It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Very Least That I Believe The Bush Administration Was At Fault For.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:08 PM
This is an essay i recently wrote for english class, not anything too fancy but I'd appreciate your thoughts/criticisms.

I thought this was suited to general conspiracies forum, but by all means move it if required.

also, this is my first thread, go easy on me.

- IncrementEthicalAnarchy

September 11th, 2001. A date that lives forever in the psyche of the western world, primarily as the date that the threat of terrorism became all too real, but also as the day that American government changed forever. The purpose of this essay is to inform the reader as to the implications of the measures sought by government post-911 and the reasons cited to explain them. Many people believe that the US government had no way to properly respond to these attacks and little in the way of preventative measures. These assumptions lead people to believe that decisions taken afterwards were in their best interests, and were not only justified but needed. I do not believe this to be the case and I offer my arguments to support the claim that not only did the Bush administration over-zealously legislate in the aftermath of the incident, but continued to propagate ideals in rhetoric that they were simultaneously denying in action.

If the bush administration learned anything from 9/11, it was the importance of homeland security; the importance of protecting your nations infrastructure, population and ideals from agents of adverse influence. And who wouldn’t agree? If your country is under attack, then any course of action to avoid further conflict is justified; right? Well the Bush administration seem to believe so, many people – including myself to a point – will agree so. What is not justified however is over-reacting to a situation so badly that it surrenders the very ideals that the conflict is supposedly being waged over. George bush himself stated after 9/11 that “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom”. This taking place days before the implementation of the patriot act, a severely unconstitutional piece of legislation that allows searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s permission or knowledge as just one of its provisions. Even the United States Joint Army Colleges states that the act “invades our nation’s civil liberties”, “goes too far in its reach”, “includes unnecessary provisions” and is “another example of legislative overcompensation, enacted in a time of crisis”. In fact, if the Patriot act had been enacted during Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the African National Congress, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation – a non-profit organization dedicated to defending freedom in a digital age - believe the ANC would have been classed as a terrorist organization. On the face of it, it would appear that George bush had underestimated the scale of the problem and had to take away some liberties temporarily in aid of the ‘war on terror’ (as I’m sure people keen to defend his actions would retort), but as another quote of his showcases this is not the case; “You can't put democracy and freedom back into a box.” This clearly indicates an individual saying one thing and doing another, and that is never a good thing as the citizens of the Third Reich in Germany will tell you after a certain Adolf Hitler diminished civil liberties in the name of – coincidentally – ‘defence of the homeland’.

At this point it seems the over-compensation to 9/11 had been counter-productive to the aims set out by the Administration. But this conclusion is based upon the assumption that the aims set out by the administration were their actual aims or the full extent of their aims, and not justifications for political opportunism. Their apparent attitude is remarkably similar in nature to a quote by President Obama’s chief of staff “You don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Critics would defend the Bush Administration’s actions by citing their decisions as ‘reactionary’ and at the time understandable due to the enormous pressure caused by the disaster; although this is inherently inaccurate. It is inaccurate – at the very least entirely implausible – because of a large number of George Bush’s Administration being made up of members of an organisation named ‘The Project for a New American Century’ which published a report in September 2000 named ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’. This report stated clearly that the intention was for the military to go through a “process of transformation” that could take an excessive amount of time, unless there was an “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbour”. To clarify, I am not saying that the Bush administration was aware but unwilling to effectively handle the situation, but that they had the capacity to over-play elements of the crisis so as to forward agenda’s that were not in the citizens interest, but were in their own political interest.

Critics of my last point will say that a military problem requires a military solution and that it is natural for the armed forces to respond to changing threats by adapting their approach. This would also naturally mean re-adjusting the forces. But then why would the Bush Administration respond with conventional warfare with Iraq and Afghanistan as countries – which have probably done more to stir the pot of Islamic extremism than anything – rather than, say... a counter-insurgency program whereby the US works with these countries to counter radicalisation within their own borders? This surely would have done more for the US’s public image in the east and would cost a fraction of the $1.121 Trillion that the Congressional Research Service reports has been spent on the conflicts.
In conclusion, the Bush Administration showed a desire to hijack genuine tragedy in the advancement of political goals that were to the detriment to the American people; also the act of advocating an ideal whilst making speeches and at the same time legislating against the very same ideal. On a final note, the real tragedy of 9/11 was the seizure of the event for political gain; but sadly in the words of the man himself "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:18 PM
You know what the most hilarious and sad part is on the mindset of collectives are?

Think about it, they want to institute their collective ideas here and then rail against Obama and Bush attempting to enforce this collective ideal on others.

Cognitive dissonance.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:23 PM
Wow, well thats a lot to take in.......

I'm assuming you'll be citing sources more clearly?

Is this the end of the paper?

You hit on so many things it's somewhat hard to follow and a lot to take in.

The best papers are the one's that point out the other side's argument as well.

It depends what kind of assignment this was for? What's the type of paper, opinion, informative, etc?

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by 11PB11

Yeah the essay was overdue and the last third was a late-night coffee fueled affair, Ill try and explicitly cite some sources. I remember a thread on ATS "50 questions/facts that point away from the OS" where I got links to congressional reasearch commitee and other figures. The quotes from george bush were assorted 'Bushisms' I found on various quote websites.

The essay itself was meant to be persuasive writing, which is biased toward your own opinion whilst stating and refuting the critics stance.

Thanks for the reply

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Im unsure as to whether your referring to myself as a collectivist or the people I referance in my essay, although for the purpose of my reply I'll assume the former.

I am in no way a straight collectivist - although the principles the Philosophy is based upon are compassionate and as Egalitarian as is possible this side of communism.

I think George Orwell put it best when he stated that the only secure basis for an oligarchy is collectivism; as an ignorant underclass gains a standard of comparison to the rich in the individualist format.

Im from the deontological school of thought (the motives of behind an act are what matters most for moral praise, rather than the consequences) so I prefer to differentiate between collectives being so under honest pretense as oppsed to Bush and Obama's clear use of collectivism to mask sheer socialist values.

my two scottish pence


top topics

log in