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
And again, I’ll ask, since you despise the Republican party so much, why spend all your time running it down instead of building the one you prefer up?
Unless, of course, you are really a Democrat Troll that enjoys the current dictatorship of Barack Obama.
All of your efforts do no more than drive people away from the GOP and allows complete Democratic Party dictatorship.
Oh, and I’d much rather a repeat of 2001 (sans 911) to 2008 over a continuation of 2009.
I guess this is what we get when people like you Ron Paulies step up and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Perhaps you would do better than looking at every aspect of Sarah Palin and how to denigrate her to look deeper at the cult leader, Ron Paul and why he speaks loudly agaiinst earmarks, then takes more than any other claiming to be Republican.
Perhaps it would do you better to begin wondering why he would recommend his whorshippers support someone like Cynthia McKinney over McCain, a sour grapes attitude if ever their was.
Google Cybthia McKinney sometime.
All of your efforts do no more than drive people away from the GOP and allows complete Democratic Party dictatorship.
When all else fails, just keep on blaming the voter, especially the voter who's been around for a lot less time than yourself.
The Republican Party's present wounds are almost entirely self-inflicted.
My pointing them out doesn't change the reality that the present Republican Party, when given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to actually make good on its promises and its principles, pissed everything away and spat in the face of the American electorate.
Paul has also introduced legislation to end the despicable practice of "borrowing" Social Security surplus receipts to fund general government operations.
As for the rest of the Republicans, on that matter, which is much much larger than that of mere earmarks, all I hear is crickets chirping.
I agree that what the government is doing now is despicable and disastrous. But thanks to permanent government programs enacted in the past, doesn't gridlock mean that we can't fix the current borrowing and spending problem. i. e. slow economic suicide? But so-called government "solutions" are even worse.
I think we need a RESET.
And, in rejecting GW Bush's request, The FEC said on that it had found "no evidence of serious intent" on the site's owner to violate election law.
Parodies aren’t commonly outright lies, either.
The proper forum for dealing with lies printed on a web site is a libel suit filed in civil court, not trying to have the Federal Election Commission declare the site's owner as a Political Action Committee.
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.
Bush attorney Benjamin L. Ginsberg, asked to discuss the First Amendment implications of the governor's FEC complaint, raised his voice in irritation: "How is it a First Amendment issue? It is NOT a First Amendment issue."
So, if Bush's own lawyer said at the time that the FEC complaint was not a 1st Amendment issue, then why do you claim it is?
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.
This is a straw man argument that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Had there been a criminal violation of free speech, the site's owner would have been charged with a crime.
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.
Again, the proper forum to address libel is civil court, not the Federal Election Commission or holding a press conference after the FEC has told you to go pound sand.
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.
Red Herring argument. Ron Paul is not relevant to this discussion of the Bush parody web site or Bush's statement that there ought to be limits to freedom.
So Dan, why not tell us all, are you an Anarchist or a Minarchist?
Another red herring argument.
By asking this question, it's clear you completely idolize GW Bush and believe that his actions are above reproach.
You corrected me most goodly and bestly!
“Perhaps you would do better than looking at every aspect of Sarah Palin and how to denigrate her to look deeper at the cult leader, Ron Paul and why he speaks loudly agaiinst earmarks, then takes more than any other claiming to be Republican.”
I am not, nor have I ever been an advocate of Ron Paul. I am for a total makeover of my beloved RINO party, and I don’t care if it takes a bloody revolution to attain same. We now have Graham teeming up with Schumer to reintroduce amnesty with chain migration. Just like Bush tried to do. How do you feel about them apples?
You stated that Bush was an honest and principled man who placed the [welfare of the] country above himself or his legacy.
I was merely pointing out that his policies on immigration were anything but honest or principled because they came at a great cost to the country that you claim he valued. His policies on immigration also affected the security of the country because he continually hampered border and interior enforcement despite the attacks that occurred during the first year of his time in office.
I would argue that our current economic condition can be traced directly to Bush's policies and actions during his first term in office.
So, he didn't agree with you on everything. Therefore, he's not perfect.
I'm not talking about perfection. I'm talking about deliberate actions to benefit a small group of people, i.e.: wall street bankers and Mexican illegal aliens, at a great cost to the majority of the American people who must now foot the bill and deal with the fallout of these deliberate actions.
