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
Yes, I've seen your home page. There's links to several web sites and several people named: Beverly Nuckols, Dr. Robert Spitzer, Dianne N. Irving, Mary Meehan, Rebecca Messall. Why not simply say to me, "Gee Dan, look in the White Pages and you'll see my real name."
How’s that Ron Paul thingy working out for you these days?
This post proves that you're running on empty. Instead of responding to the points I made, you chose to resort to base character smears and lies, just like your hero, GW Bush.
As I said, I've never been a supporter of Bush or Paul because I believe they're both lying politicians.
If the website were full of lies, then why didn't Bush sue in civil court for libel? His lawyers sent cease and desist letters threatening legal action. Why didn't Bush follow up? Why did he seek to have the FEC step in?
I suspect you already know the answer as well as I do, but you don't want to admit it.
I would suspect that it’s because he professes the ideals the RP once stood for...but obviously no longer does, else the likes of you would have nothing to do with it.
Perhaps you should reread the July 1975 Reason magazine interview with Ronald Reagan. Then, compare many positions Reagan advocated then with what Paul advocates today.
Yes, one legal challenge to the use of his name *was,* indeed, the FEC complaint. In our conversation, the other poster had pointed out why the website might not have been considered libel under the law.
However, it is wrong, whether legally considered libel or slander or not, to appropriate a man’s name to use as a weapon against him.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe Ron Paul is lying when he justifies terrorists attacks, as he has for 3 years. Asking you how his views work out for you is not “base character smears and lies.”
Ron Paul does not stand for the Republican Party when it comes to fighting terrorists and international security, neither his own Texas RP Platform nor the National, both of which he supposedly agrees with when he signs the paperwork for a spot on the Primary Ballot.
From the Texas Republican Party Platform
http://www.1888932-2946.ws/TexasGOP/E-ContentStrategy/userfiles/FINAL_2008_PLATFORM(1).pdf
:
“Preserving National Security – We believe terrorism is the greatest threat to international peace and to our safety. We urge our national leadership to protect our Constitutional rights and swiftly wage successful war on terrorists; to eliminate aid to any nation threatening us or aiding terrorists or hostile nations; to spell out consequences for terrorist activities and to publicly support other nations fighting terrorists; to reasonably use profiling to protect us; to prosecute national security breaches; and to revise laws or executive orders that erode our essential liberties.”
The National Republican Party Platform is found here
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/NationalSecurity.htm and among other things, says:
“Securing the Peace
The Republican vision of peace through strength requires a sustained international effort, which complements our military activities, to develop and maintain alliances and relationships that will lead to greater peace and stability.”
That is correct. By his own choice, Bush was a public figure, running for office and as such gave up legal challenges in such instances.
However, it is wrong, whether legally considered libel or slander or not, to appropriate a man’s name to use as a weapon against him.
In the world of politics, all is fair game.
Asking you how his views work out for you is not “base character smears and lies.”
As I said, I believe that he, like Bush, is a lying politician. Anyone who voted for either one is an dupe without a lick of common sense who will believe anything.
Ron Paul advocates what he always has: respect the Constitution in all legislation, judicial decisions, executive actions. A non-interventionist foreign policy. Sound money. Reduce the size of FedGov by probably 90 percent. You know, things the Pubbie Party used to tell us it stood for. But with elitists and RINOs running the show and cheerleaders like you egging them on, that party has nowhere to go but DOWN. If you don’t stand for SOMETHING, you’ll fall for anything. Maybe that explains McLame and Steele and Romney, et al. I KNOW it’s what explains the two of you. When you mock someone with clear and consistent principles, WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THEM, it points out your lack of same. And a lack of clear principles is what gave us Obambi. Democrats-lite is NOT a great seller with the voters, in case you hadn’t noticed.
Well, the Texas party platform has that item wrong. The BIGGEST threat to our liberty and safety is not ANY foreign enemy, terrorist or otherwise. It is FedGov run amok. A foreign terrorist cannot, under any circumstance, destroy our Constitution or take away our liberty. Only we can do that, by keeping on with the RINOs and Rats in public office and by championing the unconstitutional use of our troops abroad; by continually pushing for more and more government, as long as it’s “OUR” guy, with the right talisman by his name, doing the dirty deeds. And YOU are great for that. You push for more war, more military intervention, more nation-building, the same things allegedly abhorred by CANDIDATE Bush, yet pushed on us by PRESIDENT Bush. And we are not one whit safer on its account, yet we ARE miles closer to the utter loss of our nation and our liberty and our Constitution because of him (and you).
Oh, and you want to hold Dr. Paul’s feet to the same fire you refused to hold McLame’s feet to? How consistent of you.
And, does he honor and respect ALL of the amendments legally added to the constitution, as per the very methods written into the constitution by the founders?
And again, if you hate the GOP so much, why spend all your time denigrating what you don’t belong to instead of building up what you do belong to?
Why does Paul hide behind the “R” he attached to his name instead of staying a Libertarian, which he admits to being for a lifetime?
It somehow escapes you that we also hold clear and consistent principles which you have no problem mocking.
So, I guess that points out YOUR lack of same?
Seek a deprogrammer.
From your posts, yes, it does escape me that you hold to any principles of any stripe. Were you accused of being principled, I fear there would be no evidence to convict.
And, no, I don’t HATE the Pubbie party. I think it may possibly have some benefit, IF (and that’s a mighty BIG “if”) the RINOs, the NeoCons, the drug warriors, the statists of all stripes are purged from it and true Constitutional Conservatives take over the reins of power in it. But that’s not likely to happen if people like you continue to defend the status quo.
