republican Party intensely unpopular with the Voters. The US continued to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the unpopular war and the crisis harmed the Nation’s growth substantially. President Bush’s rating scaled an all time high post 9/11 and fell to an abysmal low towards the end of his term. His Presidency has been rated below average by many. The Bush Presidency has revealed the problematic parts of American Politics, which are still present today and need to be addressed.

Works Cited

1. “Presidential Campaign Slogans.” PresidentsUSA.net, presidentsusa.net/campaignslogans.html.
2. Bush, George W. “Address on Signing the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
3. Gregg, Gary L. II. “George W. Bush: Impact and Legacy.” Miller Center, millercenter.org/president/gwbush/impact-and-legacy.
4. TARP: The Definition, Costs, Who it Helped. www.thebalance.com
5. Historical Tables / The White House www.whitehouse.gov
6. United States Senate. www.Senate.gov
7. “President Bush’s Speech on the Use of Force.” The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2002, www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911addresstothenation.htm.
8. “Presidential Election Results Between Al Gore and George Bush Too Close to Call.” History, 7 Nov. 2000, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/presidential-election-al-gore-george-bush-too-close-to-call.
9. “President Delivers State of the Union Address.” The White House, 29 Jan. 2002,