# Bush's failed Liberation Theology **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542 "2010-09-03T21:27:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/1 "2010-09-03T21:27:39Z")
I love good irony. While searching for information on “collective salvation” and liberation theology in general I stumbled on this article titled; [Bush’s Failed Liberation Theology](http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/14/bushs_failed_liberation_theology.php) from November 2006. Long before Rev Wright made Liberation Theology a topic of national discussion. Isn’t it ironic that most of the folks who are denouncing Obams’s supposed liberation theology as Marxist supported the Liberation theology of former President Bush when he decided we must free the oppressed in Iraq, at gunpoint. Forcing people to pay taxes to help the poor is Marxist , and fascist. Ordering thousands of people to kill and be killed for the sake of Liberation is okay. Quite a thing to contemplate isn’t it? So, how is it that Obama’s religion which may or may not be liberation theology, based on helping the poor, is compared to Marxism and Fascism, while the liberation of Iraq, at ongoing enormous cost in lives and treasure for US taxpayers is somehow justified. also, as a side issue; I find no clear definition of collective salvation in any liberation theology material. Is this something Glenn “religious unity and truth” Beck just completely made up? Not the term itself, but the definition he is using. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/2 "2010-09-03T21:33:52Z")
Bush isn’t a believer in liberation theology, and invading Iraq wasn’t an example of liberation theology. Obama’s not a believer in liberation theology either, although I think he’s got something of the Social Gospel about him. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/3 "2010-09-03T21:51:42Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Bush isn’t a believer in liberation theology, and invading Iraq wasn’t an example of liberation theology. Obama’s not a believer in liberation theology either, although I think he’s got something of the Social Gospel about him. I’m talking a comparison of principle, rather than official membership. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/4 "2010-09-03T21:55:00Z")
Neither Bush or Obama’s beliefs or actions reflect liberation theology principles. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/5 "2010-09-03T22:20:43Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Neither Bush or Obama’s beliefs or actions reflect liberation theology principles. which are what according to you? ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/6 "2010-09-03T22:47:20Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > > > Neither Bush or Obama’s beliefs or actions reflect liberation theology principles. > > which are what according to you? [Educate thineself](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology). Suffice it to say, it is not liberation theology every time a Christian decides s/he wants to liberate a group of people. (But a quick version is, it ties the sufferings of the poor and downtrodden with the Jewish need for liberation from Rome – e.g. the church should come to liberate the oppressed in the same ways that Jesus came to liberate the oppressed. Not a bad idea, really, but the theological movement itself has long had uncomfortably close ties to Marxism.) It’s also worth pointing out that social equality movements in democratic societies, IMO, are a very different kettle of fish. The ideal is one of greater care and cooperation between members of the society, rather than liberating the poor from the rich oppressors, with the desired result of a better society for everybody. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/7 "2010-09-03T22:58:03Z")
Hassouri’s article borrows the phrase “Liberation Theology” to refer to Bush’s sense that liberating Iraq (in the old-school military sense, as in liberating a Nazi-occupied country) was a divine mission, but as used in the article it does not mean what theologians call LT, and Hassouri himself never claims so. The usual understanding of Liberation Theology is in reference to finding a basis in Christian scripture and Magisterium, to support the politico-economic reivindications of the oppressed classes and ethnicities. The major LT school, that of Latin American Catholicism, was eventually cracked down upon by John Paul II for being too Marxist-friendly. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > also, as a side issue; I find no clear definition of collective salvation in any liberation theology material. Is this something Glenn “religious unity and truth” Beck just completely made up? Not the term itself, but the definition he is using. He may be conflating different concepts – including “Liberation Theology” itself. Now, a teaching common to much of historical Christianity is that while Grace is God’s individual gift, growth in Grace is achieved and sustained by belonging to the/a Church, as the collective body of the faithful, of which the risen Christ is the head; that God conveys Grace and/or signs thereof to the faithful through sacraments that are available through the Church body; and that the faithful are called to build and live in a just and righteous society (and not abide injustice) and that will be accounted for at Judgment (“…for I was hungry, and ye fed me; thirsty and ye gave me to drink… whatsoever ye did unto the least amongst ye, ye did unto me”) . So in that sense a lot of Christianity already teaches that you can’t be a “lone wolf” Christian and that “I got mine, sucks to be you” is not the most Christian attitude. But none of that should be news to anybody by now. