The Expert Class Abandons Bush

by Jim Lobe

(IPS) WASHINGTON -- Increasingly concerned about a "faith-based presidency" under President George W Bush, normally Republican and non-partisan experts on a range of national and international issues have decided to either publicly endorse his challenger, Senator John Kerry, or make clear their opposition to the incumbent.

The phenomenon has been particularly true among foreign-policy specialists, many of whom have historically been devotees of the "realpolitik" practiced by Bush's father, George HW Bush, during his presidential tenure from 1989 to 1993.

But it also applies to many scientists, including Nobel laureates, who charge the Bush administration, which counts fundamentalist Christians among its strongest backers, has systematically ignored or misrepresented "science" on such issues as global warming and stem-cell research in the interests of ideology or corporate campaign contributors.

And, despite Bush's 2000 campaign mantra -- to "leave no child behind" -- a group of 36 nationally prominent pediatricians, including six past presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics, published a letter Sept. 29 endorsing Kerry and accusing the president of "persistent indifference" to the plight of children, particularly those living in poverty.

While prominent experts in their field have long taken political positions on specific issues, most try to remain as non-partisan as possible in order to preserve their access to officeholders in both major political parties. That concern is particularly relevant with respect to the Bush White House, which has earned a strong reputation not only for partisanship, but for vindictiveness against dissenters.

For retired government officials -- particularly ex-foreign service, intelligence and military officers, who often supplement their pensions with government consultancies -- speaking out can be costly.

As one top Republican operative told author Ron Suskind in a widely read article in this week's 'New York Times Sunday Magazine' devoted to the "faith-based" mindset that prevails within the administration, the decision-making process in the White House is not only the narrowest and most "exclusive" in modern history, but also the most "exclusionary."

The article quotes Bush's short-lived Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, complaining that, "in meetings, I'd ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty."

Her experience mirrors that of many government professionals, particularly in foreign policy and science, under Bush, which is why they are speaking out against his candidacy to an unprecedented extent.

Among the first to do so was a group of more than two-dozen retired senior career diplomats and military commanders, many of whom reached their top positions under Bush Sr and voted for his son in 2000, who called publicly for Bush's defeat in a joint statement issued last June.

"It is time for a change," declared the signers, who included a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Crowe, and a former head of the Air Force, Gen Merrill "Tony" McPeak, among others.

The letter accused the administration of being "blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it. Never before have so many us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy."

At the end of September, the group, which also included Bush Sr's top envoy in Somalia, Robert Oakley, and his spouse, the former head of the State Department's highly regarded bureau of intelligence and research, Phyllis Oakley, issued a new statement that was shockingly undiplomatic in its language. It called Bush's claim that U.S. citizens are safer as a result of the war in Iraq "the biggest lie of this campaign season."

Without endorsing Kerry, several other former top officials, notably the former chief of the U.S. Central Command, Bush's own special envoy to the Middle East and registered Republican, Gen Anthony Zinni, have also spoken out in unusually blunt terms against Bush's national-security policies.

They cite in particular his determination to carry out a neo-conservative blueprint for "democratising" the Middle East through conquest and intimidation in the face of consistent predictions by Pentagon, State Department and intelligence professionals that such an enterprise could be disastrous.

Even Bush Sr's national security adviser, Gen Brent Scowcroft, while all but certain to vote for Bush Jr out of loyalty to the family, spoke out strongly against U.S. Mideast policy just last week, calling the Iraq occupation a "failing venture," and urging a major change in foreign policy if Bush should win a second term.

For the true believers who surround Bush, however, such comments cut little ice. Suskind quotes one top aide as being dismissive of foreign policy or other kinds of realities that might undermine the president's vision.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," he said. "And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

If top-ranking, national-security professionals are frustrated and angry over Bush's faith-based approach to foreign policy, many scientists are furious over the way the administration has treated their discipline during his four years in office.

Some 4,000 scientists, including many who have worked on government contracts, recently signed a statement endorsed by 48 U.S. Nobel laureates last June that accused the administration of "ignor(ing) unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

Former National Institute of Health (NIH) Director Harold Varmus, who has become a strong Kerry backer, criticised in particular what he called the administration's "cavalier attitude toward the way in which it receives advice from the scientific community -- assembly panels that are often inadequately staffed with high-quality advisors, and then distorting the information it receives."

In a feature-length article Tuesday, 'Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue', the Times reported that the administration's distortions had been particularly pertinent to its treatment of global warming and climate change, noting, "many career scientists and officials have expressed frustration and anger privately but were unwilling to be identified for fear of losing their jobs."

It quoted Dr James Hansen, the government's top climate scientist for the past two decades, who is currently with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as anguishing over whether to speak out publicly about the threat posed by global warming and the administration's failure to address it.

"It's something that I've been worrying about for months," he told the Times. "If I don't do something now, I'll regret it."

Hansen accused the administration of "picking and choosing information according to the answer they want to get, and they've appointed so many people who are just focused on this that they really have an impact on the day-to-day flow of information."

The article noted that political appointees with no scientific background have regularly tampered with news releases in order to downplay the latest findings regarding global warming.

It cited the case of one candidate for a seat on the government's Arctic Research Commission who was interviewed by the White House for the post.

The scientist, Dr Sharon Smith, was asked only one question: "Do you support the president?" When she responded that she was not a fan of his economic and foreign policies, "I was removed from consideration instantly."

Last year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the nation's. biggest membership scientific group, publicly criticised the practice of asking candidates for scientific advisory posts about their political preferences, but to no avail.