Her hubby had her name as Valerie Plame in Who's Who.
If knowing her name were truly such a monumental crime, than why was it in Who's Who?
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
I didn’t ask about McCain, I asked about Paul.
Perhaps you should look back over my comments, I despise McCain almost as much as I do Paul, but in the two party system, it was either him or Obama and with Palin on his ticket, it gave him a slight advantage in my mind.
Now, will you answer about Paul?
Why would I expect you to praise Palin for anything? She's not an isolationist moonbat like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Alex Jones, Lew Rockwell, Bob Barr, and all of the other freaks you support. Considering the fact that she supports such things like America's alliance with Israel, America's mission in Iraq and Afganistan, ect...why would you vote for her instead of Ron Paul?
Unless Paul endorsed a racist policy, praised an individual's racist behavior, or acted in a manner that connotes his approval of racism, he did nothing improper, since everyone to some extent has biases and prejudices.
I will admit to voting for both Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, but as for the rest, I would strongly suggest that you produce the statements where expressed my support for them.
As for Barr, he's just another statist and an opportunist. Why the LP put him up as their candidate is beyond me.
OK, let's pretend you don't support the isolationist views of the others and only support the isolationist views of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin: Considering the fact that Sarah Palin supports such things like America's alliance with Israel, America's mission in Iraq and Afganistan, ect...why would you vote for her instead of Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin?
>>”Tried that before. Usually it just gets dismissed as “BDS.””
So that made you decide to go Full bore BDS with this propaganda piece?
You need to understand something. As a soldier in an “unpopular” war, I have personally felt the slings and arrows of outrageous propaganda, for the last 40 years. We are now in a war. MY comrades in arms are dieing and being maimed in that war, as we speak. I have listened, for the last 8 years, to the mediots, and various radicals, lie about and defame George Bush. A steady drumbeat of lie, after lie, after lie.
I have seen a treasonous b*st*rd faux “war hero” ALMOST become Commander in Chief. GW Bush may have been an imperfect human, and did things I didn’t like; but he was the only president since Reagan (with the possible exception of GHWB) who had any affinity for the military.
He was an ACTUAL Commander in Chief, and the troops KNEW it. And, I know it. That makes us, in some indefinable way, brothers, and I think that many other vets feel the same way. Now, you may not like your brother, or approve some of the things he may do; but when he is under fire, you are all in it together. Every wound hurts US. Every lump of dirt thrown at him splatters in OUR face. Every time some jackass says: “undeclared, illegal, unnecessary war,” it is not just rhetoric, not just hyperbole, it is a wounding.
When leftist radicals say such, it is understandable; they are committed enemies of liberty and America. When “rightist” radicals say it, it hurts just the same.
DG
If she endorses the nation-building that is going on, then no.
Her support of McCain in the 2010 primary elections is an immediate disqualifier in my books.
: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.”
Last month I posted here that if you move just an inch too far to the right, the Bushies will call you a DU advocate. Here it is again ;-)
“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.”
There has never been a country as well armed as the USA whereby a dictator successfully overthrew it. America is armed to the gills. Obama’s thugs will never even make it to your front door!
Bush seemsl ike the perfect President compared to what we’re stuck with now.
The same Ron Paul who refused to endorse Sarah? The only Republican presidential nominee who refused to do so iirc.
Biases and prejudices? He accepted money from neo Nazis and refused to give it back after being called out. Name one Republican candidate in recent memory who ever did that? And let’s not forget the comments made in his old newsletter.
Would you rather her endorse a Democrat?
I would rather she had stayed quiet instead of jumping in to support McCain against a potential Hayworth run.
Why would Ron Paul endorse the statist RINO McCain?
Clearly you don't know about Juan McCain...you know, the man that Sarah Palin supports "100 percent."
He took money from the corrupt Crist buddy Rothstein in Florida.
He told ACORN and SEIU activists in 2006 that they are "what makes America special."
He helped finance and arm Albanian terrorists linked to al-Qaeda during the Kosovo War in the late 1990s.
He took bribes and kickbacks from Keating in the early 1980s during the Savings and Loan crisis.
He regularly hangs out with La Raza ("The Race") folks, a bunch of racists whose goal is to perpetrate a Reconquista against Americans.
I was on the Bush-bot side for many years but saw the light the last few.
Both liberal/progressives and the Bush-big-gov-conservatives are very shortsighted. They want the federal government to control our lives, and assume that those in charge of the federal government and our lives will always agree with them and their goals (pro-abort or anti-abort as an example.) . Then when we do get to an election they have to say the their side must win (McCain) because the other side will kill us all if they win, with the power they gave the government themselves ironically.
Do Bush-bots want Obama using homeland security to watch them? Do liberals want Cheney in charge of the ‘death panels’ ?? No, both claim the other side will kill us with the power, but not them,
Now Mark Levin writes about Liberty, but the past eight years he implied that Liberty was the talk of traitors (I was a Levin fan too,)
I always liked GHW Bush and looking back he left us in 1993 with some good times which Clinton took credit for, compared to now. I think GHW Bush and Clinton ended up with non-disasterous legacies because they had opposing congresses. GHW Bush handled Iraq very responsibly unlike his son.
GWB had his own congress (and 9/11) and saw it as a blank check. Much in the same way Obama see’s his own congress, the disaster he was left, and using Bush to blame for further problems he causesn a blank check. Two disasters.
Conclusion: We need divided government and gridlock.
Thank you, but give Obama time...
Funny. I asked about Paul accepting funds and endorsement from known racists and you answer by condemning McCain for doing just that.
But, for Paul you issue excuses for doing just that.
Seek psychiatric help or a deprogrammer.
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.