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/8 "2010-09-03T23:08:17Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Suffice it to say, it is not liberation theology every time a Christian decides s/he wants to liberate a group of people. > > (But a quick version is, it ties the sufferings of the poor and downtrodden with the Jewish need for liberation from Rome – e.g. the church should come to liberate the oppressed in the same ways that Jesus came to liberate the oppressed. Not a bad idea, really, but the theological movement itself has long had uncomfortably close ties to Marxism.) > > It’s also worth pointing out that social equality movements in democratic societies, IMO, are a very different kettle of fish. The ideal is one of greater care and cooperation between members of the society, rather than liberating the poor from the rich oppressors, with the desired result of a better society for everybody. to clarify. I’m not claiming either Bush or Obama actually ascribe to on follow liberation theology. It seems likely that Obama has a decent understanding of it but that doesn’t mean he embraces it. What I’m commenting on is what I see as a contradiction in principle and the ironic rather than literal connection of the label, liberation. Quite a few conservatives are now crying Marxism and Fascism concerning Obama’s domestic policy. With the help of Glenn Beck and his recent rally it’s being connected to liberation theology. It’s basically an accusation of reparations and wealth redistribution which are big bad boogy men. What it is realistically is finding the boundaries of just how much we can do to help out the less fortunate. After reading the above title and glancing at the article it occurred to me that a lot of these same folks did not object to the billions in debt or the cost in thousands of lives that liberating Iraq cost us. Is that a major contradiction in principle or is it not? ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/9 "2010-09-03T23:17:28Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > After reading the above title and glancing at the article it occurred to me that a lot of these same folks did not object to the billions in debt or the cost in thousands of lives that liberating Iraq cost us. Is that a major contradiction in principle or is it not? Well, if that’s your question, the answer is a resounding “No.” The ideology behind liberating Iraq is entirely consistent with American conservative ideal, where liberty consists mostly or entirely of freedom from (undue) government interference in your decisions. Liberation theology in application to a society like ours would generally demand _more_ government interference in light of the (disputed) fact that economic and social inequalities can constrain us to the point of interfering with our freedom to an unacceptable extent. While I _do_ believe in that fact, I don’t see the irony in the conservative belief. After all, the Iraqi government was undoubtedly oppressive. Also note that, especially in Protestantism, ethical beliefs may or may not be theological in origin. That said, I may be misunderstanding your question. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/10 "2010-09-04T00:41:02Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > > [@cosmosdan](#): > > > > After reading the above title and glancing at the article it occurred to me that a lot of these same folks did not object to the billions in debt or the cost in thousands of lives that liberating Iraq cost us. Is that a major contradiction in principle or is it not? > > Well, if that’s your question, the answer is a resounding “No.” The ideology behind liberating Iraq is entirely consistent with American conservative ideal, where liberty consists mostly or entirely of freedom from (undue) government interference in your decisions. Liberation theology in application to a society like ours would generally demand _more_ government interference in light of the (disputed) fact that economic and social inequalities can constrain us to the point of interfering with our freedom to an unacceptable extent. While I _do_ believe in that fact, I don’t see the irony in the conservative belief. After all, the Iraqi government was undoubtedly oppressive. > > Also note that, especially in Protestantism, ethical beliefs may or may not be theological in origin. > > That said, I may be misunderstanding your question. I think you’ve got it now. I think it is a glaring contradiction in principles. For one thing there’s a responsibility issue. We are obviously responsible for the welfare of the people in our own society. Not so obviously in a country on the other side of the planet. Conservatives argue that helping the poor through taxes is unfair to those who work hard to earn their money. It that’s true then how do we justify that same tax money by the truckload being used to help non citizens. We blow the crap out of their country and then spend billions to rebuild it. We kill civilians while liberating the country and then pay their family reparations, but reparations for black oppression is seen as a horrible concept. Seeing Jesus as liberator as well as savior is described by conservative Christians as a perversion, but evidently the prince of peace doesn’t object to a long bloody war if we have a good reason. As I said, glaring contradiction in principles. