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
No, it’s laughable that you all think Ron Paul has all the answers.
Detail your idea for foolproof sealing the borders, that will keep and prevent stealth terrorists from coming in on aircraft, or missles or explosive laden aircraft from flying in from outside the country.
Don’t forget in that, no more Patriot Act as it might interfere on their liberty.
I agree with Cpl Ferris. One of my Viet Nam buddies recently lost a leg to one, but explain how the president seals the border with Congress holding the purse strings.
Then, explain why Ron Paul has also been unsuccessful in doing the same.
But, let meask, since you ridicule, “Unless, you enjoy seeing American school children dodging IED’s in the way to school” with “The 2009 equivalent of “Unless, you enjoy seeing mushroom clouds over American cities,” I assume you think there is no Jihadist threat, like morons told us back in the 50’s there was no nuclear threat either.
I’ll even bet many of you even maintained there was no threat of highjacked aircraft being flown into occupied buildings on September 10, 2001 didn’t you?
Do you know him, personally?
No. But I know people who did. And they uniformly judged George W. Bush as an honest and principaled man.
I trust their judgment.
this is pathetic twaddle
Merry Christmas
The Government can not prevent anything from happening, since prevention requires a one-hundred percent guarantee that is impossible for Government to provide.
As for my "idea," it is this: enforce the law. If the Federals are unwilling to enforce valid U.S. law, then they should step aside and let the States and the People do so, or repeal the law outright.
explain how the president seals the border with Congress holding the purse strings.
Last I checked, the Border Patrol, as well as Customs and Immigration, and the Coast Guard are all executive agencies under the direction of the President of the United States, in accordance with the laws as passed by Congress.
But if you want to shift culpability for the failure to enforce immigration law to the Republicans who controlled Congress from 2000 to 2006, by all means, go for it.
I assume you think there is no Jihadist threat, like morons told us back in the 50’s there was no nuclear threat either.
You assume too much.
I’ll even bet many of you even maintained there was no threat of highjacked aircraft being flown into occupied buildings on September 10, 2001 didn’t you?
There would have been no such threat if United States citizens' inalienable rights to bear arms had not been infringed upon by their very own Government.
The same guy that backed out on Reagan when he put the Pershings in Europe and toppled the Soviets. Paul's reason? He "understood" why the Soviets would be upset. Look it up, Newbie, we covered it a long time ago with your ilk.
Just one more way the Paulers - and Ron Paul - are like Obama: they’re still running against Bush — except that some of them are still running against George H. W. Bush!
Ron Paul is a Republican/a Libertarian/ a Republican/a Libertarian/ his sister/ his daughter/ your mother
Projection? No, I have all Republican - mostly conservative Republicans or trying to pretend to be - legislators on the state and federal level. Flip, we even got Kay Bailey to make a pro-life, anti-abortion speech for the Press last week, then one for State’s rights on the Senate floor.
Where’s your Libertarian Senator? The closest you’ve got is one -count ‘em one - Representative who’s pretending to be. Only Paul, who can only win when he - too - pretends to be a conservative Republican.
Yes, I monitor such site's for my blogs and other reasons.
2. Go Navy, Beat Army! Again!
Sometimes ;-)
3. You have a “notion of just walking away”? Not me. I will always have your back.
I have no notion of just walking away from anything. Iraq, Afghanistan included (although I'm too old to fight there now.)
4. Never voted for or supported Ron Paul.
Okay, now you have me confused. Do you not realize Campaign for Liberty is Ron Paul front group?
5. I never specifically tore down the GOP. I will vote for the candidate that most closly resembles our Founding Fathers. Just like you and the rest of this brotherhood. I don’t want a 3rd party. I want the GOP to wake up.
I am working from within the party promoting solid candidates and working to stop more RINO’s from being nominated. I sit on the Executive Board and Central Committee of the local party.
I want people who adhere to the constitution also, but it must be remembered that there is an amendment process that has been followed and like them or not, they are now a part of it all too, unless they be repealed.
6. What do you or any of us really know of Bush or anyone at that level. Let’s get real. You’re my hero - everyone honest one here is.
Personally, I never met the man. But, in 2004, I was very active on the Swift Vets and POWS For Truth forum, became an admin there (where I still am, although the forum is almost dead) and with the help of them and others, did a lot of digging into Kerry's background and even dug some into Bush's background.
Much of what has been claimed about Bush in his past is garbage.
That he met privately with families of our fallen, without press photographers and took all the crap thrown at him shows me character.
I didn't like that he didn't fight back, but also understand he really didn't have time for petty bickering while overseeing all that he had to do.
