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
Bush stood up for America, the first in three decades. Or don't you realize they have been attacking us for that long, twice on our own soil?
Three times now with Ft. Hood.
Caret and Clinton were much worse than Bush, but their party circled the wagons around them. They have respected legacies now.
Their dirty congressmen had the wagons circled around them and nearly all are still in office.
Many of you couldn't wait to expel any Republican that you could find dirt on and they are gone, replaced by weaker candidates.
If the GOP needs no help in destroying itself, then move on and build your libertarian party that hasn't captured the publics eye in four decades.
Stop proclaiming yourselves conservative because you are much more liberal than you imagine, especially aligning yourselves with and parroting the crap spewed by the anti-war leftists.
And again I'll ask, since you all hate the GOP so much, why are you still in it? Why did Paul run as a Republican instead of the libertarian he is?
You only fool yourself, no one else.
Palin's own words: 'Amazing we did as well as we did'
Q. Why do you think your campaign lost?
A. I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a 10 trillion dollar debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing. So people desiring change I think went as far from the administration that is presently seated as they could. It's amazing that we did as well as we did.
Bush's daddy should have taken out Saddam Hussein the in the first Gulf War. We actually had a principled leg to stand on back then -- we were defending the concept of national sovereignty (of Kuwait).
But we had absolutely no sane reason to attack Iraq in 2001 -- especially immediately after 9/11, when we should have been concerned real direct threats to us which Iraq was not.
So Osama and the Taliban weren’t based in Afghanistan?
You never start a war until you know what you want to accomplish and how to accomplish it -- eight years later, we're still trying to figure out both of those things in Afghanistan. That's insane.
And which enemy holds the deed and is going to just walk in and take over?
China and Russia are holding most of our enormous debt. Saudis are also holding some of it. Any of those sound like "America's friends" to you?
Ya know, this is a bit harsh .-.. --- .-..
All you do is empower your friends, the liberals.
Pathetic and pitiful.
But explain, since you proclaim the GOP dead, why are you still in it? If it is so screwed up, why are you still in it? If we are all whiners, why do you remain in it?
Pull your head back out and see the sunshine.
Are you saying that Reagan didn't stand up for America, or are you just unable to count properly?
Thirty years prior to Bush 2001-2009 = 1971-1979
“You never start a war until you know what you want to accomplish and how to accomplish it”
Never studied WW2 much, did you?
So sayeth the cult master himself?
Assuming this achievable, what then if terrorists acquire the means to launch nukes or bio-arms into our country or if they recruit non-Arabs to infiltrate within?
Who said I was trying to take it over?
I thought I was one of those e-e-e-vil third-party people! /sarc
But explain, since you proclaim the GOP dead, why are you still in it?
Who said I was still a Republican?
My membership lapsed several years ago.
If we are all whiners, why do you remain in it?
Whining? You mistake mocking for whining.
Pathetic and pitiful.
Really?
What's pathetic and pitiful is a Republican Party that has nothing much to offer besides "we're not the Democrats" and "we're not as bad as the Democrats."
You mean Palin? The Palin cult?
If you look up "Liberal Interventionism" you'll find that your foreign policy outlook is completely consistent with the policy of the Democratic Party since 1992 (and pre-1968).
I am not the one who is fooling themselves as to what I am -- you are.
Pitiful effort, it has been discussed widely in Ron Paul forums since 2007.
Who said I was still a Republican?
Why are you here? You don't have to be a card carrying dues paying member of the party to be a Republcian.
What's pathetic and pitiful is a Republican Party that has nothing much to offer besides "we're not the Democrats" and "we're not as bad as the Democrats."
No, the Democrats sit back and rely on your Ron Paulies to do their work for them.
But again, since you say you aren't attempting a take over and you're not a Republican, why continue to appear here to do nothing but endless bash the party you say is irrelevant and you want no part of?
Prevarication isn't your strong suit.
Bush gave us the DHS... Oh the times I've seen grandma sequestered over to a private booth in DIA with a conforming nervous smile on her face to be cavity searched by Bush's legacy. What larks we'll have 'eh Pip!
Nixon gave us (and me especially) the EPA. Don't even get me started.
Sorry, but you ignore, we have been under Jihadist atatck for a long time.
Defending our nation isn’t interventionism, whether Paul likes it or not.
Then why do you keep hanging out with Republicans?
Go over to Democratic Underground where they speak your language and agree with you.
Last I checked, FR is not a Republican site.
What complete nonsense! Comparing a World War to our war in Afghanistan? That's looney.
Even as complicated as WWII was, we finished it half the time that we've been in Afghanistan -- and we're aren't done yet.
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.