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/11 "2010-09-04T14:23:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@straight\_man](#): > > > > Well, if that’s your question, the answer is a resounding “No.” The ideology behind liberating Iraq is entirely consistent with American conservative ideal, where liberty consists mostly or entirely of freedom from (undue) government interference in your decisions. Liberation theology in application to a society like ours would generally demand _more_ government interference in light of the (disputed) fact that economic and social inequalities can constrain us to the point of interfering with our freedom to an unacceptable extent. While I _do_ believe in that fact, I don’t see the irony in the conservative belief. After all, the Iraqi government was undoubtedly oppressive. > > > > Also note that, especially in Protestantism, ethical beliefs may or may not be theological in origin. > > > > That said, I may be misunderstanding your question. > > I think you’ve got it now. > I think it is a glaring contradiction in principles. For one thing there’s a responsibility issue. We are obviously responsible for the welfare of the people in our own society. Not so obviously in a country on the other side of the planet. > Conservatives argue that helping the poor through taxes is unfair to those who work hard to earn their money. It that’s true then how do we justify that same tax money by the truckload being used to help non citizens. We blow the crap out of their country and then spend billions to rebuild it. We kill civilians while liberating the country and then pay their family reparations, but reparations for black oppression is seen as a horrible concept. > Seeing Jesus as liberator as well as savior is described by conservative Christians as a perversion, but evidently the prince of peace doesn’t object to a long bloody war if we have a good reason. > As I said, glaring contradiction in principles. Well, Bush and his Iraq War supporters always painted it as primarily an issue of American Security. Iraq, under SH, was a threat to the US. It was a direct threat and an indirect threat since it contributed to an unstable Middle East. A democratic Iraq would be a US ally, and a role model for the rest of the Middle East. A stabilizing force, if you will. Now, we can argue all day about the wisdom of that policy, and I certainly wouldn’t defend it. But the Iraq war was not billed as giant welfare program. Certainly not primarily. It was billed as an action to ensure American security. Have you read the AUMF lately? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/12 "2010-09-04T23:06:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, Bush and his Iraq War supporters always painted it as primarily an issue of American Security. Iraq, under SH, was a threat to the US. It was a direct threat and an indirect threat since it contributed to an unstable Middle East. A democratic Iraq would be a US ally, and a role model for the rest of the Middle East. A stabilizing force, if you will. > > Now, we can argue all day about the wisdom of that policy, and I certainly wouldn’t defend it. But the Iraq war was not billed as giant welfare program. Certainly not primarily. It was billed as an action to ensure American security. Have you read the AUMF lately? I just did. Know what’s on there? > [@](#): > > Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. It’s been a while but as I remember it we went through stages of a sales pitch which began as Iraq is a threat to us, Iraq is a threat to the region, WMD, but finally, just before the actual invasion , it was Operation Iraqi freedom to liberate all the wonderful Muslims in Iraq from there cruel dictator. But let’s say it was somewhat about security rather than just liberation. We actually destroyed the army deposed the evil dictator in a short time. In Dec 2003 Saddam was captured. Since then it’s been about rebuilding Iraq. Supporting and training their military and police. Rebuilding the infrastructure we helped destroy. Paying reparations {another word conservatives hate} to Iraqi. Redistributing the wealth from working taxpayers to poor Iraqis and private contractors. If it’s not a big welfare program it sure as hell looks a lot like one. What really galls me is the extremest language coming from Beck and his ilk and how eagerly their fans lap it up and adopt the same extreme language. