2 of 8

Spy admin

Write now Article Tools

It's funny how Bush-Cheney apologists seem to want to have it both ways. First, the Bush administration is lauded as having firmly dedicated themselves to the war on "terrorism", thus saving the "American way of life." And, how did this administration address the war on terrorism? Well, by single-handedly undermining the constitution. How did they do this, you ask? Let's see. Prisoners held for years without access to legal advice or even formal charges being filed. (This is completely contrary to the fourth amendment.) Wiretaps without a court order. (If the government is so sure the people they are listening in on are guilty, why can't they go through proper channels?) Invasion of Iraq. (Still no signs of weapons of mass destruction.) Argue any of this with a Republican and they'll tell you that, in order to save America, we have to suspend certain aspects of the constitution. I would argue that, with that attitude, there's no America to save.

Ultra-conservatives always try to hide themselves behind the flag and claim to be more "patriotic" than those of us who've actually read the constitution. Sorry, folks. It doesn't work that way. If we encourage our government to spy on us, we are forfeiting the very values that make America great; the values that make America unique and, frankly, the values that make America-America. The single core value that is of utmost importance in the constitution is that we are a self-governing people. We do not want a police state. If we let our leaders listen to our phone calls without due process, we erode our attempts at self-governance.

Many who felt the Bush administration did a great job will tell you that holding prisoners at Guantanamo was necessary to elicit information that would otherwise endanger America. However, if we resort to unfair imprisonment or if we resort to torture, how are we any better than the "terrorists" we claim to be fighting? It's just not American.

And, what about the war in Iraq? Bush and his minions tried to sell us that war with a variety of ideas-none of which turned out to be true. First, Iraq was supposed to be holding weapons of mass destruction. By now, we all know that isn't true. They also tried to convince us that Iraq was somehow involved in the 9-11 bombings. Uh, sorry. There isn't a shred of evidence to back that one up either. The simple fact of the matter is, we invaded Iraq to make George Jr. appear to be tough. We rid the world of Saddam Hussein (and most would agree this is a good thing), but at what cost? How many civilian lives have been lost in Iraq? Have we really made Iraq a better, safer place? This question is arguable, at best.

The best argument that supporters of George W. have made is that, since 9-11, there have been no more attacks on American soil. I suppose that's true. However, I don't really remember any before 9-11, either. I suppose there was Pearl Harbor, but that was during a World War. We also had Oklahoma City, but that was a couple of rednecks with some fertilizer. The real truth is, there have been more attacks on American soil under Bush than either before or after. In short, we were actually less safe under Bush than ever.

Learn more about this author, Paul Schingle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Bush-Cheney legacy: Will they be remembered as protectors of the US against terrorism or the spy administration??
We want to hear your view. Write now!