posted
Is this a new tactic, to accuse people you disagree with of trying to shut you up over and over again?
I notice a lot of people saying the Bush administration is trying to keep people from speaking out against the war, yet somehow all these people are still speaking out against it.
posted
I believe the point was how the administration has been making not-so-subtle comments about how anybody that speaks out against the war in any way shape or fashion as terrorists and calling them unpatriotic. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keeping protestors miles away from the site of any public appearance of the President isn't conducive to displaying that there is a public debate. The President gets coverage. And the protestors get ignored unless there are arrests; and/or an outbreak of violence, which hurts the dissenters' cause by making any rationale ignorable through association.
posted
Please. Are you honestly trying to tell me the people against the war have not had their views heard?
It's a bogus charge that's been spouted pretty continuously for over a year now.
Dagonee
Edit:
quote:It seemed to be the environment and feel of 2003 if I recall correctly.
Really? I recall vigorous dissent. Most of the dissent started out with accusations of trying to be silenced, and then a lot of arguments against the war. It's a tired tactic.
posted
Of course, there has been a lot of unpatriotic talk these days. We hate Bush so much we're willing to turn Iraq into a new Vietnam to make him look bad.
Very little of what's said about the war has anything to do with the war. We've lost 700 men in a year to stop an evil man from slaughtering the Kurds, performing medical experiments on his people, and giving money to the families of Palastinian suicide bombers.
About 60,000 died in nine years in Vietnam. That's over 5,000 a year to stop the expansion of communism without provoking the Chinese and stopping the flow of arms into the country.
How do you think it makes any military mother feel to hear the war refered to as a new Vietnam? With all the death, all the pain, and the general despair we left both countries in, Vietnam and the US, how could it not break any father's heart to think of his child in those conditions? Demoralizing our military and their families by inaccurately portraying the war is unpatriotic. Doing it so you can laugh at Bush may cross the line to just plain evil.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you're making a leap of logic that doesn't quite follow. Just because people have managed to make their voices heard despite Bush doesn't mean he hasn't tried to silence them. Are you seriously contesting Bush has fought for free speech and fair consideration of criticism against him?
As I recall, if you criticize Bush, you ARE with the terrorists. From John Ashcroft's lips to your eyes.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being against a war is NOT being unpatriotic. People have every right to disagree with a war they consider wrong. That is an American principle, after all. Free speech? Otherwise we might as well be like China during the Cultural Revolution.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But deliberately misrepresenting the war and demoralizing the military to play politics is unpatriotic. It's two different ideas, Syn.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explain what Bush has done to 'try and silence critics.'
Michael Moore still speaks out; so do the Dixie Chicks. So do all the Dems in Congress, and 48% (depending on your poll) of the American public.
As a censoring despot, Bush's record is pretty bad. Unless you can somehow provide proof that Gary Trudeau is in his back pocket, and all this bad publicity the war and Bush have been getting is a uber-subtle plot to convince us that Bush is an underdog. . . or something.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you think it makes any military mother feel to hear the war refered to as a new Vietnam? With all the death, all the pain, and the general despair we left both countries in, Vietnam and the US, how could it not break any father's heart to think of his child in those conditions? Demoralizing our military and their families by inaccurately portraying the war is unpatriotic. Doing it so you can laugh at Bush may cross the line to just plain evil.
Heh. Wow. Gotta love this line of reasoning.
Tell me, AR, why is it more moral to lie about a war to maintain undeserved good feeling about it so troops can continue dying than it is to expose to corrupt politics and contract-dealing behind the curtain of lockstep patriotism which results in soldiers realizing what and who they're fighting for? I mean, good god... Felber had a good bit on this, I'll see if I can scrounge it up.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll also add, I can't imagine what kind of fool would believe patriotism to be a positive personality trait -- least of all in a democracy. Patriotism should be a sense of pride in some sort of accomplishment, not an idiotic keep-on-smiling-and-nodding-because-we-just-LOVE-America-that-much attitude. When we defeat the Germans -- be proud of our accomplishment. When we send Cossacks back to Stalin -- don't be proud of our accomplishment.