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/13 "2010-09-04T23:57:39Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > Well, Bush and his Iraq War supporters always painted it as primarily an issue of American Security. Iraq, under SH, was a threat to the US. It was a direct threat and an indirect threat since it contributed to an unstable Middle East. A democratic Iraq would be a US ally, and a role model for the rest of the Middle East. A stabilizing force, if you will. > > > > Now, we can argue all day about the wisdom of that policy, and I certainly wouldn’t defend it. But the Iraq war was not billed as giant welfare program. Certainly not primarily. It was billed as an action to ensure American security. Have you read the AUMF lately? > > I just did. Know what’s on there? > > > [@](#): > > > > Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. > > It’s been a while but as I remember it we went through stages of a sales pitch which began as Iraq is a threat to us, Iraq is a threat to the region, WMD, but finally, just before the actual invasion , it was Operation Iraqi freedom to liberate all the wonderful Muslims in Iraq from there cruel dictator. > But let’s say it was somewhat about security rather than just liberation. We actually destroyed the army deposed the evil dictator in a short time. Don’t confuse the name with the reason. Here’s the full AUMF. Saying it was “somewhat” about security does not mesh with the text of the AUMF: > [@](#): > > Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; > > Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; > > Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; > > Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; > > Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235); > > Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; > > Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; > > Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; > > Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; > > Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; > > Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; > > Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; > > Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; > > Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; > > Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”; > > Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”; > > Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; > > Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”; > > Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; > > Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations; > > Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; > > Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and > > Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; The stuff in red is related to US security. The stuff in black is what you quoted. Now, how much of the AUMF was related to security and how much was devoted to liberation? > [@](#): > > In Dec 2003 Saddam was captured. Since then it’s been about rebuilding Iraq. Supporting and training their military and police. Rebuilding the infrastructure we helped destroy. Paying reparations {another word conservatives hate} to Iraqi. Redistributing the wealth from working taxpayers to poor Iraqis and private contractors. If it’s not a big welfare program it sure as hell looks a lot like one. I can’t speak for “conservatives”, but the only aversion to reparation I know about is those aimed at Blacks for slavery. Reparations for living people directly affected by US actions is a different ball of wax. For example, the legislation paying reparations to Japanese Americans was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of “conservatives”. It didn’t have majority Republican support in the House, but it did in the Senate. You seem to be latching onto tenuous connections based on cherry picked definitions of words to fit your predetermined thesis. > [@](#): > > What really galls me is the extremest language coming from Beck and his ilk and how eagerly their fans lap it up and adopt the same extreme language. Then you shouldn’t engage in the same nonsensical arguments that Beck engages in. Your contention that Bush adheres to some form of Liberation Theology is worse than Beck’s claims. There is at least a link to reality that Obama, thru Wright, has a connection to LT. Bush… nothing but that cite in your OP that hijacked that term and misapplied it to Bush. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/14 "2010-09-05T00:37:55Z")
I doubt that liberating Iraq was any more than a pretext for the invasion. President Bush seems to have genuinely believed that the Iraqis would welcome American troops as invaders and quickly set about creating a pro capitalist, pro American democracy. Then he intended to flood the market with cheap Iraqi oil, break the power of OPEC, and reduce the price of gasoline, making it easy for Americans to fuel their SUVs. In retrospect this seems bizarre. Nevertheless, there were historical precedents for such an attitude. Although Italy had been an Axis country during the Second World War, the Italians did greet American invaders as liberators from the Germans who occupied them. After the fall of the Soviet Union the Eastern European countries did set up pro American, pro capitalist democracies. When you add to this the facts that George W. Bush prided himself in going by gut instinct, and that he surrounded himself with sycophants who told him what he wanted to hear, the invasion makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/15 "2010-09-05T00:42:11Z")