Dr. Paul has been a Republican for most all his political life, before AND after his run in the ‘80s. Then he changed party labels only as a convenience to run as a Libertarian. He’s not hiding behind the (R) as too many of YOUR heroes are. He is an OLD SCHOOL republican, from when it MEANT something. Similar to Barry Goldwater or Bob Taft, from way back in the day. People your ilk would ALSO mock.
During one interview, Paul described himself as “lifelong libertarian.”
What you still fail to realize, or you choose to ignore, is that I am not supporting the “status quo.” I am working from inside my local party to to minimize RINO’s and Ron Paul kooks who think they will get away with a hostile takeover of the party.
Your ad hominem means nothing to me, it just shows your ignorance.
Typical for someone trapped in a messianic cult who sees blasphemy when their cult leader isn’t worshipped.
Oh yes, I was only in my teens, but I supported Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson, even though I was in a Democrat household.
But, people of you ilk only know bashing and getting in others faces to support your cult leader. Just as Obama told his worshippers to do.
Peddle your papers with someone else, dude. I’m not falling for it.
“Anyone who voted for either one is an dupe without a lick of common sense who will believe anything.”
Well, Sir, needless to say, I disagree. Most of us find it necessary to form coalitions and find common ground with people with whom we disagree, to some degree.
I voted for President (and Governor) Bush, and would, again. I’m grateful for his support for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, for thwarting the growth of federal funding for abortion, destructive embryonic stem cell research, and discrimination against pro-life doctors. I sincerely disagree with his more “globalist” ideas, but felt comfortable protesting, writing, speaking, and visiting DC to express myself to his Administration. I was proud to serve on a National Advisory Committee under Ashcroft. (He appointed Republicans who’d sued to abolish the Act we were to Advise on!)
I’ve supported Congressman Paul in the past, but his attacks on our Nation (”they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers”) and his tolerance of “blame America firsters” caused me to change my mind. Isolationism is no better than “one worlders.” Both will result in the infringement of unalienable rights. It will just happen faster under someone who claims that our soldiers are wrong.
Good job!
Thank you, ma’am
Ron Paul had my support until he began to publicly state that we were aggressors, “occupiers.”
He blames me and my neighbors for 9-11 and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, for the Achille Lauro, etc. He tolerates mock funerals and anarchists at his rallies. He tells Conservatives that our military can “march right out of Iraq the way they marched in.” And then I found written evidence that he’s always said similar things, only in a more moderated way.
Yep, I was very enthused by those conservative talk radio messages for many years. But then something REALLY big happened .
The housing market crashed and took the rest of the economy with it. How could this happen? Some of these ‘real conservatives’ later (late 2008) explained that it was really Democrats that crashed the economy, they did it back during the time they claimed was the Bush economic boom. Being skepical of the contradiction I started reading past articles from those that unlike Rush, Levin and Hannity, that WERE warning us that it was all illusion. Example 2004 :
“Given the government's encouragement of lax lending practices, home prices could crash, bankruptcies would increase, and financial companies, including the government-sponsored mortgage companies, might require another taxpayer bailout.”Housing: Too Good to be True(our June 2004 Warning)
I challenge death2tyrants or any other Bush-bot to find a broadcast by these 2004 Bush cheer-leaders with this warning.
GWB has bequeathed us Obama, just as Gerald R. Ford, Jr., gave us Carter. Republican failure=Democrat victory at polls, then calamity. But the people can’t figure out the equation.
1) Bush-cheerleaders in talk radio are superficial by the very nature of seeking big audiences. If they went into depth on any issue they would not hold their audience.
2) Yes, they did give Bush a pass... on prescription drug care, on NCLB, on pork, and on many other domestic spending programs.
3) But on housing Bush and the Republicans tried to restrict Fannie/Freddie and were blocked by the Dems. The event that pricked th housing bubble was the decrease in demand for housing. As long as the demand for housing increased, the prices increased and the flippers would not be caught short (uh long).
Increased immigration increased the demand for housing. An illegal Mexican could start at $12/hr; quickly move up to $25/hr in construction and buy a house. HR4437 and the anti (illegal) immigrant movement scared immigrants into not making long term committments, such as buying houses.
When immigrant demand for housing dropped, the source of the increaseing demand dropped. This caused prices to drop and flippers and re-fi of adjustables to be impossible.
Both Bush, Rs and Ds allowed the bubble to grow and did not prepare for the burst of the bubble. But it was the anti-Bush anti (illegal) immigrant forces who burst the bubble. The anti-immigrant voices were told in 2003-2006 that this would be the pragmatic result of their efforts.
Here on FR and elsewhere the anti-immigrant voices agreed that it would be bad for the economy in the short run. But they said that illegal was illegal and we should not condone illegality just because we benefitted from it.
4) CONSERVATIVE is a broad term that includes many sub-groups. Social conservatives are conservative even when they aren’t economically conservative. Economic conservatives are conservative even when they are not socially conservative. National Defense conservatives are said to be conservative even when they are neither social nor economic conservatives.
4) The term NEO-CON in usage means a person who has a view of strong National Defense that includes Nation Building and pro-actively helping friendly nations and friendly international interests; and pro-actively hurting unfriendly interests. The NEO-CON may or may not be conservative on economic and social issues. Those issues are mostly irrelevant to the NEO-CON and sub-ordinate to the NEO-CON priorities.
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.