Otherwise, we end up with spoiled brats controlling the country.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, you're making a leap of logic that doesn't quite follow. Just because people have managed to make their voices heard despite Bush doesn't mean he hasn't tried to silence them. Are you seriously contesting Bush has fought for free speech and fair consideration of criticism against him?
He hasn't had to fight for free speech because we have it. I've heard significant opposition to the war since it was first being considered in the major media outlets, alternative outlets, forums such as this one, and politicians.
quote:As I recall, if you criticize Bush, you ARE with the terrorists. From John Ashcroft's lips to your eyes.
As you recall from where? Where was this statement I keep hearing about supposedly made? Considering the common tactic of opponents is to call proponents either evil or dupes, I fail to see censorship or attempted censorship here.
Dagonee P.S., Can you respond to my re-post on the second page of this thread sometime? The post was a thoughtful response to a very serious accusation from you, and I'm trying like hell to hold onto hope that you're open-minded.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
When the President visits somewhere, protestors are given special "free speech zones" usually several hundred yards to a mile away from where the President is speaking, effectively keeping them away from reporters. Brett Bursey, in his right of freedom of speech, went outside of the "free speech zone" that was set up in a hanger a quarter mile away.
posted
I disagree about Bush lying about the war. We believed Sadaam had WMD. Everyone else believed he had them. We were wrong. That's not lying. That's being misinformed.
WMDs were also not the reason most people I know supported the war. I supported it because we left Iraq in the same position we left Germany at the end of WWI. Broke, penalized, and unable to repair the damage done to them. It was only a matter of time before Sadaam struck again.
Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire. We had the legal right to resume hostilities in Iraq any time we chose. When Bush made it his goal to destroy governements that supported terrorism, Iraq was at the top of the list. Iraq did not support Al-Qeida. But Al-Qeida is not the only terrorist group on the planet. You can't just stop one group and think we'll all be safe. We have to dismantle the whole systm that supports terrorism by anyone, or we will continue to be attacked.
I also fail to see how Dick Cheney used to work for Haliburton, one of the few companies in the world large enough to handle a project this size, turns this into Vietnam. How is the fact that governement gets along with big business corrupt politics, anyway? Businesses pay taxes, too. Don't they deserve to have the government look out for them like the rest of us? Business pays our bills by employing us and provides over 50% of our tax revenue. I'd say that's worth looking out for.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack! I'd forgotten about that. Yeah, I still owe you an argument back on the great whopping big homosexuality thread about OSC's article -- sorry, dude, I've been busy for months. Today, for example, I'm moving out. Though I hope I can find a way to the damn thing by tonight.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Patriotism should be a sense of pride in some sort of accomplishment, not an idiotic keep-on-smiling-and-nodding-because-we-just-LOVE-America-that-much attitude.
Thank you Lalo, beautifully put.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, the Bush Administration (who by the way is in Washington DC, and used sketchy evidence including bad sateillite photos of semi-trucks), and known fake evidence made by British Intellegence insisted that Saddam had WMDs, while the weapons inspectors that were actually in Iraq said, and continued to say that there were none to be found. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, and we now are sure that there aren't any WMDs in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that the fact that there weren't any wasn't blindingly obvious then. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the unstated-today-addition to Eddie's definition is that Republicans, conservatives, and religious people believe in the bad patriotism. Liberal democrats in particular, though, don't.
If you don't like Dubya, and you think he's trying to silence criticism-other than by disagreement-then you should be laughing at his complete failure.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
That is, actually, factually mistaken. We know there ARE WMDs in Iraq-though of course not the kinds we said there were, or that we said we could nab right away.
Don't get me wrong, I think by now it's obvious that at best we (USA) exaggerated the certainty of our knowledge of WMD existence and location. As shown by the fact that we haven't got `em-yet. (This was, however, never my primary reason to support the war).
But there wasn't anyone-not even those inspectors, BYU-who would say that Hussein didn't have `em, or wasn't in repeated, public violation of a peace treaty he was compelled to sign after losing a war of aggression.
No, the truth of the matter is, opposition to the war prior was based on the idea that it shouldn't happen until inspectors found WMD-and the word 'if' wasn't used much, that I recollect. But of course, this opposition was also founded on an unwillingness to go to war when Saddam constantly violated treaties, hampered inspectors, etc...so the truth of the matter really is opposition to war, .
