More lies and misinformation

A young friend recently joined the scrum piling on President Obama for going to Africa, claiming he “should pay for the trip himself. ”  I was gonna let it alone but I just couldn’t get it out of my head. Other than a stop over in Ghana, this constitutes the President’s first trip to  Africa. We’ve played this game before, but anytime the nation’s first black president spends more than a dollar, the right wing freaks out about Barack Obama “wasting taxpayer dollars.” Back in 2011, the right claimed that First Lady Obama’s Africa trip would cost taxpayers millions, but even if you use numbers that the White House disagrees with ($424,000), they weren’t even close.

This time the cost of the trip seems to be the issue, although we know other travel “costs” have traditionally overstated by those for whom this President can do no right. Right wingers have  whipped up the fake outrage over a leaked document showing that President Obama’s upcoming Africa trip could cost $60-$100 million. What these same people don’t tell is that George and Laura Bush loved to go to Africa on the taxpayers’ dime…a lot. Anyone interested in the facts. If you weren’t outraged by George W. Bush’s  2 Africa trips and First Lady Laura’s additional 5 trips to Africa, then shut the hell up. And, no , they didn’t “pay for it themselves!@”

During Bush’s second term alone, Laura Bush made five “goodwill” trips to Africa. President Bush made the trip twice during his presidency. Here is former First Lady Bush at an event the night before their trip in 2008, “Tomorrow, President Bush and I leave for what will be my fifth trip to Africa since 2001, and his second trip to Africa since 2001. I’ve seen the determination of the people across Africa — and the compassion of the people of the United States of America.”  Wow, that’s a lot of trips to Africa. In 2007, Laura Bush also took her daughters with her, and they went on a safari. You know, the same kind of outing that President Obama just canceled.

Not much was going right for George W. Bush. Even before the economy crashed, his legacy was 9/11, the unpopular Iraq invasion, and Hurricane Katrina. Back in 2003, Bush laid the groundwork for making aid to Africa his legacy. One of the areas where Bush drew praise was that he spent billions of taxpayer dollars on aid to Africa. It’s funny how conservatives don’t utter a peep about George W. Bush dishing out more than ten times the amount of taxpayer money on aid than Obama will spend on his trip.

For some odd reason, the GAO (General Accounting Office) records on the cost of the Bush family’s Africa travels seem to have vanished. The media has contacted the GAO, but no specific numbers have been provided yet. President Clinton’s Africa trip in 1998 cost taxpayers $42.8 million. George W. Bush’s two trips five and ten years later were likely more expensive.

The Washington Post story didn’t say that Obama’s trip will cost $100 million, but that the trip could cost $60-100 million, and that the cost was based on similar African trips made in recent years, “Obama’s trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100 million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years, according to one person familiar with the journey, who was not authorized to speak for attribution.”

President Obama hasn’t made any trips to Africa, except a 22 hour stopover in Ghana in 2009, so it is pretty clear that Secret Service is basing their cost estimate on the cost of the Bush trips. Since George W. Bush made two presidential trips to Africa, it is likely that he spent more money in today’s dollars as President Obama will on his trip.

The reality is that presidential trips are expensive. It would be fair to be opposed to all of them, but the hypocrisy of only being outraged when certain presidents travel is unacceptable. George W. Bush appears to have had himself quite a little African spending spree, but apparently cost only matters when Barack Obama is the president who is doing the traveling.

My friend also criticized the trip (Don’t know what the connection is) on the basis that President Obama should first have to earn the money, I guess.  The exact quote is “I'm sure other presidents have made many costly trips in the past... but come on... here’s an individual who hasn’t earned his wealth through hard work. He's been handed his checks by tax-payers because he GIVES the people who don’t pay taxes what they want.”  I  suppose this implies that all Presidents should have “wealth” and that they all earned it.  Does the last president fit that mold? Not only no, but hell no! He has failed in essentially every business endeavor he has ever attempted , and unlike the current President, whose income pre-White House was at least honestly earned, if not large, “Dubya” actually was involved in some really shady dealings. The excerpt below is from the New York Times

“James R. Bath, friend and neighbor of George W. Bush, was used as a cash funnel from Osama bin Laden's rich father, Sheikh bin Laden, to set George W. Bush up in business, according to reputable sources from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The connection between GW Bush, the bin Laden family, and the Bank Commerce Credit International (BCCI) is well documented. The excerpts from the books and news articles are supplemented by the links at the bottom of the page to the cash flow charts of the bin Laden-backed BCCI money which was funneled into the Bush family in return for favors.

The Bush family fortune originated with the opium trade in China in the 19th century. This is a well documented and established fact. The Bush family history, as the Kennedy family history,  epitomized the old saying "behind every great fortune lies a great crime" This , I guess is what my young friend meant by "earned their wealth." Perhaps he would prefer a drug lord for our next President?