Posted on 12/24/2009 5:02:20 PM PST by rabscuttle385
George W. Bush is gone from Washington but his legacy, like an abandoned toxic waste dump, lingers on. Like President Franklin Roosevelt before him, President Bush helped redefine American freedom. And like Roosevelt's, Bush's changes were perversions of the clear vision the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.
What did freedom mean in the era of George Bush? In Iraq in September 2004, the U.S. military constructed Camp Liberty, a tent compound to house Iraqi detainees next to the Abu Ghraib prison. (The torture scandal and photos had been revealed in late April.) Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller declared that Camp Liberty and other changes in the treatment of Iraqi prisoners were "restoring the honor of America."
"Camp Liberty" was typical of the rhetorical strategy of the Bush administration: empty words in lieu of basic decency and honest dealing.
From the beginning, President Bush invoked freedom to sanctify his war on terrorism. In his Oval Office address on the night of September 11, 2001, Bush declared, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." He pronounced authoritatively on the motives of the attackers even before the FBI and CIA knew their identities. He never offered evidence that that was al-Qaeda's prime motivation.
Bush rarely missed a chance to proclaim that the war on terrorism was being fought to save freedom -- either U.S. freedom, or world freedom, or the freedom of future generations. In 2002, he proclaimed, "We are resolved to rout out terror wherever it exists to save the world for freedom." He contrasted freedom and terror as if they were the two ends of a seesaw. Because terror is the enemy of government, government necessarily becomes the champion of freedom. But this simple dichotomy made sense only if terrorists were the sole threat to freedom.
Once Bush proclaimed that freedom was his goal, then all opponents automatically became enemies of freedom. In the first presidential candidates' debate with Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush explained away the fierce opposition to the U.S. military in Iraq: "They're fighting us because they're fighting freedom."
In 1776, "Let Freedom Ring" was a response to the ringing of the Liberty Bell after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In contrast, those attending the 2004 Republican National Convention waved signs proclaiming, "Let Freedom Reign." That was the phrase that Bush scrawled on a piece of paper in June 2004 when National Security Adviser Condi Rice informed him that sovereignty in Iraq had been transferred to Iyad Allawi, the former CIA operative Bush had chosen to head Iraq's government. Supposedly, it took only a mere signing of a piece of paper by the U.S. occupation authority for Iraqis to have sovereignty -- even though an American puppet remained at the head of the government, and even though U.S. military forces continued bombarding civilians in cities throughout the country.
Military power and freedom
For Bush, military power was practically freedom incarnate. He informed Congress in 2002 that the "Department of Defense has become the most powerful force for freedom the world has ever seen." In his 2002 State of the Union address, after bragging about victories in Afghanistan, he proclaimed, "We have shown freedom's power." In an April 2003 speech to workers at the Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, he declared, "You build the weapons you build here because we love freedom in this country."
For Bush, the Pentagon budget was perhaps the clearest measure of America's devotion to freedom. At an April 9, 2002, Republican fundraiser in Connecticut, he bragged that "my defense budget is the largest increase in 20 years. You know, the price of freedom is high, but for me it's never too high because we fight for freedom." And if the government seized all of every citizen's paycheck -- instead of only 38 percent of it -- and used all the revenue to bankroll foreign military conquests, Americans would have absolute freedom.
Bush often spoke as if all he needed to do was pronounce the word "freedom" and all humanity was obliged to obey his commands. He declared in July 2003 that, because of U.S. military action in Iraq, people were "going to find out the word 'freedom' and 'America' are synonymous." Freedom, Iraqi-style, apparently meant giving the U.S. military the right to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and to obliterate the core of cities such as Fallujah. But the details of U.S. action in Iraq were irrelevant because of the transcendent goal Bush perennially proclaimed.
In his 2004 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Bush declared, "I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom." That was a formal renunciation of much of what America had once stood for. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, warned in 1795, "Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other." But, from Bush's view, U.S. military aggression is as much a force for liberation as any political or religious ideology ever claimed in the past.
Limiting government power
Bush declared on the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that "there is a line in our time ... between the defenders of human liberty, and those who seek to master the minds and souls of others." But if the United States claims the right to attack the people of any foreign regime that refuses to swear allegiance to the latest U.S. definition of freedom or democracy, the world will see America as the aggressor shackling the minds and wills of people around the world.
