[News] President of Liberty, Freedom, Love and God
News at freedomarchives.org
News at freedomarchives.org
Fri Jan 21 17:25:23 EST 2005
January 21, 2005
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
* 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
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
* 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.
<mailto:rmcmail at speakeasy.net>rmcmail at speakeasy.net
The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the News