The Toxic Rhetoric of Freedom and Democracy

George W. Bush has given “freedom and democracy” a bad name. By constantly babbling on ad nauseam about those traditional American values while undermining them with his every action, he has made those words into such a cliché as to render them meaningless – or worse.

A responsible and independent press would repeatedly call him on that – and if they had done so George Bush would have been lucky to receive 30% of the vote in the 2004 presidential election, even with cheating. Instead, aside from a few exceptions, such as Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers, and Seymour Hersh, our national corporate news media gives him a free pass.

A book that I’m currently reading unwittingly provides a perfect example of how the meaning of the words “freedom” and “democracy” have become so perverted under the Bush presidency that I may now be less likely to vote for any politician who uses them.


“Dead Certain – The Presidency of George W. Bush” by Robert Draper

I bought Draper’s book because I had heard that it exposes some of the inner workings of the Bush White House and administration. What a crock! The book is based almost solely on interviews with Bush, Bush administration officials, and other supporters. It is basically a fawning tribute to Bush’s “strength” and “leadership”. It is filled with “information” from the Bush interviews that is stated as fact, interspersed with Draper’s own fawning opinions of his hero, snarky and unsupported remarks about leading Democrats, and just enough criticism of Bush to provide a thin veil of legitimacy and objectivity.

Draper says that, unlike most other 2nd inaugural addresses, Bush’s was “anything but forgettable”. Here is how he describes what went through Bush speech writer Mike Gerson’s mind as he worked on the speech:


Quoting from Bush’s 2nd inaugural address, Draper continues:


Then, to contrast Bush’s speech with the terrorists against whom Bush has declared war, Draper provides the following UNREFERENCED remarks:


Unbelievably (or not), Draper doesn’t suggest the slightest hint of irony as he gushes over George Bush’s dedication to freedom and democracy, which Bush has unabashedly and continuously touted with his rhetoric, while undermining it here and abroad with his every action since he was inaugurated as President in January 2001. A decent journalist would have said at least a few words about issues such as the following:


U.S. imperialism and mercenary forces in Iraq

After Bush’s claim of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program, etc. turned out to be bogus, George Bush has repeatedly claimed that the primary reason for his invasion of Iraq was to spread freedom and democracy to that country. Given that, would it be appropriate for our corporate news media to point out that more than a million Iraqi civilians have been killed in George Bush’s effort to bring them freedom and democracy? What about the four million Iraqi refugees? What about the fact the great majority of Iraqis want us out of their country? Well, none of that is considered by our corporate news media to be important enough to discuss in any detail.

Then consider the role of Blackwater USA, the mercenary corporation that has contracted with the Bush administration for $700 million dollars to provide “diplomatic security” in Iraq. On September 16th, 2007, Blackwater forces protecting a U.S. State Department official opened fire on an Iraqi vehicle. The incident is described in The Nation by Jeremy Scahill:


Within 24 hours of the killings, the Iraqi government announced that it was expelling Blackwater from their country and intended to prosecute those responsible. Scahill explains how that worked out:


Though our corporate news media reported this incident, it has continually failed to state the obvious conclusion: As Scahill points out, “Blackwater’s continued presence on Iraqi streets days after (Prime Minister) Maliki called for its expulsion serves as a potent symbol of the utter lack of Iraqi sovereignty.”

Not that the September 16th episode was necessary in order to come to that conclusion. Within days of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, the Bush appointed administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, issued 100 Orders which thoroughly eviscerated any sovereignty that Iraq might have had, including orders to give U.S. corporations access to Iraq resources, including oil.

Just before leaving Iraq on June 27, 2004, in the process of allegedly handing over sovereignty to the Iraqi government, Bremer issued Order 17, which granted immunity to all U.S. private contractors in Iraq for all future crimes that they may commit. Since then, Blackwater has been involved in several deadly incidents, including six in the last year alone. But whenever Iraq has complained about those incidents the U.S. government has refused to take any action against the culprits or to allow Iraqi prosecution of them.

But of course, as George Bush has repeatedly pointed out, all of this is done for the ultimate purpose of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.


Bush administration support for the torturing tyrant of Uzbekistan

The Bush administration has allied itself with many regimes throughout the world where freedom and democracy are in short supply. One of the best examples of that is Uzbekistan, where Islam Karimov has been dictator since prior to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Karimov’s rule in Uzbekistan is described by Stephen Grey in “Ghost Plane – The True Story of the CIA Torture Program”:


Because of severe religious repression under the Karimov regime many Muslims fled Uzbekistan and ended up in Afghanistan, where they resided by 9-11-01. That set the stage for collaboration between Uzbekistan and the Bush administration in pursuit of its “War on Terror”: The Bush administration paid tens of millions of dollars to Uzbekistan in aid. American forces in Afghanistan would capture the displaced Muslims, who may or may not have been fighting for the Taliban, or they would simply take Muslims into custody after being handed them by bounty hunters; the U.S. would then “render” their prisoners back to Uzbekistan or send them to Guantanamo Bay; Uzbekistan would either force their prisoners to confess to various al Qaeda plots or torture them; and they would turn over the “intelligence” thus received to the CIA.

