Media Mythmaker of the Month: George W. Bush

     In this, the first installment of a monthly column here at Media Mythmakers.com, I will focus on just two of the more egregious (and overlooked) examples of myths and misdirections from the Bush administration. Though politicians aren’t listed in my book’s subtitle (Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us), I do discuss many myths in the political arena. George W. Bush’s administration has been a textbook case in creating and perpetuating media myths. Bush is not alone in this, of course, and next month I will focus on some of the myths created by John Kerry.

     President Bush, in his effort to fortify his image as a resolute wartime president, has repeatedly taken a hard line against terrorists and those he sees as enemies of America. Bush clearly and repeatedly stated that he and his administration will not and do not negotiate with terrorists. On April 4, 2002, Bush made his position on negotiating with terrorists crystal clear: “No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death” (see President to Send Secretary Powell to Middle East - The White House). On September 23, 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated the Bush administration’s policy: “one thing we’ve learned over time, is that you can’t negotiate with these kinds of terrorists. You can’t give in to them because all it does is incentivise (sic) them to do it again and, therefore, our policy will remain unchanged.”

     Yet a cursory and objective look at the facts show that the Bush administration has in fact done exactly the opposite, negotiating both directly and indirectly with terrorists who have killed—and continue to kill—American citizens.

For example:

     While George W. Bush was accusing Saddam Hussein of helping to finance the Al Qaeda terrorism network, the Bush administration had knowingly done the same thing—even after the September 11 attacks. In March of 2002, the White House was involved in arranging a ransom payment to the radical Islamic group Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. (John McWethy, Ransom Arranged to Rebel Group, ABC News report, April 11, 2002; see Ransom Arranged to Rebel Group - ABC News.)

     ABC News reported that the U.S. government helped pay $300,000 in cash to the group, known to U.S. intelligence agencies as part of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network. The ransom was arranged to secure the release of two American missionaries, Martin and Gracia Burnham, taken hostage at a resort on May 27, 2001. The report says that, “the U.S. government helped pay $300,000 in private money more than a month ago in hopes of seeing Martin and Gracia Burnham freed by their radical Islamic captors.”

     The money was paid but the hostages were not released; one was later killed. Not only was the Bush White House willing to fund bin Laden's group and negotiate with terrorists, the administration even changed its policy on ransom to accommodate the payments. In February of 2002, the policy changed from stating that the U.S. government “will not pay ransom” to a more flexible policy allowing payments. (Marc Lerner, “Rebels Funnel Ransom Money to Al Qaeda,” The Washington Times, April 4, 2002.)

     This situation is all the more tragic given the horrific beheadings that have occurred in Iraq over the past months. A few countries, such as the Philippines, have negotiated with terrorists to save their hostages’ lives; Filipino Angelo de la Cruz was freed after his government pulled its troops out of Iraq. Bush, pretending that his administration had not done exactly the same thing, harshly criticized such countries, saying that they are showing cowardice and encouraging more terrorism.

     Several American hostages have been captured and gruesomely beheaded by their captors, including Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong, and Nicholas Berg. If I were members of the victims’ families, I would want to know why Bush was willing to pay ransom to terrorists for the lives of the Burnhams in 2001 but absolutely refused to negotiate for the lives of my loved ones—if not for his own political ends.

     Just days ago, two Italian hostages, Simona Torretta and Simona Pari, were freed after their government allegedly paid $1 million ransom. Though Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi denied the story, Gustavo Selva, the head of the foreign affairs commission in the lower house of parliament, told French radio that “The government has denied it, but that’s an official denial that comes in the context of the obligations of a government in order not to give the impression that it gave in to the ransom.…I believe that it did pay. In principle, one should not give in to ransoms. But this time, they had to.” (See Some Question if Ransom Paid for Hostages - MyrtleBeachOnline.com.)

     In July 2004, embattled U.S. forces surrounding the Iraqi holy city of Najaf found themselves at a standoff with armed followers of militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr demanded that the 2,500 U.S. forces withdraw from the area. With American casualties increasing daily and the peacekeeping mission at an embarrassing and very public stalemate, the Bush administration was desperate for a resolution. While they could not publicly negotiate with terrorist like al-Sadr directly, they could do so through an intermediary. In late August, the standoff finally ended when Iraq’s paramount Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, gave in to weeks of pleading and pressure by the Bush administration and agreed to meet with Muqtada al-Sadr.

     U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage tried to put the best spin on events in a statement at an August 28 press conference: “Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani played a very important role. But no one would have been able to have play that role without the military pressure that the Iraqi military put on Najaf. Armitage carefully avoided mentioning that the Bush administration’s negotiation-by-proxy allowed al-Sadr, a wanted man, to go free. It also didn’t require that al-Sadr disarm his followers.

     In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Americans naturally asked why it happened. Due in part to our inadequate and xenophobic news media, many Americans were jarred by the realization that our country has made powerful enemies in the world. Why did Osama bin Laden attack America? What was the motivation for such a destructive act?

     There were several answers to the question, though the Bush administration's official line was quickly and carefully set: America was attacked because Osama bin Laden hates our American freedoms. President Bush said the terrorists are a "barbaric enemy that hates what we stand for, hates our freedoms, hates our openness." Using the wonderfully abstract and patriotic word freedom, Bush recast the war in his own simplified and politically convenient terms: "We will defend freedom; we will defend the values we hold dear." How bin Laden (or Saddam Hussein, for that matter) threatens American freedoms or values was not explained.

     The president's facile explanations aside, there can be little doubt as to why bin Laden attacked America. He explained his motivations clearly and repeatedly in his writings and speeches: his chief complaint is the presence of infidels (i.e., Christian American troops) in the holy land (i.e., Saudi Arabia, homeland to Mecca and Medina, Islam's shrines). He is a terrorist, a religious terrorist, and from those motivations come his actions.

     In a December 22, 1998, interview with ABC News, Osama bin Laden began by stating that "We, in the World Islamic Front for jihad [holy war] against Jews and Crusaders, have . . . issued a crystal clear fatwa [religious ruling] calling on the Nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating Islamic holy sites . . . and all Islamic lands." (See An Interview with Osama bin Laden - ABC News.) Bin Laden repeated the purpose of the war on America several times, including making statements such as, "We will continue this course because it is part of our religion, and because God . . . ordered us to carry out jihad" and because of the "unjust American occupation of the land of the two mosques."

     How this was interpreted to mean that bin Laden hates American freedom and openness is unclear. It is not American freedom he objects to; it is American religion and foreign policy. Instead of trying to address the root of the problem, the Bush administration ignored the real causes and pursued its own agenda. Bush avoided mentioning the real reasons for the attacks in an effort to downplay religious tensions and not alienate our (few) Muslim allies. But bombing straw men (and their arguments) is a misguided and dangerous approach.

     George W. Bush, a born-again Christian, has made no secret of his faith. Both Bush and Osama bin Laden are deeply religious men, and each has claimed that his own nation has been chosen by God. Bin Laden has called for a jihad against Christian America; Bush has called for a "crusade" against Muslim terrorists. There is plenty of ammunition in both the Bible and Koran for those looking to justify their wars. Unfortunately, those who do not share either leader's extremist views (i.e., much of the world) are caught in the middle.

     These are only a few of the lesser-known myths surrounding President Bush, his administration, and their policies.

Past Essays

Back to top