like Roosevelt’s, --- bad comparison Teddy defined Americans with accuracy - Bush became a puppet of the zionist lobbyists
Bush’s changes were perversions of the clear vision the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us ---- the founding fathers warned the US against get involved in foreign disputes - now we've seen that both dems and repubs can be strung-up- puppets for the jews at AIPAC some people need killin' On Dec 11, 10:50 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > How George W. Bush Redefined American FreedombyJames Bovard,Posted December > 11, 2009This article originally appeared in the September 2009 edition > ofFreedom Daily.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.-created “Camp Liberty,” a tent compound to house Iraqi detainees, > was constructed 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 > freedomFor 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 powerBush 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 > letyour Government’s not going to let people destroy the freedomsthat 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. ButBush freedomrequired 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 freedommeant “free speech zones” where demonstrators > were quarantined to avoid tainting presidential photo opportunities.Bush > freedommeant allowing the National Security Agency to vacuum up Americans’ > email without a warrant.Bush freedommeant entitling the Justice Department to > round up the names of book buyers and library users under the USA PATRIOT > Act.Bush freedomwas 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.James Bovard is the author ofAttention > Deficit Democracy[2006] as well asThe Bush Betrayal[2004],Lost Rights[1994] > andTerrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the > World of Evil(Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy > advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
