[News] President of Liberty, Freedom, Love and God

[News at freedomarchives.org]

January 21, 2005
http://vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=24409

Axis of Logic: The President of Liberty, Freedom, Love and God

Axis of Logic editor & publisher Les Blough writes: Yesterday, January 20, 
2005, George Walker Bush was sworn in for his second term as President of 
the United States. He read a speech written for him by paid wordsmiths at 
the US$68 million extravaganza celebrating commencement of his second term. 
It was funded largely by the corporations who have put and kept him in 
office. We include the full text of his address below this editorial for 
the convenience of the reader.

All sound apologia (defense) contains 3 basic standards.
    * It begins with an admission of the presuppositions (set of 
assumptions) -- the foundation on which the argument rests.
    * The argument stands or falls on whether it can be logically deduced 
from these presuppositions.
    * Of paramount importance are the requirements for a definition of 
terms, internal consistency and supporting, factual evidence.

These three requirements comprise an Axis of Logic. Below, we examine Mr. 
Bush's inaugural speech based upon these rules of argumentation.

Definition of Terms

Liberty

Bush used the term "liberty" 45 terms in this crafted speech and "freedom", 
27 times. How did he define "liberty"? He spoke of the "survival of 
liberty"; the "success of liberty"; "the appeal of liberty" and the 
"promise of liberty. He said "Liberty will come to those who love it". He 
stated, "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

He spoke of "soldiers [who] died in wave upon wave for a union based on 
liberty."

Bush stated his belief that the "world [is] moving toward liberty."

But just what is George W. Bush's definition of "liberty"?

He stated what liberty does not mean:

"Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another."

Bush's speech defined liberty this way:

"In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of 
economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This 
is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the 
Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights."

Does this definition of freedom include the dignity of those U.S. citizens 
who were put into cages yesterday while they protested his first-term wars 
on the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine?

Anthony Harwood described the scene at the inauguration yesterday in The 
Mirror (UK):  "Streets were fenced off, anti-aircraft missiles deployed, 
combat jets patrolled overhead, snipers scanned the vast crowd from 
rooftops and hundreds of police stood along the route of the parade."

"There were hi-tech chemical, nuclear and biological weapons sensors, bomb 
sniffing dogs and boat patrols on the Potomac River."

How does this description fit with Mr. Bush's definition of freedom and 
dignity as he delivered the craft of his hired speechwriters from this 
virtual bunker in Washington yesterday?

Did he deliver this speech with dignity or while cowering behind his new 
Police State?

When Bush speaks of dignity ... is he speaking of the dignity of thousands 
of US citizens who have been harassed and imprisoned during his first term 
in office for exercising their first amendment right to free speech?

Does he refer to the dignity of those US citizens whose names appear on 
Homeland Security computer lists because they have spoken out in protests 
against the wars of the Bush regime?

Does he refer to the dignity of those who are routinely taken out of line 
at US airports for extensive searches for the only reason that they have 
protested the foreign war policies of this regime?

Does he refer to the many who have been deported because of their dissent 
with his policies from 2000-2004?

Freedom

Bush defined "Freedom" this way: "At this second gathering, our duties are 
defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. 
For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on 
distant borders."

Based on this definition of Freedom, Bush argues that do defend the freedom 
of the United States it has "stood watch" in other foreign country, thereby 
attempting to justify violation of the national sovereignty of those nations.

An average of 22% of all US troops have been stationed in 214 countries 
from 1950-2000. On average, there have been 118.8 million US military 
troops (one year each) stationed in foreign countries during this period. 
Now the number is higher.

In his January, 2004 report, America's Empire of Bases, Chalmers Johnson 
finds: "It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of 
bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although 
instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure 
Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic US 
military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas 
bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United 
States and its territories." (Supporting data)

Is this what George W. Bush means by "defending our own freedom by standing 
watch on distant borders"?

Is expansion of US hegemony what he means when he said: "The best hope for 
peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Is the expansion of US military personnel and bases throughout the world 
synonymous with "expansion of freedom in all the world"?

Or is it US hegemony, violation of national sovereignty and support and 
installation of regimes by the US like those of military dictators like 
Saddam Hussein, Perez Musharaff, Osama bin Laden, General Augusto Pinochet 
and many others?

In his inaugural speech, Bush spoke of his foreign policies as a: 
"...concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to 
our enemies' defeat..."

Is he speaking of the current US installed "interim government" of Iraq, 
headed by Allawi who executed men by shooting them in the back of their 
heads with his own hand in an Iraqi prison in 2003?

He stated: "America will not impose our own style of government on the 
unwilling."

When he spoke of "promoting democracy," was he speaking of US support for 
the 2002 coup of democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez Frias in 
Venezuela and ongoing attempts to bring down the Chavez government in the 
interests of robbing the Venezuelan people of their oil?

It is well documented that the US government is currently attempting to 
impose its "own style of government" on the "unwilling" Venezuelan people 
who have elected their President 9 times through national elections and 
referenda in the last 6 years.

How does Mr. Bush reconcile his lofty words with his actual policies of 
interference, coup attempts and funding the opposition party in Venezuela 
through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and other US 
instititutions?
    * The reader may cringe at the term, but I can find no more accurate 
term for his words than "lies."