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take out the WMD issue and you still have faulty reasoning for attacking a sovereign nation. Saddam wasn't the first, nor only, despot who murders his own civilians. Are we going to make a habit of invading countries that we don't like? Who is next? One with REAL WMDs?
The other thing that the Whitehouse has failed to do (other than turn up WMD) is make the argument that Saddam was even the remotest threat to US soil. There still aren't any convincing arguments that he was in any way in bed with Osama (in fact, I think there is good evidence that prior to 9/11 they were very much at odds, one being a secular despot and the other a religious fanatic). It wasn't WMD that took down the WTC and Pentagon and it wasn't Iraqi citizens at the wheel of the planes that did it. Barring any creepy supervillain team-up fantasies, this war lacks credibility and now even previously staunch supporters are now wavering.
Bush, through his cronies, has said that to speak out against the war is to not be a Patriot and to be in league with terrorists. Listen to any right wing radio (the privately funded propaganda wing of the Republican party). If you protest the war, even if you support the troops, you are still a nasty terrorist-loving bad guy.
They continually try to hide and lie and distract and cover up and now that things are leaking out, the Whitehouse doesn't know how to handle it. Abu Grahib, missing WMD, and lack of clearly defined plans leaves much to be desired. Bush has a "with us or against us" plan that not only is aimed at silencing or undermining any people who speak out against the war, but has also cost us the good will of most of the world.
posted
I don't think you can point to the administration and blame them for hindering free speech. The Patriot Act is a disgrace to the free culture that we live in, but it was passed in both the house and the senate, both of our own election.
The real villain here is the culture that immediately stigmatized a person who wasn't all behind the government or the war. For a few months last year, if you didn't have a "Support our troops" bumper sticker, sign, or button you were worthy of disdain by a great portion of people. There's no government behind that, that's just jingoistic bigotry!
It's easy to point to the government and say, "It's their fault!" But it's not. It might even be your fault! What a concept, that the people are to blame for making their fellow citizens unhappy, and not the government.
posted
Wheat, well put. I guess the point is we need good leadership. The mass of America is a stupid mob if there is no leadership. When you have people in high places setting the tone, who is to blame if people respond to that by stigmatizing people? People are responsible for their own actions, true, but it takes quality leadership for people to find it in themselves to make the right decision. If we didn't need leaders, we would be fine in anarchy but we aren't so we look to the leadership, even elected ones, to set the tone and the direction.
We need quality leadership to get through this and we just don't have it.
"Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve" - Ashcroft to dissenters on the Senate Judiciary Committee, December 2001
All Americans must "watch what they say and watch what they do" - Ari Fleischer's response to Bill Maher's criticism of U.S. bombing in Afghanistan
Since actions speak louder than words, some suggested Google terms: Barry Reingold, Donna Huanca, BlackboxVoting. See also: ordering CSPAN to stop filming while the Patriot Act was debated; seizing the assets of Radio Free Eireann, a program that aired reports on the Northern Ireland conflict for 20 years; prosecuting Greenpeace under a never-used 1872 law for erecting a banner exhorting Bush to stop smuggling.
There are lot of other anti-dissent forces in America, such as the Dixie Chicks backlash, but they're not expressly tied to the Administration.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Took me awhile to figure out what the hell you were talking about -- the WSJ that day mentioned like 15 issues with varying degrees of relation to political dissent -- but let's examine this.
Link #1 links to this transcript. They note that Fleischer was referring to a "diaper head" comment as well as to Maher. So...it's ok to suppress dissent so long as you suppress racism too? In a bout of true irony it calls Paul Krugman a "former Enron advisor." Here's the whole story. Obviously the correct word choice to sum up the man's career, no?
The next two links are the exact same thing. Matters of wordplay can be interpreted to death, but even Donald Luskin reached the same conclusions as I. I suspect proving that the 6 matters of fact involving DOJ transgressions never happened will be even harder. Thanks for playing.