I also like that he volunteered to go to Viet Nam, but had no accumulated enough flight hours to qualify for the Palace Alert program and, due to his dates of service, the war was winding down and shortly before we pulled out. But, he did ask to fly missions there.
He did have a DUI back in the 1970’s, but how long does something need be held against a man? He was not the George W bush arrested for cocaine use, either. According to the arrest report, other than the name, nothing fit him. Then again, he isn't the only one to have the same name as another. I was surprised to find out there was another in Viet Nam the same time as I was that shared the same name, spelling and all. I imagine his middle name was different, but both started with an A.
Strange? Yes, considering my real name isn't all that common.
Far from perfect, yes, but nowhere the demon he was made out to be.
For as long as Jihadists have been attacking our interests with increasing intensity, I credit him with finally responding in kind as needed and what should have been done long ago.
I'm far from a hero, just one who served, but thank you.
You’re right, during WWII, Ron Paul would have been locked up or worse for the criticism he’s been spouting. Instead, he just goes back on the Republican Primary Ballot every 2 years.
Typical liberal tactic, supply a partial quote and make sure it is out of context.
Who else would take a comment made out of frustration and turn into a policy claim?
Ron Paul was the only congressman not to vote to condemn Ahmadinejad
Ron Paul along with 11 other liberal congressmen voted against sanctions against Iran..Ron paul has said, both Iran and North Korea are not a threat.
Ron Palu has said, leave Iran alone.
Ron Paul is in lock step with the left wing and their -
it is America’s fault, that 9/11 was blow back against us.
Ron Paul, the Democrat’s best friend.
Nevermind, sorry to bother you. (It turned out to be fun - maybe I need some cats, though.)
Are you calling Ol' Dan Tucker a liberal?
It was he who supplied the quote in the first place; I merely pulled a source to verify it.
So, you think that others should have the freedom to use your name however they want? Because that’s what President Bush was objecting to - the use of his name as a url for trash.
Oh - wait - that would require you to do something *using your real name.*
What?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on man, think out side the box. Even I could effectively seal the borders with our military and milita. It's not that hard. It wouldn't even take 24 hours. It should have been done YEARS ago! But now it's too late. Sure, a couple here and there would get through now and again - that's the law of averages - but nothing like the thousands that come through daily. And what if just 0.5% of hundreds or thousands/day are Islamic terrorist? I bet this is a very conservative estimate at that. Multiply this times God knows how many years of days now and we have good reason to quit fighting amongst ourselves and drivelling over acedemic labels like GOP, Libertarian, and conservative.
Ron Paul told us in Dallas in summer, 2007, that the US troops could just march out of Iraq the same way they marched in - yeah, under attack with bombs and gunfire from all directions. He just giggled with joy at his own statement.
Bush, at the time, was a public figure, and public figures can and almost certainly will be subject to ridicule.
Wow, I am almost the same age and the best president I can remember in my lifetime is the one who:
1. cut tax rates but then did NOT sign on to the largest tax increase in the history of the US to that time.
2. did not cut and run in the middle east when the Marines were attacked with a car bomb.
3. did not appoint an OConnor or even a Souter or Blackmon to the US Supreme Court.
4. did not sign an amnesty bill for illegal aliens.
But I guess is you definition of a great GOP president is raising taxes, cutting and running in the middle east, weak Supreme Court Justices and amnesty for illegal aliens, then you are right G.W. Bush was not your guy.
Bush, at the time, was a public figure, and public figures can and almost certainly will be subject to ridicule.
................
You didn't answer the question. Do you believe that others should have the freedom to use your real name to post what ever they want about you?
Don't you believe it's aggression or fraud to do so for you, me and public figures?
Good luck getting states to enforce immigration laws. Or, do you not see them squawking about doing so mostly all across the country already?
Or, is their Hispanic ethnicity you fear?
Sorry to pop your BDS inspired hatred, but illegal immigration did not start in 2000. It as Reagan whio mistakenly agreed to the “one-time” amnesty in the 1980’s. Why is thee no condemnation of that, only Bush?
Clinton did nothing, Bush 41 did nothing, Reagan gave amnesty, Carter did nothing, Ford did nothing, how far back do you wantto look?
“There would have been no such threat if United States citizens’ inalienable rights to bear arms had not been infringed upon by their very own Government.”
Please explain what that delusional comment had to do with highjacked aircraft? Do you not know the dangers of a stray bullet inside a pressurized cavin at altitude?
Do you not recall all the highjacked aircraft back in the 60’s, by guns?
I will agree that Air Marshall’s should have been kept on domestic flights.
You do realize too, that in such a confined space, if others were allowed to board with gus, so would the terrorists, don’t you?
I don’t like gun control, but gun responsibility is in order.
Armed Air Marshalls would have given them a better chance against box cutters.
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.