The foreign policy violations of the Bush regime can be summed up 
succinctly and simply: They routinely violate national sovereignty and the 
right to self-determination among foreign nations and the last thing they 
want to see bud and thrive in foreign countries is real democracy.

Love, Value of Life and Human Worth

In his speech, Mr. Bush stated: "Our nation relies on men and women who 
look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our 
best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that 
even the unwanted have worth."

Has Mr. Bush been "surrounding the lost with love" among the people of Iraq?

How about the people in Afghanistan or the people in Palestine where he 
continues supporting the Zionist killer, Ariel Sharon?

Does he "value the life" he sees in the fallen US soldiers and 100,000 dead 
citizens of Iraq?

Does he see "worth" in the "unwanted" whom he has had deported through the 
machinery of "Homeland Security" because they spoke out against his policies?

Does he value the lives and find worth in the "unwanted" who languish in 
homelessness, poverty right here in the United States?

Does he find "worth" in the 3,471 men and women on America's death row in 
2004 led in number by his home state of Texas?

The underlying assumptions of this speech

There were two points of interest for us in the premises laid down by 
George Bush in his inaugural address:

One premise upon which his speech is based is a curious one. George Bush 
stated: "In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there 
can be no human rights without human liberty."

On the surface, it's a grand statement, one with most people would 
initially find themselves in agreement. However, this is statement is 
deeply flawed in our opinion. With these words, he (his speech writers) 
predicates "human rights" on "human liberty." We ask, does this mean that 
human rights violations can be excused on the path to achieving what Bush 
thinks of as "human liberty." Do human rights take second place to his 
notion of "human liberty"?
    * Are the two concepts as universally accepted not one and the same?

The second premise of his speech: "Some, I know, have questioned the global 
appeal of liberty -- though this time in history, four decades defined by 
the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt."

This is a "straw-man" argument at best.

Just who is it that questions the "global appeal of liberty"?

Just who are these people who "doubt" that people universally want liberty?

Where have we seen "the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen" in the last 
4 years?

Is it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine or Palestine where people are 
languishing and dying under the steel boot of the US military?

In the United States where the civil rights of Americans have been attacked 
by the govern?

This straw-man argument is a false premise that attempts to justify war as 
a means to bring about "human liberty."

In his article titled, SUPERZERO: Mr. Uncredible Bush Goes on the Warpath, 
in today's issue of The Mirror (UK), Anthony Harwood writes: "The 
re-elected president ignored the disaster in Iraq to use his inaugural 
address to proclaim that America was on the march for freedom."

"He did not mention Iraq by name -- where 1,360 personnel have been killed 
and 10,500 injured, helping to earn him the lowest approval rating in 50 
years for any president starting a second term."
    * In his speech, Bush stated:  "And all the allies of the United States 
can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend 
on your help."

Is this the same George W. Bush who launched unprovoked, unilateral war on 
the people of Iraq over the objections of the international community and 
the United Nations. Is this the same Mr. Bush who arrogantly declared his 
"go it alone" policy on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction?

Paradigms, Preconceptions and Perceptions

All people listen and read the words of George W. Bush through the paradigm 
through which they view the world around them. We absorb his words with 
pre-concepts and our perceptual filters. To these conditions we freely admit.

Through them, we see a lack of well-defined terms, manifold internal 
consistencies and factual inaccuracies.

Those who wish to ignore the contradictions and deceptions in Mr. Bush's 
speech do so based upon their own preconceptions and perceptual filters. 
They will float emotionally along with the lofty, meaningless adulations he 
made of himself and his warmongering, capitalist regime because they want 
to do so.

Many will ignore these deceptions even as they lose their homes to 
foreclosure in the impending burst of the real estate bubble, their loss of 
their social security benefits, jobs, the devaluation of their dollar 
against the Euro, their unprecedented national debt and quite possibly a 
crash of the US economy like none seen since the Great Depression.

Many will ignore these well-crafted deceptions while the killing machine of 
the US military they fund continues to wreak havoc and death on brown 
people in foreign lands. But at least half of the US population sees them 
for what they are: Lies, gilded in the golden wraps of terms like 
"Liberty," "Freedom," "God," "Love" and "Security."

Act now against War, Injustice and Tyranny

We ask the reader to consider seriously what your part may be in the 
international movement against war. This international movement has many 
faces and the participants many roles and duties. Those who lead the 
movement are currently found in the resistance to occupation in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Venezuela and many other places on the planet.

We will continue to battle this regime with heart, mind, body and soul.

Be sure that we will not stand by while the global tyrant in Washington and 
his entourage continue their doctrine of military dominance, global 
warfare, racism and their invasions, occupations and colonizations of 
foreign nations.
    * We will not stand idly by while they continue their corporate 
empire's attacks on the common worker, their usury and economic violence 
and their attacks on civil liberties in our country.
    * We will continue to help build the growing international movement 
against the Bush Regime by protesting in the streets, reporting the truth 
and educating our neighbors about the real plans for US expansion.
    * We will do so for as long as we breathe - for as long as it takes to 
bring down this gang of international thieves and killers now holding power 
in Washington, D.C.

Les Blough
<mailto:rmcmail at speakeasy.net>rmcmail at speakeasy.net
http://www.AxisofLogic.com


The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20050121/77f69e1b/attachment.htm>