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
Those of us who respect the Constitution
also know tht it was written when it took weeks for the enemy to reach the United States.
Now it takes Minutes.
We are fighting an enemy who is already here.
Just weeks ago, one killed over 30 at Ft. Hood.
The 2009 equivalent of "Unless, you enjoy seeing mushroom clouds over American cities," eh?
No, you’d rather wait until more are here, more are amassed on our borders and our streets are bloody.
Flashback to Christmas '06...
DUI illegal kills Marine home on leave from Iraq
"It's more anger than anything," Cpl. Garrett Farris, 21, of Texas, told the Baltimore Examiner. "A guy goes to war and has no problems with that. He comes back to the States, and it's supposed to be our safe place."
It's laughable how you're so concerned about the borders, yet you defend a RINO who tried to ram amnesty for illegally-present foreign nationals, i.e., an invitation to foreign nationals everywhere to come on in, down the throats of ordinary Americans, citizens and lawfully-present aliens alike.
I’m with you brother. I spent my year in Iraq and can tell you that GWB was a hero to the Kurds and to most of the troops there. We knew he cared, we knew he would get us what we needed and wouldn’t d—k around for 3 months trying find his a$$ with both hands and a map. As far as these arm chair RINO intellectuals, i can tell you waxing eloquent don’t get the job done. Oh yeah, they also might want to learn to spell so their “intellect” won’t automatically be called into question.
1. I have never been to the DU site, or anything like it. Have you?
2. Go Navy, Beat Army! Again!
3. You have a “notion of just walking away”? Not me. I will always have your back.
4. Never voted for or supported Ron Paul.
5. I never specifically tore down the GOP. I will vote for the candidate that most closly resembles our Founding Fathers. Just like you and the rest of this brotherhood. I don’t want a 3rd party. I want the GOP to wake up.
6. What do you or any of us really know of Bush or anyone at that level. Let’s get real. You’re my hero - everyone honest one here is.
am sure you know puny well.
And oh by the way there was some enriched uranium found that was chronicled one day in the media. Further, i saw with my own eyes a rocket and explosives facility with very sophisticated chemical munitions labs built by the Germans (lots of paraphernalia labeled in German) - luckily the facility was blown up early in the war. I have no doubts the scumbag SH was getting ready to do some dirty deeds. Most of the stuff was scarfed up early in the war by our folks but enough remained to prove to me that this was bad stuff. My only problem with GWB was that he had the goods and he didn’t show it.
doc, I diagnose you as severely confused if not delusional. Or maybe your memory’s just not as good as you remember. Go back and look at Valerie and Joe, again - start with their Vanity Fair article.
rabscuttle, You’re not sane, yourself, if you find it necessary to give a flash back to November, 2006 on this Christmas Eve. How’s the Dem majority working out for you — you elected Obama as surely as you if you’d hit his chad.
Mod, do we have to put up with this stuff?
I think he is an honest down to earth man. But on domestic policy, immigration never using his veto pen on spending etc he stunk.
He kept us safe for 8 years, didn't take long for Obama to have another attack on our soil and he doesn't give a damn. Bush loved American and the citizens,but was far from perfect on the domestic front...
Exactly! Why is that?
I didn't elect Obama, since I neither campaigned for him nor voted for him.
I can't really say the same for McCain, at least, on the first of the two counts, however.
"I have to tell you, [Obama] is a decent person, a person that you
do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States."
U.S. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, 10 OCT. 2008
"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have
no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy."
U.S. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, 02 APR. 2004
Stupid comment. Bush didn’t run in 2008.
If Ron Paul weren’t a failure, maybe he’d be President. Better yet, if any of the Libertarians were a success, maybe they’d be able to win at least one of the 500+ offices in the House or the Senate.
No, the Libertarians are losers who find it necessary to blame everyone else for their failures.
Libertarians didn’t learn a thing from the disaster that resulted from refusing to “vote for the lesser of two evils” in 2006. Your failure elected Pelosi and Reid as Speaker of the House and Majority leader in the Senate. Your “leaders’” failure made way for the Acorn votes in 2008. Your lack of success elected Obama to the White House and gave the Dems overwhelming majorities in the House and the Senate.
On March 1999, presidential candidate George W. Bush declared during a press conference, "There ought to be limits to freedom."
God bless you and your family. Merry Christmas and thank you for your service.
You may want to ease up on the projection.
You are correct.
Quote:
When asked at a news conference in May what he thought about the site, Bush let loose, saying it was produced by a "garbage man" and suggesting that "there ought to be limits to freedom"--a line Bush's online critics have vowed to never let the world forget.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11/29/002r-112999-idx.html
Yes, you have some enemy here and whole lot more over there.
There are no fool proof methods of sealing the borders, althugh I agree, more needs to be done.
How do you propose placing restrictions on some that doesn’t restrict all?
I thought you all were preaching about how the Patriot Act took liberties away from us all?
This isn’t teh first multi-front war ever.
If you really want it to end, why not work to remove those rediculous ROE’s?
Let our Troops do their job, oppose restrictions on them and let them do what we train them to do.
How do you know he was a very principled man?
Do you know him, personally?
Or, do you believe this because of what you saw in his public persona?
What, exactly, did he do to protect America following 9/11?
We know he did nothing to prevent invaders from crossing the borders during his eight years in office. In fact, he ordered the INS to stand down on border and interior immigration enforcement.
>> GWB was, and is, a very principled man
The gratuitous attacks on Dubya are symptomatic of hysteria, and misplaced contempt.
Every word spent deriding Bush is one word not spent deriding the Commies. Take this thought one step further and you’ll get sense how I feel about the Bush bashing.
and right back at you.
The article is almost completely right on. obama is just bush on steroids. bush did terrible damage to the Republican party, on top of squandering the incredible opportunity of 2000.
Love live Ron Paul and traditional conservatism! Invite the world and invade the world is not conservatism, but rather globalist liberalism. Remember the very important issue of “Democrat wars”? bush sure fubared that as a Republican issue...
If we are fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here, why did duhbya insist on continuing to bring them here? Why must our brave men fight the hajis over there, only to come home to suffer from and be murdered by hajis here? Why did duhbya trade an increase in Saudi oil production for 15,000 more Saudi Arabian students (ummmm... After 9/11, why are there any Saudi Arabian students here?) On that note, when Saudi Arabians attacked us on 9/11 (you know, none of the highjackers were from Iraq or Afghanistan), why didn’t we declare war (Oh. Declaring war is part of fighting a war to win - just check our win/loss/draw record on declared vs undeclared wars) on Saudi Arabia? Did we attack Brazil and Peru (because they have large expatriate Japanese populations) when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, while at the same time leaving Japan alone?
Isn’t it great that the bushbots gave obama and his communist scum the “patriot act”? It isn’t popular in here, but the Nazis didn’t enact gun registration in Germany. A moronic government in the ‘20s already had. The Nazis just used the registration information to send the brownshirts to the doors of those who had guns. When the greenshirts come to haul away bushbots on obama’s legal orders under the “patriot act” (after some real or contrived “incident”), the bushbots will ask (in the classic Solzhenitsyn way): “Me? What for?”
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.