What a difference an article and a capital letter make. After the New York Times ran some excerpts from Robert Draper's Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, the Blogosphere -- both mainstream and arcane -- has been filled with comments about the president's post-presidential plans to build "The Fantastic Freedom Institute."
Now, from a guy who referred to the 9/11 terrorists at "evildoers" and reduced the office of the presidency to being "the decider," it doesn't take a leap of faith to believe he'd build a joint that sounds like (INSERT COMIC BOOK SUPERHERO JOKE).
Only, it's not quite so.
The actual quote reads: "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," where he will be running what he (the president) called "a fantastic Freedom Institute."
The article of import is "a." And fantastic is used purely as an adjective, rather than as part of the title of the institute. I do think it's important to note the difference between The Fantastic Freedom Institute and "a fantastic Freedom Institute."
By now we all know the president is grammatically challenged. But to mock Bush for giving an overreaching cartoonish moniker to his institute leads one astray from what really needs to be discussed, and what seems to be at the heart of Draper's book. The title alone, Dead Certain, says it all: that Bush is resolute in his decisions and ultimately does not look for, or care to truly consider opinions that run counter to his desires. Again, in and of itself not exactly a revelation. The book, however, does offer up some bright shiny new nuggets of alleged recalcitrance. Apparently even the decision to bring Cheney on the ticket was done over the stringent objections of Bush's closest advisor Karl Rove who saw the move as seeming "needy."
So, then, here is what seems fantastic about Bush's plans for his next act: It is not that a man who took us to war wishes his legacy to be about freedom. If there were a Nobel Prize for hypocrisy I think Kennedy or Johnson would be running neck and neck with Bush. What's "fantastic" about Bush's plans is that he wants to propagate freedom without seeming to understand the fundamentals of liberty. It ain't all about bombs and tanks and diplomacy from the working end of a gun. It is about unrestricted exchange. It is about occupying real estate where reasonable people publicly tussle over tough ideas. It is opinion given unadorned rather than served with ginned up intelligence or hidden behind executive privilege and presidential clemency or warrant-less wiretaps. Freedom -- as trite as it sounds -- requires vigilance and oversight. And fortunately our system has been set up so that there are those who can watch the watchmen even as public disclosure runs counter to national security. But time and again - in the run up to the Iraq war through firing of federal prosecutors - the president has shown abject disregard for contrary opinion, full disclosure and governmental oversight. I would hate to think the president, or anyone for that matter, would gather young leaders and school them that the path to freedom is paved with autocratic tendencies.
With fear of stating the obvious: freedom belongs to "We the People," not "They the Politicians." We are the deciders, it's our government and we have a right to know. Before he builds himself an institute -- magical, marvelous or otherwise -- what would be fantastic is if George Bush finished his term by demonstrating he understood as much.
It will be composed of: a) neocons who never saw military service, and b) retired US generals.
It's aim, repsectively, from the above paragraph: a) to continue to get the US to fight Israel's proxy wars, and b) to make boatloads of money through contracting.
These retired generals are creating contracting start-ups by the gross. Their mission is to subscribe to all the neocon wars as war profiteers.
Neocons and generals who sold out their country: a match made in Hell.
Ya knocked that one out of the park, stright-away center field. Good on ya! Agape.
Bush also presumes he'll be spending a lot of time advising world leaders at his Freedom Institute where he believes they will come to forge policies for spreading democracy, not only in the Middle East, but also throughout the entire world.
Somehow, I don't see Gordon Brown, the new British Prime Minister and no big supporter of Bush's Iraq War, Russia's President Vladimir Putin, Spanish President José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero who ran and won as an anti-Bush Iraq war candidate, and soon-to-be elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who has vowed to pull out the remaining 1,600 troops that country has based in Iraq. So, just whom might these world leader be who will come flocking to Bush's Freedom Institute?
In any case, I suggest Bush should open up his monument of lies in Baghdad with the Baghdad Museum of Fine Farts complete with a statue of Bush at the entrance. The statue depicts Bush with his face between his legs, mooning the world. On the pedestal these words appear: "I Said to Bring 'em On and They Brung 'em On!"
What a fitting tribute for G. W. Bush and one that can described as a Fantastic legacy that world leaders can remember him by, maybe even longer than George Washington.
Bush also presumes he'll be spending a lot of time advising world leaders at his Freedom Institute where he believes they will come to forge policies for spreading democracy, not only in the Middle East, but throughout the entire world.
Somehow, I don't see Gordon Brown, the new British Prime Minister and no big supporter of Bush's Iraq War, Russia's President Vladimir Putin, Spanish President José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero who ran and won as an anti-Bush Iraq war, or soon-to-be elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who has vowed to pull out the remaining 1,600 troops that country has based in Iraq. So, just whom might these world leader be who will come flocking to Bush's Freedom Institute?
In any case, I suggest Bush should open up his monument of lies in Baghdad with the Baghdad Museum of Fine Farts complete with a statue of Bush at the entrance. The statue depicts Bush with his face between his legs, mooning the world and on the pedestal these words: "I Said to Bring 'em On and They Brung 'em On."
What a fitting tribute for G. W. Bush and one that can described as Fantastic legacy that world leaders can remember him by.
What? Kennedy was not a hypocrite. He was not the deity he's become since his death, but hypocrite? How exactly?
Johnson was dead wrong on Vietnam, so maybe you have a point there. But his domestic accomplishments were certainly worthy of praise.
I think a more apt comparison would be Nixon, who campaigned on ending the war only to increase troop levels.
They're just leaving out the part about ONLY for rich, white, psuedo-Christian, closet homo, republiCON males.
Dubya = Nixon minus Brain?
I cannot wait for the next "crazy statement" from our President.
Good article...John.
John, "We the people" have historically given up our freedom to politicians for many decades...
Until ALL the people learn ALL they can about any candidate, they will continue to give up their freedom. The main key is that the PEOPLE, for some dopey reason, which I think is laziness, HOLDS ALL POLITICIANS TO THEIR PROMISES and to MAKE SURE that the politicians SERVE THE PEOPLE, that freedom will still be in the politicans.