How George W. Bush Redefined American Freedom

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.

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.

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.

Christmas in the Trenches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9coPzDx6tA&feature=player_embedded

A Victory for Human Kindness http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25206-2004Dec24.html

If they had the guts to quit fighting for one day, so will I, to honor them — and those like them, far away from home this Christmas with no respite from the fight.

Merry Christmas!

Rabs is here (presumably) and I am here (I KNOW) because this is NOT a pubbie PARTY site, much as you might like to think differently. This is a site dedicated to preserving and saving the CONSTITUTION and the Republic created by it in our names. Pity you can’t fathom the difference.

And since much of your precious republican party is run and controlled by Romney-bots and McLame-ites and other elitists who are, at their core, not one whit different than the Rats, why would ANYONE in their right mind NOT want to either take conservative control of or at least eradicate that party and that evil influence? So the better question is: Why are YOU yet a part of that party?

Nice spin, but not totally accurate. But, I suspect you know that.

The website didn’t just “parody” Bush, but nearly mirrored the official site, close even to the web address using Bush’s name, which could mislead many into feeling they were viewing the official site.

Parodies aren’t commonly outright lies, either.

Allow me to remind you, though, the “free speech” clause addresses congress not placing limitations on speech, which has been being done since the nation was formed.

Think not? Cry fire in a crowded theater or stand up in an airplane and begin praising Allah or screaming the wings are falling off. See how protected your speech is then.

Still, besides that, someone frustrated and agitated blurts something out and you all go out of your way to assign the meaning you wish to the words.

Ron Paul stood before the nation and basically blamed America for being attacked on 911 and you all cry we didn’t hear what we did. Even he tried to claim he didn’t say what he said, but we all heard it.

We didn’t cry he didn’t have the right to say it, just it disqualified him from holding high office in our estimation.

Not exactly the same as Bush’s frustrated comment, but shows the mind of the Ron Paulie’s in still pointing fingers at a man after he is out of office and burying their heads somewhere when a kook utters his own whiney frustrated words.

And for all the cries of “freedom loving conservatives,” coming out of the Paulies camp, we also hear a lot of restrictions wanted placed on specific groups of Americans.

So Dan, why not tell us all, are you an Anarchist or a Minarchist?

THIS Vietnam vet Marine’s got you covered. Just let me know. We ARE in this together and our Nation IS at stake here. Too bad some can’t understand that we have TWO domestic enemies: the current elite in power and the elite who paved the way for the Obambi crew... the Bushites and the McLame-ites. Their party is their whole identity and woe betide those who will not toe that line, whether members of the Party or not.

Merry CHRISTmas, my FRiend.

I don't recall actually saying this IS a Republican site, but a site known for where Republicans to hang out.

You think you have sole proprietorship over the constitution? Wrong. I took the same oath you did and stand up for the constitution.

You do not have the sole right to interpreting the constitution either. Nor do you acknowledge the several amendments legally placed with the constitution by the very method set in place by the writers of the constitution.

Paul seems to ignore that too.

No, I do not like all the amendments, but the country doesn't revolve around me, like Paulies think of themselves.

What steps are being taken by Paulies or Paul himself to repeal some amendments?

NONE!!!!!!!

Just whining and crying that they uphold the constitution.

So here is your chance. Outline for us all just which amendments you would repeal, how you would go about it and why they need repealed.

You ask why am I still in the party? Because I am working from within the party to change things, oust the RINO’s, minimize the moderates and promote conservative candidates.

What I don't do is stand alongside the party, bellyaching about it, downing it, condemning it and promote Campaign for Liberty to seize and take over the party and create Liberalism light rebranded as conservative.

Now, why do you worry about the Republican party instead of promoting your real party, Libertarian, which has never caught the public’s interest in nearly 40 years?

Just explain, none of you are Republicans, you claim. You say you left the party long ago and have embraced Libertarianism. So, why spend all your time condemning your former party instead of building your new party?

If you think parroting the anti-war leftists is conservatism, I feel real bad for you.

Your question answers itself. They have nothing to contribute apart from their sanctimonious pissing and moaning.

They're too absorbed in their delusional self importance to recognize that their constant whining is no more productive, and no less repellent, than masturbating in public.

Well, well, nimrod and dufus... (you can figure out the order you wanna be in)... How lovely.

No, dufus, I am NOT a Libertarian, though I was once. But too many narrow-minded idiots (not unlike the two of you, for that matter) that wouldn’t hear anything bad said about their pet notions or candidates. Not enough about acting to preserve and protect the Constitution and the Republic. Again, kinda like you two jagoffs. And, no, I never WAS a Pubbie. My parents were. I have ALWAYS been one to want the CONSTITUTION restored to its rightful place as the supreme law of the land. I don’t know WHAT you want.

Now, for the trillionth time, I will state my position on the Constitution so that you will know beyond any doubt where I stand.

I believe that the Constitution is a pact made between We, the People, who are the SOURCE of all legitimate governmental authority, at all levels, and the Several States, to delegate certain, VERY LIMITED authority to a Central Government, in order to have it do certain, specified things in our names and on our behalf, things we could legitimately do for ourselves (since it is not possible to delegate to some second or third party an authority YOU YOURSELF do not possess), but would be better and more prudently done by that central government. I believe that We, the People, did NOT intend for this central government to grow like Topsy and become the all-pervasive entity that YOU seem to be cheering on. I believe that the People, being the SOURCE of the authority worn by FedGov, can use whatever means are necessary to REMOVE that much misused grant of authority.