Edit - don't see the point of the 4th link. Summary: "Initial plans for housing DNC protestors are inadequate. Boston police sound rather conciliatory, if only because federal court rulings are on the protestors' side. Final decision pending." First, there are no federal authorities mentioned in the article, so there's no apparent connection to Bush. Second, even if the crackdown was attributable to Bush, it merely reinforces the earlier claims of the thread: that he is trying to stop activists for Iraqi peace, the environment, labor unions, etc. from getting free TV exposure. Please explain.
[ June 07, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So...it's ok to suppress dissent so long as you suppress racism too?
And here's the crux of the matter - [b]it's not suppressing speech.[/i] Suggesting that calling men in uniforms cowards is never an appropriate thing to say is not censorship, anymore than your saying Ari should never say that "Americans should watch what they say" is censorship.
quote:even if the crackdown was attributable to Bush, it merely reinforces the earlier claims of the thread: that he is trying to stop activists for Iraqi peace, the environment, labor unions, etc. from getting free TV exposure.
posted
I don't think the rights to free speech and press have been removed, not by a long shot. I was answering the question "where do these allegations come from."
That said, the disdain for criticism from the representative of the most powerful man in the world is more worrisome than anything I'll post to a BBS. Not because disdain for criticism is bad (although it is!), but because there have been enough actions on the part of the DOJ to indicate that likeminded people in power are willing to exert real, tangible pressure. Obviously, the sorts of people targetted in my examples are precisely those who would never bow to intimidation, which is why there's no need to escalate matters just yet.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Saddam wasn't the first, nor only, despot who murders his own civilians.
Nor is this my biggest (ongoing) reason for supporting the war.
If I may be so bold, if it isn't that Saddam is evil and needs removing and not that there are WMD's allegedly stockpiled in Iraq, what would be the best reason to support this, as The Daily Show puts it, Mess O' Potamia?
quote: quote:Listen to any right wing radio (the privately funded propaganda wing of the Republican party).
Does this mean I get to associate Michael Moore with John Kerry?
Absolutely! Though, to be fair, Moore will poke holes in anyone's agenda he doesn't agree with, Republican or Democrat. I have yet to hear much in the way of crit by way of the Right Wing Radio. I would more put Franken and the under represented Air America as being counter programming to Rush and Beck and so on.
posted
Bill O'Reilly is constantly critical of the Bush administration. I listen very seldom (once or twice a week, 15-30 minutes when he happens to be on while I'm in the car). Each time I do, he's openly critical of some Bush policy.
Granted, he's not critical of him for the same reasons Moore is.
posted
First is his public support of terrorism-money rewards to families of suicide bombers. I am of the opinion that if he was doing that in public, then only a fool would argue he wasn't doing more along those lines in private. But the public aspect is enough for me.
Second, his constant treaty violations. If you lose a war (particularly a war of aggression), and sign a treaty, it's a given that constant violation of that treaty can result in war. The only way to force compliance with the treaty-and sanctions hadn't worked-was military force.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well the difference in volume and hysterics between his criticism of Democrats and Republicans is like between a monkey-toy banging cymbals and a college drumline.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: First, there are no federal authorities mentioned in the article, so there's no apparent connection to Bush.
It's actually amusing, in a sad sort of way, that the reaction to evidence that Democrats routinely engage in the same sort of behavior that supposedly proves that Bush is the antiChrist is to assume that the Secret Bush Conspiracy to Rule the World is behind it. He not only crushes all those who disagree with him, he controls the DNC now too!
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to see you've given up merely abandoning the points you have no hope of refuting, in favor of pure nonsense.
quote:It's actually amusing, in a sad sort of way, that the reaction to evidence that Democrats routinely engage in the same sort of behavior that supposedly proves that Bush is the antiChrist...
Um, where is the evidence that the DNC are behind the Boston police's plans (which, AFAIK, are still not fixed)? What would be their motive, considering the activists will be protesting heavily Democratic causes?
Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Dems nuke the moral high ground on this issue that the Repubs have offered on a silver platter. And from a more historical perspective, we have their side of the aisle to thank for anti-speech concepts like political correctness and hate crimes. But for the purposes of this thread, it's obvious you're grasping at straws.
quote:...is to assume that the Secret Bush Conspiracy to Rule the World is behind it.
Um, I said the opposite.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