There's probably a few things you and I disagree on, too. So, I guess you're not perfect, either.
I never claimed to be perfect. I'm only pointed out that Bush was not an honest and principled man who valued the [welfare of the] country above himself and used his policies on illegal aliens to illustrate my point.
Because you Ron Paulies all through this thread maintain what conservative would work to violate free speech.
I know you all love to split hairs, but saying it is a first amendment issue and limiting free speech reall aren't different.
And, as usualy, any and every point you don't wish to discuss about Ron Paul's failings is either a "red herring" or a "strawman."
How typical.
I have never been a supporter of Ron Paul, but it's clear that instead of responding to what I've actually written, it's easier to dismiss me as a "Paulie".
I know you all love to split hairs, but saying it is a first amendment issue and limiting free speech reall aren't different.
Again, the proper forum for printed lies is a libel suit in a civil court, not an FEC complaint designed to label a web site's owner as a PAC and all that entails.
And, as usualy, any and every point you don't wish to discuss about Ron Paul's failings is either a "red herring" or a "strawman."
How is Ron Paul relevant to the discussion of Bush? As I stated above, I have never supported Paul any more than I have ever supported Bush. They're both liars who place themselves above the welfare of the country and American people.
I work to rid the party of RINO’s through involvement with the party, not standing outside denigrating and wholesalely bashing the entire party.
But, much like left leaning liberals, we now hear how Ron Paulies “are not, nor ever been advocates of Ron Paul.”
Please explain how the continued tearing down of the entire party will remove RINOs.
How is parroting the left against Bush and the Republican Party going to result in “a total makeover of your beloved RINO party?”
And, just what is this “revolution” you speak of to accomplish it? Ron Paulies are who are speaking of “revolution” in their attempots to seize control of the party after ripping it apart to do so.
But, you “are not, nor have you ever been an advocate of Ron Paul.”
“Please explain how the continued tearing down of the entire party will remove RINOs.”
You don’t tear down the party. You let the RNC/Gop fops that if you run a RINO, we will sabotage the son of a bitch. You got a better way? Let’s hear it.
Seems to be epidemic now, disclaim support of Ron Paul, while advocating his every move.
As far as I'm concerned, the rest of what you've written is just more red herring and strawman, your excuse for not responding to what I wrote.
Do I have a better way?
Well, if you mean standing up for a good candidate over a party favorite, why yes I do.
But, I doubt you are involved in the Washington State 3rd Congressional District campaign to oust Democrat Brian Baird, even before he announced his retirement.
And, if you don’t think efforts are underway to tear down the party, I suggest you go back and reread this thread.
“But, much like left leaning liberals, we now hear how Ron Paulies “are not, nor ever been advocates of Ron Paul.””
You are a dolt. Go back to the election time. I have hundreds of posts backing first Duncan Hunter, then when Hunter didn,t fly, I was for Fred Thompson. Now, you have no argument for Bush, so you call people names, or accuse them of leftism or Paulism, without defending anything . This is the postings of a child.
Oh, and by the way....”Yes, Bush is a RINO!!”
In red ink...
The author? Jim Robinson.
Please point out any post of mine supporting or advocating his every move.
As far as I'm concerned, the rest of what you've written is just more red herring and strawman, your excuse for not responding to what I wrote.
It's clear you have no idea of what these terms mean.
Go play your games with children, whiner.
I have more important things to do than babysit a bunch of Paulistinians who think they control everything.
Actually, Paul's bill has 15 co-sponsors, 14 of whom are Republicans, including leading/mainstream GOPers like Pete Sessions and Thadeus McCotter. But I suppose the constituents who elected those Reps were "fools" for voting GOP?
You got it, slow vs fast suicide under Bush then Obama. In fact Bush with a democrat congress still spent at historical levels because Democrats knew they could just blame the debt on Bush and Republicans, and Bush didn't care(was there any brain activity??) .
I still remember the days 1990-1993 when Bush I and Clinton were scared of the national debt and of bondholders driving up interest rates to kill the economy. But now the Federal Reserve is buying up treasuries to fund this massive spending and there seems to be no market reaction.
stephenjohnbanker was responding to my comment that said “Gridlock is the BEST we can hope for” not the best solution.
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.