The more nations that America attacks in the name of liberty, the more foreigners will perceive America as the greatest threat both to their peace and self-rule. Not surprisingly, Bush's policies resulted in a collapse in the world's respect for the United States.
In the 18th century, "The Restraint of Government is the True Liberty and Freedom of the People" was a common American saying.
But for President Bush, freedom had little or nothing to do with limits on government power. Bush told a high-school audience in 2002, "I will not let -- your Government's not going to let people destroy the freedoms that we love in America." In a 2003 speech at the Bonaparte Auditorium at FBI headquarters in Washington, Bush declared, "For years the freedom of our people were [sic] really never in doubt because no one ever thought that the terrorists or anybody could come and hurt America. But that changed." Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge reflected the attitude of the Bush administration when he announced, "Liberty is the most precious gift we offer our citizens." If freedom is a gift from the government to the people, then government can take freedom away at its pleasure.
Respect for individual rights is the bulwark of freedom. Bush proudly declared in 2003, "No president has ever done more for human rights than I have." But, in order to defeat terrorists, he claimed the right to destroy all rights by using the "enemy combatant" label. Justice Antonin Scalia rightly noted in 2004, "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." But this was a luxury that American could no longer afford, at least according to the administration. The Bush administration fought tooth and nail to preserve the president's boundless power to strip people of all rights on the basis of his mere assertion. The administration continually dragged its feet with respect to obeying Supreme Court decisions that limited the president's power.
The Founding Fathers sought to protect freedom by creating a government of laws, not of men. But Bush freedom required the president to rise above federal law. The Justice Department advised the White House that the president's power to authorize torture was not constrained by the federal statute book because of "the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign against al-Qaeda and its allies." Justice Department memos from Bush's first term (released this past March) make it stark that the president's brain trust believed that the Constitution was as archaic and irrelevant as a covered wagon.
On the home front, Bush freedom meant "free speech zones" where demonstrators were quarantined to avoid tainting presidential photo opportunities. Bush freedom meant allowing the National Security Agency to vacuum up Americans' email without a warrant. Bush freedom meant entitling the Justice Department to round up the names of book buyers and library users under the USA PATRIOT Act.
Bush freedom was based on boundless trust in the righteousness of the rulers and all their actions. Bush offered Americans the same type of freedom that paternalist kings offered their subjects in distant eras. But Bush's supposedly lofty intentions were no substitute for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Freedom must not become simply another term for politicians to invoke to consecrate their power. Rather than stirring patriotic pride, Bush's invocations of freedom should have set off Americans' warning bells. It remains to be seen how much lasting damage he has done to Americans' vocabulary and political understanding.
Copyright © 2009 Future of Freedom Foundation
. . . in the attempt to be “balanced,” that he, like a lot of libertarians, is harsher in degree for the sins of the right than the left.
Think of it as being a little more harsh (or firm, if you will) on your own because you expect your own perhaps to know better, and your own proffers clues enough that he does know better. Nobody needs to be reminded of the sins of the left, but an awful lot of people seem to think--or act as though they think---that the right, if not conceived immaculately, can do little to no wrong, even in the face of empirical evidence that needs to be exhumed and revisited regularly enough lest Satayana's Law clap it for an even longer stretch in purgatory than His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Be Life President of the Republic Formerly Known as the United States, and Chairman of the Organisation of Halfrican Unity, would see it consigned.
The Paulites say Bush was a failure so we have Obama.
Thus, since Ron Paul and all other Libertarians are failures, a Libertarian is not and never will be president.
Agreement on what?
On the bailouts? On the Constitution? On the size and scope of Government?
It's pretty sad when your only defense is to spew ad hominems and smears, namely the tired allegation of DU membership and the implicit "liberaltarian" smear against small-l libertarians.
It's pretty sad when self-proclaimed "conservatives" quickly default to more Government when it's fairly evident that Government has failed terribly--at education, at health care, and even at defending the Republic, as demonstrated by the incompetence displayed on September 11 and more recently, the snafu involving unencrypted communications channels on the Predator drones because the U.S. government simply "assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit [the unencrypted communications channel]."
