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
Again, you are too quick to smear those who disagree with you. They are not all for Paul.
focusing instead of a dead horse.
I agree with that. I don't want to argue endlessly about how good or bad GWB was. I wish him Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I want BO to fail. As I mentioned earlier, I'm in Washington States 3rd congressional district, home of Democrat Brian Baird who just announced his retirement. We have a strong conservative candidate who has been running since June, long before anyone else. I'm also a PCO and sit on the county executive board.
I appreciate your efforts and pray for your success.
I am in TX-31, and was a delegate to the multi-county GOP convention. I voted for McCain in 2008 after BO promised to stop weapons research. I voted for GWB 4 times, twice for gov. and twice for POTUS.
My current congressman is in the GOP, opposes BO in all the important ways (voted for the defense bill but against the porkulus, crap and trade, and Obamacare.) and I want him to stay there.
You claimed that Bush wasn't perfect, as if his immigration policy was simply a mistake instead of a deliberate act.
You refuse to acknowledge the consequences of Bush's actions and the overall effect they had on the US economy.
Did I agree with Bush's policies on illegal immigration? No.
Okay. So what was bad about Bush's immigration policies?
I really don't have a problem with disagreements, they are a normal part of the process.
But, when the one disagreeing parrots the stance of those who wish only to tear down and denigrate, what am I to think?
Look back over the 300+ comments here and maybe you'll see what I mean.
That being said, good luck there in Texas. My wife is from Houston and my youngest daughter is currently in Dallas. Not your district I know, but my only connection there.
If things keep going as they are, it may the only free state one day.
Where I disagreed with him on some things, I could recognize and acknowledge where he did the right thing. But where he did the wrong thing means everything to you. Even where he might've done the right thing, you're not going to recognize or acknowledge it.
Consequently, you're asserting I said things I did not say. You ascribe a lack of patriotism simply because I don't agree with you. Fact is, you and I are never going to agree and this conversation is going nowhere.
Feel free to howl at the moon.
Well said, yet again!
Yes, but we didn't fight them, we supported them -- and we continue to financially support them to the tune of $Billions, while our Saudi Allies plant new Wahhabi mosques all over the territory that we are protecting.
"As far as what happened in Bosnia, uh, didn’t you realize that was before Bush?"
Yes, I do, which is one of the reasons that I voted for him.
Bosnia was before his time and so was the 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia. But Bush put the nail in the coffin by recognizing Kosovo as "independent", and then twisted arms around the world to do the same. In doing so, he's undone international law and diplomacy all the way back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
Right now, the legality if "Kosovo independence" is with the ICJ. If it is found to be illegal (which legally, it should be), we will be an international laughing stock. If by some arm-twisting, it passes the test of legality, every border of every country in the world -- including our own-- will be subject to change based on minority quotas. It will made the concept of "national sovereignty" a joke. A fine mess he got us into!
And ironically, "defending Kuwaiti sovereignty" is the reason we fought the first Gulf War. So what his father sent our military to defend in Kuwait, Bush Jr sent our military to deny in Kosovo.
Your “I support the Troops, but not the war” stance is idealistic as can be.
Not as "idealistic" as you think.
I've always said that we should have acted militarily in Afghanistan. We had to --they supported al Qaeda and refused to give up bin Laden. So what did we do? We attacked Iraq! And we ignored Afghanistan -- other than an initial assault -- for 8 years! We lost 5,000 of our men, in addition to the 3500 civilians we lost on 9/11! And for what? Rumors of "WMDs"? That was inexcusable.
I just hope that those fighting and sacrificing today don’t sit around like many of Viet Nam Vets do, wondering, what happened? We were winning when I left."
Husband says the same thing. But the enemy was not the American people, it was the length of the war and the fact that you weren't allowed to go in full bore and win. Just like today, it's been eight years and now what are we doing? Finally "getting serious"? Hell, no! Our boys are becoming a virtual "Afghan police force", protecting villagers. This is not a military mission, it's a babysitting exercise that makes them sitting ducks.
Unlike us, today’s Troops are all volunteers. Enough time has passed that any opposed could have ETS’d and moved on, as several have.If they don’t have a problem with it, why do you?
Because it's my country as much as theirs. And because I can focus on the bigger picture when they don't have that luxury.
You need to differentiate between those who realize that wars are sometimes necessary even if not desirable, and those who just want to hang out & publicly protest "'cause it's cool" ala Cindy Sheehan. They are not the same group of people.
The necons who have elected themselves "guardians of the Reagan legacy" seem to forget that while Reagan strengthened the military and proffered "Peace through Strength", the number of our soldiers that Ronald Reagan actually ever deployed as President, was minuscule -- a few thousand between Lebanon and Granada, the largest casualty number (229) of which was killed in a single attack in 1983. Reagan may have talked tough, but like Patton he thought that the object of war was not "die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." Unlike George Bush, Reagan was careful and not wasteful with the lives of American soldiers. For that, Reagan has my respect and Bush deserves the derision.
If you are wondering why I take this so personally, it is because I live ever day with the results of a president (Johnson) who didn't take the lives of his military seriously enough to win the war or get the hell out -- my husband has had a pin in his hip, back problems and a host of other physical ailments & injuries that resulted from his plane getting shot down in Vietnam when he was 19. And I am one the one taking care of him and living with it too, for the rest of my life.
