Since Democrats won control of both the House and Senate in November’s elections, “Bush-bashing” has reached unprecedented levels. What has been interesting to watch is the way Bush’s critics are treated by most in the media. Bush-bashing seems to earn them immunity to much criticism themselves, even though some are especially worthy of it.
USA Today reported Monday that retiring U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was going to use his farewell speech to blast President Bush and the United States. The report said that Annan would “accuse the administration of trying to secure the United States from terrorism in part by dominating other nations through force, committing what he termed human rights abuses and taking military action without broad international support.” The report also said that Annan would “list principles for international relations, among them ‘respect for human rights and the rule of law.’ ”
What the report of Annan’s criticism of Bush did not mention was news of recent revelations of gross incompetence exhibited by the U.N. in the refurbishment of their headquarters in New York City. News of the refurbishment has been described by Donald Trump as “the most ridiculous construction development I have ever witnessed … being run by a bunch of incompetents, and … a disgrace to this country.”
Another piece of information not included in the report about Annan’s criticism of Bush’s Iraq policy is UNICEF’s claim from the ’90s that 5,000 Iraqi children a day were dying as a result of sanctions prior to the invasion. The report did mention the U.N.’s role, under Annan, in the corrupt oil-for-food program in Iraq, which came about in response to claims of suffering due to sanctions. That mention, though, did not come until the next to last paragraph of the article, and only then in the context of the obligatory quote from one of Annan’s critics. The oil-for-food program, which was in effect from 1996 to 2003, was discovered to have gone largely to line the pockets and build the palaces of Saddam Hussein to the tune of more than $1.5 billion in kickbacks.
It seems to me that a mention of Annan’s oversight of this program might rate a mention a little higher in an article about his speech criticizing the current administration for its action in Iraq and his call for respect for the rule of law and more responsible government oversight. It appears, though, that criticism of the Bush administration buys one a pass to largely escape criticism themselves.
Another recent and very vocal critic of President Bush rarely ever has his past incompetence mentioned in mainstream media reports. Former President Jimmy Carter has long been a critic of the Bush administration. One particularly good example is a 2004 Guardian article that quoted Carter as accusing President Bush of exploiting Sept. 11. Yet, in the same article, Carter is described as “the most decent man to have occupied the White House in living memory” and as having been “too nice for the White House.” The reporter then went on to downplay the failures of the Carter administration, saying the public had blamed Carter for something that was not in his control, the hostage situation in Iran, and that, anyway, it was not as horrible and deadly as Iraq has been for Bush.
Carter has continued to be a frequent and very vocal opponent of Bush’s policies, most recently when promoting his book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” Carter, however he is regularly praised as a dignified elder statesman in spite of what has been not only unprecedented, but often undignified and unstatesman-like, criticism of a sitting president by a former president.
Not only are liberal favorites immune to criticism when they criticize the current president, but conservatives receive like treatment as long as they are bashing Bush. Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., for example, became a media darling criticizing the president and taking positions contrary to those held by the majority of Republicans. McCain’s support for the mission in Iraq, which has been strong and consistent, has received most media attention when it was focused on disagreements with Bush administration policy on the issues of torture and troop numbers.
One very recent example of favorable treatment of conservatives who criticize Bush can be seen in the coverage of the Iraq Survey Group report. Media coverage of James Baker was not nearly as favorable during the 2000 recount when he represented George W. Bush, as it is now that he is leading the group whose report harshly criticizes the Bush policy in Iraq.
Media lesson for the day — if you want to be thought of as a brilliant, honest, open-minded and beloved statesman, be as vocal as possible in your criticism of President George W. Bush.
Lorie Byrd is a member of The Examiner Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at wizbangblog.com.