We were greeted as liberators, at least by most of the population. But we screwed the pooch early on by not creating a secure environment in the vacuum left by SH’s security apparatus. Not very smart. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/16 "2010-09-05T03:37:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We were greeted as liberators, at least by most of the population. > > But we screwed the pooch early on by not creating a secure environment in the vacuum left by SH’s security apparatus. Not very smart. And, because of Desert Storm we were pretty dam sure that’s exactly what would happen. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/17 "2010-09-05T19:50:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Don’t confuse the name with the reason. Here’s the full AUMF. Saying it was “somewhat” about security does not mesh with the text of the AUMF: Yes, those are the official reason given. Let’s not confuse that list with how it was sold to the American public. I could go through the list and cross off the bullshit which would eliminate a lot of red but that’s not the point. > [@](#): > > I can’t speak for “conservatives”, but the only aversion to reparation I know about is those aimed at Blacks for slavery. Reparations for living people directly affected by US actions is a different ball of wax. Acknowledged. IMO the whole reparations argument is a bit of a red herring from the conservatives. I’m just pointing out that they seemed okay with reparations to citizens of another country, but not of their fellow citizens. > [@](#): > > You seem to be latching onto tenuous connections based on cherry picked definitions of words to fit your predetermined thesis. I’m talking about what seems to be contradicting principles > [@](#): > > Then you shouldn’t engage in the same nonsensical arguments that Beck engages in. Your contention that Bush adheres to some form of Liberation Theology is worse than Beck’s claims. I’m sorry it wasn’t clear but I didn’t intend it as a literal claim. Only the word “liberation” as a symbolic description connects the two. Then it’s the principles and where our billions are going and why one is acceptable and the other is labeled as fascist and communism. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/18 "2010-09-05T20:15:41Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > Don’t confuse the name with the reason. Here’s the full AUMF. Saying it was “somewhat” about security does not mesh with the text of the AUMF: > > Yes, those are the official reason given. Let’s not confuse that list with how it was sold to the American public. I’m genuinely confused by this. Are you saying it was sold to the public primarily as a need to liberate the Iraqi people? If so, what evidence do you have? The stuff in the AUMF was exactly what Bush et al were trumpeting around. links to Al Qaeda, nukes, mushroom clouds, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive force, SH shooting at US planes, and on and on and on. Liberating the Iraqi people was a nice biproduct, but WMDs was the _sine qua non_ of the Iraq War. Congress would never have voted for the AUMF without the BS about WMDs. Even PNAC advocating democratization was in order to ensure US hegemony in the M.E., not a charitable act to free the poor Iraqis. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/19 "2010-09-05T23:21:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@cosmosdan](#): > > > > Yes, those are the official reason given. Let’s not confuse that list with how it was sold to the American public. > > I’m genuinely confused by this. Are you saying it was sold to the public primarily as a need to liberate the Iraqi people? If so, what evidence do you have? The stuff in the AUMF was exactly what Bush et al were trumpeting around. links to Al Qaeda, nukes, mushroom clouds, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive force, SH shooting at US planes, and on and on and on. Liberating the Iraqi people was a nice biproduct, but WMDs was the _sine qua non_ of the Iraq War. Congress would never have voted for the AUMF without the BS about WMDs. Even PNAC advocating democratization was in order to ensure US hegemony in the M.E., not a charitable act to free the poor Iraqis. I was being a bit of a wise guy. I get your point I know that security was a big part of the initial sale along with liberation of the people. Any question of security was taken care of when Saddam was captured. We’ve been there years since then. I’m talking about what I see as a contrast and contradiction of principle between conservatives taking an aggressive stand against tax dollars spent to aide their fellow citizens, and the money spent to aide the the citizens of another country. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-failed-liberation-theology/552542/20 "2010-09-06T00:29:30Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I was being a bit of a wise guy. I get your point I know that security was a big part of the initial sale along with liberation of the people. Any question of security was taken care of when Saddam was captured. No, it wasn’t. Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq until we let them in. Had we just left after SH was toppled, it is likely that Iraq would have become a failed state and a haven for al Qaeda training camps and activity. That’s still not a far fetched scenario for the future. > [@](#): > > We’ve been there years since then. I’m talking about what I see as a contrast and contradiction of principle between conservatives taking an aggressive stand against tax dollars spent to aide their fellow citizens, and the money spent to aide the the citizens of another country. I don’t think war-supporting conservatives view military spending, even when it goes to security overseas, as welfare. They value a strong US military presence around the world as a projection of US power and authority. That’s not a view I agree with, but it isn’t really much of a mystery. Conservatives aren’t libertarians. They’ve proven themselves, especially under Bush, to be profligate spenders.