Bear in mind that those you are trading insults with hate Obama as much as you do. Maybe some attacks against GWB are unnecessary and divisive, but so are insults and smears directed at those who do attack GWB. And then they retaliate, and you retaliate, ad infinitum, while Obama runs wild.
There may be a few here who won’t support some superior candidate because he/she doesn’t agree 100%, but I think almost all of us will vote sanely next year. GWB is not running for office, and as I said, we do talk about him too much IMO.
I’m so sorry we rid Iraq of that wonderful paragon of Freedom, Saddam Hussein.
Sorry, but if they really hated Obama and the left, they would not parrot the DNC talking points nor those of IndictBush,org, not to mention Cindy Sheehan and the like.
They won’t bring Obama down by weakening the only viable chance we have to oppose their socialist agenda.
MAny of us tried to point out he folly of “going to teach teh GOP a lesson” back in 2006 when they threatened to not vote at all or vote Democrat just to show them.
Many did anyways and what did it get us?
I hope you’re right about voting sanely, but fear all this GOP bashing and Bush bashing will just drive people away again, which will retain Obama.
Bush wasn’t president 10 years ago. And while I agree on immigration policies, he did not start the Iraq War; it was ongoing; and I can’t believe you are defending Plame and her stupid hippie husband.
NAILED IT!!!
He had a LOT of help from Abramoff and the corrupt big spender Republicans in Congress, as well as the inept McCain campaign.
Excellent use of the DNC talking points.
Rumors of WMDs? With Saddam refusing to account for them, nearly every intelligence agency in existence saying they were there, all the claims of their danger and being there all through the Clinton years?
You'll have to do better than that.
And yes, we did leave Afghanistan for the most part, to focus on a perceived larger danger, after ousting the Taliban, bringing in NATO (supposedly to take up the slack) and seeing the need to carry forth the policy set in motion by the previous administration.
Those points always seem to be forgotten.
After 911, would you trust a despot like Saddam Hussein on his honor?
But the enemy was not the American people, it was the length of the war and the fact that you weren't allowed to go in full bore and win.
I guess your husband doesn't talk to you too much about it. Veterans, Warriors and Heroes, not Victims
Because it's my country as much as theirs. And because I can focus on the bigger picture when they don't have that luxury.
What a pitiful slam-down of our Troops. Just a bunch of dumb redneck hicks who aren't as smart as you are, huh?
Sounds very close to John Kerry's botched joke, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq. ..." Or, other treasonous words he spoke back in 1971.
After my own 18 months boots on the ground in Viet Nam and six more years active duty, you think I don't take it seriously too?
No, I don't want to see any of the Troops hurt or killed, but I thank God that we still produce young people with the same sense of duty I had when I enlisted in 1969 to the country that are willing to stand up and defend it today.
And, all you can say is you know better than they do?
You know more about "the DNC talking points" than I do. I am not, nor have I ever been (as an adult) a Democrat. I have never even seen what goes on, on the Democratic sites that you seem to read regularly.
"Rumors of WMDs? With Saddam refusing to account for them, nearly every intelligence agency in existence saying they were there, all the claims of their danger and being there all through the Clinton years?"
That was during Clinton's time, not Bush's. A bipartisan Congressional commission disagreed with your assessment
"And yes, we did leave Afghanistan for the most part, to focus on a perceived larger danger...."
Being a personal pain the ass to the Bush family is not "a perceived larger danger" to America. Afghanistan was JOB 1 and it was put on a back burner so that Jr could finish what his daddy started and should have finished himself in the 1st Gulf War.
After 911, would you trust a despot like Saddam Hussein on his honor?
I wouldn't "trust Saddam Hussein" with my toothbrush, but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and there was no alliance with Saddam and Osama -- they were at opposite ends of the social and political spectrum and there was no evidence of their collaboration.
Saddam was a ruthless bastard and deserved a bullet between the eyes -- but fighting a war that turned a secular Iraqi government into an Islamic one and destroyed its Christian population-- especially when we had far more pressing matters like Afghanistan to deal with ut instead put on a back burner, was negligent and incomprehensible.
And if you keep telling me that what I am saying are all "DNC talking points", then no wonder they won!
I don't have an irrational hatred of Bush. I have very sound reasons for disliking the way he conducted himself, both while as a candidate and while in office. Most of these are carefully laid out on my FR home page. You are free to visit it any time you like for the details.
The simple fact of the matter is, that I believe that the current economic conditions can be traced directly to his actions while in office.
Can you point out with what about his immigration policy you disagreed?
Can also point out what you believe are the consequences his actions and the long term effect they will have on the country?
Even where he might've done the right thing, you're not going to recognize or acknowledge it.
What do you believe Bush did right? I'm willing to give credit where credit is due.
You ascribe a lack of patriotism simply because I don't agree with you.
I ascribe a lack of patriotism on the part of Bush's actions because he did things while in office that helped Mexican illegal aliens at a cost that hurt Americans.
Bong? You have me confused with the legalize-it crowd of Paulites. I support Ronald Reagan's solution regarding the war on drugs...build more prisons.
so go screw yourself
You certainly act like a Paulite, with your inane personal attacks and all...
You're still using this strawman to defend Saddam. I bet you pretend that Saddam was in compliance with the cease fire agreement as well.
No, there are alot of Obama supporters on this web site. Go ahead, ask them. They wanted Obama to win instead of McCain. Obama and the far left agree with them on their blame-America-first foreign policy.
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.