Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

George Bush, Hypocrisy and the Culture of Death

By       Message Anthony Wade     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 4
Become a Fan
  (9 fans)
July 20, 2006

It took over five years for George W. Bush to issue his first presidential veto. For the past five years we have seen him sign every piece of legislation the GOP rubber stamp Congress has sent him. Cuts to student loan programs, approved. Nine billion in handouts to coal companies, approved. Six billion in handouts to gas companies, approved. Pharmaceutical companies wanted 1.2 trillion in the new prescription drug plan, approved. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while deficits surge, approved. Given the incendiary situation in the Middle East, the Iraq War, and the countless scandals his administration has faced, what did George Bush save his first veto for? To continue his crusade against stem cell research.

To hear George Bush explain this veto one would easily get confused. Clearly embarrassed by his veto, he would not even allow press coverage for the signing. Afterward however, Bush tried to explain his decision while surrounded by children who were born from frozen embryos. He started by using his old tired lines about how before he got here, there was no federal funding for this research at all. While true, it is deceptive because the research itself did not exist. Patting himself on the back further, he continued to present what he has allowed, which is next to nothing and will accomplish next to nothing, as a "balanced approach." Bush then disgustingly used the children to highlight his skewed logic by saying, "Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. We see that value in the children who are with us today. Each of these children began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization, but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete. Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo, and has been blessed with the chance to grow up in a loving family"

The part Bush left out of course is that at least 90% of such embryos are actually not adopted, they are destroyed. The stem cell advocates merely want to use the discarded embryos for research to try and cure some of mankind's most egregious diseases and ailments. It has the support of the American people and both parties. The Bush logic is not only skewed, it is asinine. His argument centers on outlawing the destruction of embryos, which will be destroyed anyway. So, in the mind of George Bush, throwing the embryos away in the trash is acceptable but using them to better mankind is somehow immoral? The cynic inside of me wonders if the Pharmaceutical Lobby that owns Bush would prefer a sick world where medication can alleviate symptoms but not impart a cure.

Moving past the why, Bush then attacked the proposed law by offering up this hypocritical nugget, "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it." Excuse me? What morality is Bush speaking of? The morality that sees him wage wars against countries that posed no threat to us and after his lies are exposed that led us into the war he claims he would do it all again? There are over 2,500 dead American soldiers Mr. Bush. Do you value their lives as much? Did you cross a "moral boundary" when you lied to Congress to start this war that has claimed their lives? What about the lives of the 100,000 dead Iraqis? Do they count in your vision of what a "decent society" is? What about the people that we have tortured to death in the name of "democracy"? What about the facts that the United Nations now says that one-third of all casualties in Lebanon are children? Does the "taking of innocent human life" mean all life to you, or just those that are politically expedient to you?

Why does this president place more value on the potential life of an embryo that has already been slated to be destroyed than he does for an American soldier? Life is all life and being pro-life should mean the protection of all life. The Muslim child in a desert half a world away cannot have less value in your eyes if you are to be consistent. As a Christian, God charged us with saving all life for His kingdom, not just those in our country or those that we can use politically. It means if you say that you care about the life of Terri Schiavo, then you must also care about the life of Sun Hudson. (http://www.opednews.com/wade_032005_delay_schiavo.htm). It means that the lives of the poor in New Orleans must have the same value as the lives of the unborn fetus. It means that the lives of those you would spend a lifetime opposing must have the same value as those you would spend a lifetime supporting.

George Bush has always supported a culture of death. From his days in Texas presiding over the most executions of any Governor before him and mocking one condemned soul who pleaded for her life, to signing the law that allows Texas that allows hospitals to kill patients who can no longer pay the bills for life-sustaining services. From ignoring the bloodshed in Lebanon as children die to refusing to attend any soldier funerals in America. From the torture chambers in Gitmo to the sands of Iraq, George W. Bush has left a trail of blood and death wherever he has gone. While that is reprehensible enough, it is nothing but blatant hypocrisy he shows when pretending to then care about life by refusing to allow scientists to use embryos slated for destruction to possibly ease human suffering. We should not be surprised however, since George W. Bush is all about human suffering. In speaking this week about his veto and the children he used to justify it Bush said, "They remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals". Bush is technically correct. America should not abandon her fundamental morals, no matter how obvious it is that her leader has.

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 46-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Preparing the Cover Story for the Theft of the Election

Sarah Palin, A Wolf in Moose Clothing

Hate and Hypocrisy Pays Well – The Rush Limbaugh Payoff

Birth of the Red-Letter Christian Movement

First They Came For the Soda"

Recognizing Glenn Beck's Religion