Further, I believe that BOTH halves of the current ruling Party are culpable and guilty of usurping the power and authority of We, the People. and that simple-minded idiots (similar to, but not unlike the two I am addressing here) continue to cheer them on, as long as the right talisman is worn by the usurper.

I am, and have been for at least the past 20 years, a registered INDEPENDENT, not a member of ANY party, for NONE of them have shown me they are fully supportive of and committed to restoration of the Constitution.

Oh, and Stultis, ESAD, OK? Your post is probably one of the LEAST helpful of any I’ve read over the last six months.

Stop starching your underwear, it might improve your disposition.

In all your banal verbiage on the constitution, you still failed to consider or address the many amendments that were legally passed by methods set in place by the founding fathers.

Looking over your words, I am left wondering if you even realize what it is you want, other than to flap your gums.

As far as party’s go, like it or not, we are a two party system. Dozens of others exist, but they have little or no voice in the process with the 2 party system we have.

As we try to restore the minority party currently, to prevent more of a one party dictatorship we are currently under, we have to fend off leftist morons and holier than thou twits who parrot their positions and claims and only wish to run down that minority party.

I would just as soon do away with party’s myself, but that is what we have to work with.

All your ranting and raving does nothing to acomplish what you claim you wish. With what we have to work with, we need to work through one of the party’s to do just as you claim you want to see happen.

Instead, you do nothing but join in with running the minority party down, showing people it isn’t worth anything and allowing the current majority party to remain in a dictator position.

In my book, that makes you the nimrod or dufus. You can figure out which you are for yourself.

Oh. I didn't realize that you had such good intentions. What a fool I was. I take it all back. With such pure intentions, unsullied by unseemly efforts or expenditures to actually advance a political agenda, you surely must have "done" (by not doing) far more to effectuate limited and constitutional governance than any of us poor party hacks. Because, of course, having good intentions, and keeping them utterly pure, and never, ever comprising them by supporting a less than completely perfect party or candidate, is far more important than actually doing something.

I now see that I have been totally wrong in, for instance, applauding and encouraging Republican Senators filing motions and amendments challenging the Constitutionality of provisions in the Democrat's Health Care "Reform" bill. Obviously they only legitimize the process, in itself Unconstitutional, by doing so. Yes. Now I realize that Senator DeMint and others should have sat in unsullied silence. Unless they can formulate, and bring to the floor, a single amendment that makes everything right, all at once, and without a hint of compromise, they really shouldn't vote on anything.

Of course we'd have, in that case, fully government controlled health care, and ever other element of full bore socialism, in about seven nanoseconds. But at least we'd be PURE and UNCOMPROMISED in our INTENTIONS, which is what really matters. Heck, I will almost be able to smile as the jackboot stomps on my face forever.

As far as party’s go, like it or not, we are a two party system...

As we try to restore the minority party currently...

Why?

So we can have a repeat performance of 2000-2008?

DC, it seems that DakotaRed and others here are suffering from a political "Stockholm syndrome"; no matter how badly the GOP beats them and abuses them, they will still vote GOP.

Fools.

So we can have a repeat performance of 2000-2008?

Sure. That would be a helluva start.

Considering, on spending alone, it would reduce deficits by at least FIVE TIMES what they are going to be AT MINIMUM now. Probably more. (Wasn't Obama's deficit for the single month of October alone larger than all but one or two of Bush's annual deficits?)

And under Dubya, on taxes, we had the largest decreases since Reagan. Whereas, under Obama, we will have the largest tax increases since, well, since forever.

On the borders, even despite Dubya's overreaching attempt at a grand compromise on immigration reform, we had the tightest border control in the history of the nation. (Here in Texas, the fees coyotes charge for smuggling people across the Mexican border jumped from a couple hundred dollars to several thousand per individual.) We had more immigration enforcement raids under Bush than under any previous President, and more of them on the biggest and most politically influential employers of illegals (e.g. Tyson, Walmart).

Then there's judges, drilling and logging, government regulation, the list is endless.

Yeah. That would be a great start. PLEASE give me a repeat performance of 2000-2008.

After reading your past posts, I now realize you just hate Sarah.

I don't hate anyone, newbie.

Well, maybe McCain, but that's beside the point.

Now, if asking legitimate questions about Palin's affiliations and endorsements, namely her recent on-the-record commitment to support McCain in the 2010 Ariz. GOP Senate primary "100 percent," as well as her PAC's voluntary contributions to Graham, Hatch, Murkowski, and McCain, is considered "hate," then so be it.

“Now, if asking legitimate questions about Palin’s affiliations and endorsements, namely her recent on-the-record commitment to support McCain in the 2010 Ariz. GOP Senate primary “100 percent,” as well as her PAC’s voluntary contributions to Graham, Hatch, Murkowski, and McCain, is considered “hate,” then so be it. “

Nobody has been able to get around the above stated facts, but you and I have been called every name in the book.....and a few not even IN the book ;-)

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.