It's pretty sad when self-proclaimed "conservatives" turn their backs on Reagan's words that "government is the problem and not the solution."
Why would I support Alan Grayson, a liberal Democrat?
McCain is a fu%king fuddy duddy. Everytime I watch him “politic” his licked finger in the wind I want to vomit and smash my TV with a brick. I am a Navy vet.
And I’ll tell you another thing... the next time you reference me to the Democratic Underground I’m gonna be very pissed. Back off of it. I don’t like what’s become of our government anymore than you do. I despise Hussein and EVERYTHING liberal and anti-God.
As one vet to another, I have your back. Do you have mine? Because baby, when the day comes that they knock on my dooor to “take me away” is the day the bullets fly. I hope I’m not the only one standing there either. But I will be if I must.
An idiot is someone who drops everything to chase a robber down the street while leaving his front and back door swinging open, assuming that the robber is too stupid to double back and walk right in.
Because he’s good enough for Paul to accept him as co-sponsor of his signature legislation; that’s a real affinity of thought and purpose.
Back atcha!
There were many Democrats and many Republicans, of all ideological stripes, co-sponsoring his Federal Reserve audit legislation, yet you chose Alan Grayson.
Why?
Michele Bachmann also co-sponsored his bill; she even invited him to join her for a Town Hall on monetary policy in Minnesota.
They don't care who leaves them alone.
Huh-uh; Just like it’s McCain-Feingold, who cares who else sponsored it, it is Paul-Grayson, http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/19/paul-grayson-audit-the-fed-bill-passes-financial-services-committee/
Ironically DU is ripping Obama and the Senate-Reid_Obama Health reform plan now, very unhappy over there.
But yes, the only defense Bush-bots are left with for Bush is “They are using that argument.” This is every day, 24-7. Pretty pathetic.
Probably true, but a Liberty Republican has a good shot and is far better than a "moderate" (read Liberal RINO) Republican.
I cannot understand those Republicans that see a Constitutional government as their enemy and Liberal Republicans as their "friends".
We are headed in a direction of an all powerful state -- whether led by a Democrat or a Republican -- the pendulum needs to swing back toward the side of Liberty so that no politicians and no Party has the power to destroy us.
That's a given in my book. So you and ole Dakota can call us whatever names you want. I am banking that the call of Liberty is stronger than your puny voices.
Good post.
Once again!
Whew! you left the repubs .. good for you!!
At least that’s one less RINO in our midst!!!!!
Do they not originate “over there?”
Do they not train to attack us “over there?”
Sorry to pop your little Paulistinian mind, but they are also here and with the measures you all opposed by Bush, they weren’t able to pull of another attack, where they?
They got here long before Bush was in office and were training long before Bush was elected.
Compared to the total of our Forces, we have a small number “over there,” where the fight belongs.
Unless, you enjoy seeing American school children dodging IED’s in the way to school.
No, you’d rather wait until more are here, more are amassed on our borders and our streets are bloody.
BUsh took it back to the heart of the matter, “Over there!”
Bashing Bush and the War on Terror.
You and Democratic Underground spew the same talking points.
Despite the fallacious attribution of the quote to Jefferson, it was the RINO Gerald Ford who said , “ The government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.” That just may be the lowest common denominator to get to 50%+, like it or not.
You don’t want me referencing you to DU, then stop with their talk.
Congratulations on Navy, I was Army.
I have your back but with the notion of just walking away and allowing those who have been attacking us for so long to regroup, retrain and launch another attack, I wonder if you have mine.
Do yourself a big favor and visit some anti-war left sites and read what they say and then compare it to what you and Paul say. See how much in agreement you all are and how much you repeat their own bashing of Bush.
If you really fear that one day they will come to your doorto take you away, stop tearing the GOP down and help us rebuild it with strong candidates, not McCains.
Recognize that far from perfect, Bush took the fight back to where it needed to be.
You had a constitutional government.
Learn that the founders built in an amendment process that has been followed, whether we like all those amendments or not.
Those within the GOP are who are standing up to RINO’s moderates and now, Paulies.
Your efforts to destroy the GOP helps stop Democrats how?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.