Of course, Bush’s support for Karimov’s regime and other similar regimes has the ultimate purpose of securing freedom and democracy for the people of Uzbekistan and all the peoples of the world.


Multiple violations of our Constitutional rights

The primary mechanism for guaranteeing the freedom of American citizens is our Constitution. George Bush, by his repeated actions has clearly indicated to the American people that our Constitution is wholly expendable at his whim (though he would never say it in those words):

He has made a mockery of the balance of powers required by our Constitution by appending “signing statements” to more than 800 laws enacted by Congress, thereby asserting his intentions not to be bound by those laws; he has attacked our First Amendment rights to a free press by claiming the right to imprison journalists who expose administration crimes to the public; he has violated our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures through his warrantless domestic spying program; and he has violated our Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment by condoning and even approving the widespread torture of hundreds or thousands of men and boys.

But worst of all in my opinion is George Bush’s decision to indefinitely detain without charges or trial anyone claimed by the federal government to be an “enemy combatant”. How he thinks that such a federal power is consistent with a free society is beyond my comprehension. This is what Judge Robert Doumar, a conservative Reagan appointee, had to say about this when Yaser Esam Hamdi challenged his detention in a federal naval station brig:


When the government prosecutor tried to explain to Judge Doumar that the government needed to detain Hamdi indefinitely, Doumar responded, “How long does it take to question a man? A year? Two years? Ten years? A lifetime? How long?” When the prosecutor’s only answer to that question was “The present detention is lawful”, Doumar responded, “So the Constitution doesn’t apply to Mr. Hamdi?”


When actions contradict rhetoric

Some would consider the huge gap between the rhetoric and the actions of George W. Bush to be surprising or even shocking. In fact, many or most Americans are pathetically unable to comprehend the extent of his anti-Democratic agenda in the light of his rabidly pro-Democratic rhetoric. Our corporate news media gives us little assistance in that regard.

But for those who have a good understanding of history and psychology, this should not be surprising or shocking at all. Evil or immoral people don’t often advertise or admit to the fact that their actions are evil or immoral. In fact it is extremely rare that they do so. To the contrary, they generally go to great pains to disguise their actions, put them in the best light, and claim that their actions are designed for the exact opposite of what they are:

George Bush is a plain spoken and honest man who brings integrity back to the Oval Office. He invaded Iraq not to obtain access for his corporate cronies to Iraqi oil, but rather to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq. He vetoed a bill that would have granted access to vitally needed health care for millions of children, not because he is looking out for the interests of his wealthy friends in the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, but because he doesn’t want the American people to be burdened with “socialized medicine”.

The psychiatrist and best selling author M. Scott Peck describes this phenomenon in
“People of the Lie”. Peck defines an evil person as someone who is totally unwilling to admit fault or to try to understand him or herself. It’s just too painful. So, in order to avoid having to do that, the evil person spends his or her whole life trying to make other people and himself see himself as he would like to be seen, rather than as he really is. That means pretending, lying, killing, or whatever it takes. The bottom line is that no fault of an evil person can ever be corrected because trying to correct it would mean having to admit that it exists.

I believe that is a pretty good description of George W. Bush (and Dick Cheney), notwithstanding all the sickening rhetoric about freedom and democracy.

Firing attorneys who refused to prosecute bogus voter fraud of Democrats, or those who insisted on pursuing legitimate crimes of Republicans.

Thanks yet again, TfC!!! :loveya:

I realize that what I've said here seems obvious to most DUers, but I felt a need to say it anyhow because I believe that most Americans don't understand it well enough.

:hug:

have a tough time processing this...

Nat Parry explains how Bush is able to get away with it:



http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/122203.html

what this Administration is selling does so on their own volition. It's the free market. Democracy doesn't mean 20% tell the other 80% what to do as we currently have because the Republicans are gaming the system through procedural ploys.
As for freedom: There are two kinds, freedom from and freedom to. One is gained by sacrificing some of the other. It's the balance of the Universe; it's the yin and yang, it's Newton's Laws of Motion and Einstein's special theory. When Bush spouts nonsense about freedom he's just being the huckster his masters demand. It would be interesting to hear Bush in a philosophical discussion about freedom. All he ever says is freedom is good, kind of like the motto of Faber College, "Knowledge is good." Of course Faber is the fictitious college in the movie comedy classic "Animal House," and we understand it's satire and farce.
Republicans can't tell the difference between satire and reality. Go here and read their Mailbag for an example of clueless Bush followers. http://landoverbaptist.org/

:rofl:

All he's capable of doing is reading the speeches prepared for him by his staff, following instructions given to him through hidden ear pieces, and spouting off cliches.

and see clearly by the response that it highlights denial strategies that DUers seem not quite prepared to deal with...