The real reasons...

In the prelude to the US election, it seems everyone has been lopsidedly focused on the war in Iraq, terrorism, and the recession at home. But there are many other domestic and foreign issues that constantly pass under the radar. Almost all of them are derived from a single common thread: Bush's personal religious agenda, that of the religious right, and to a large extent that of the Vatican. The administration has consistently damaged American scientific institutions and their relationships with governing bodies. They seem to believe that the science itself is of no value, that the truth-content is irrelevant. A scientist is only someone who can endorse the Bush agenda, or be fired. The motivation for this kind of insanity is undoubtedly religious, and is rooted in Bush's deeply held sense of religious supremacy. He knows things the scientists don't. He talks to God. What good is a scientific opinion when you've got God on the line? On of the most offensive instances of this religious policy-making is in Bush's attitude toward the WHO, the UN population fund, and other organizations which support condom distribution to fight AIDS in Africa. From boston.com:

The Bush administration announced yesterday that it is withholding the United States' contribution to the UN Population Fund for the third straight year, once again accusing the family-planning organization of supporting coercive abortion in China. The decision to withhold $34 million -- about 10 percent of the fund's total budget -- from the world's largest international source of funding for family planning came on the last day of the International AIDS Conference in Bangkok, where US officials emphasized abstinence as an important way to combat AIDS. [snip] One of the first acts of Bush's presidency was reinstating the ''Mexico City Policy," which prohibits federal funding for overseas groups that support abortion. Initially, the Bush administration showed support for the Population Fund. During his confirmation hearing, Powell praised the fund's ''invaluable work" and released $25 million for the fund in 2001, according to Sarah Craven, the fund's Washington representative. In 2002, Congress increased the figure to $34 million. But the administration opted to hold up the funds after Bush received a letter in February 2002 urging him to do so from three Republican leaders in Congress. Richard Armey of Texas, who was House majority leader at the time; Tom DeLay of Texas, who was majority whip; and Dennis J. Hastert of Illinois, speaker of the House, wrote that the fund essentially ''participates in the management" of China's coercive family-planning programs. In 2002, Powell dispatched a team to China to look into the allegations. It reported finding ''no evidence that the UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."

Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post:

Since the last AIDS conference in Barcelona in 2002, the number of people being treated for the disease has doubled in the developing world to 440,000. At the same time, 6 million people died from the virus and 10 million more became infected, WHO figures show. [snip] In 2002 President Bush introduced a $15 billion AIDS-fighting plan, mainly directed toward 14 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, plus Vietnam. Critics say the United States should instead give much of that money to the U.N.-sponsored Global Fund, which reaches 128 countries. The U.S. money comes with strings attached -- one-third of that earmarked for prevention goes to abstinence-first programs [read: religious/obstructionist]. Also, the money can only buy branded drugs made by companies in rich countries, shutting out cheaper generic medicines from countries such as India, Brazil and Thailand. Global Fund money can go toward generics.

I wonder how much of that money is going to Catholic organizations operating in Africa, where at least one diocese was distributing information claiming that "condoms cause AIDS." Are they really pro-abstinence or are they anti-condom? Anyway, back to my main point: it doesn't really matter whether Iraq has/had WMDs, or how many terrorists there are, or that the economy is in a slump. We need to pause and look at everything else. Then it may turn out that war with Iraq (under false pretenses) really is the most redeeming item on Bush's resume.