Are war critics helping the enemy?

[Mycroft]

How does questioning the purpose of the war embolden our enemies?

Are you kidding? From the insurgent’s point of view, all they have to do is last long enough and make it hurt enough that the US loses its will and goes away. Dissent in the US encourages them in believing that goal is attainable.

We live in a republic, the last time I checked, and the public has a right to seek redress for grievances from their government…

Yes we do, but there is a price to be paid for those rights.

…That's a right our enemies would rather destroy.

Huh? I think if a conservative said that, the response would be a lot of rolleyes and a lot of making fun of the ”they hate us for our freedoms” meme.

Just because our enemies may approve of X, that does not make X treason.

I’m not saying it’s treason, and neither is Bush.

How does keeping democracy alive by engaging in public debate demoralize troops?

Soldiers may feel demoralized if they don’t feel they have support from the people at home. Apply that to any job, would you feel happy doing your job if a lot of people were saying you were wrong to do it, that it wasn’t doing any good, that it was a waste of time and money, and that it shouldn’t be done?

Understand that describing the effects of criticism is very different from saying you shouldn’t criticize.

If they're not fighting to preserve democracy, what are they fighting for?

Technically, they’re fighting to create a new democracy where there was none before.

But to address your point, having a right is very different from making wise decisions about where and how the best way to exercise that right is. I have a right to set my pants on fire, but that doesn’t make it a smart thing to do.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't doubt your word---I really don't---but it is very strange that now conservatives are making the claim that any criticism of Bush's war is aiding and comforting the enemy, and is (at least) close to treason. They sure didn't feel that way under Clinton! And, as I said, I can't find a single one who will even admit they ever criticized Clinton's invasion. Not one.

Don't you find that strange? I sure do.

To be fair he didn't say any criticism, he said that certain forms of criticism, i.e saying we went there for the oil.

 

[Mark]

To be fair he didn't say any criticism, he said that certain forms of criticism, i.e saying we went there for the oil.

Without specifying, it was pretty vague, wouldn't you say? Plus, I don't see where that really affects my point.

"We are there for oil." Bad...aids the enemy.

"Wag the dog! Wag the dog!" Good...doesn't aid the enemy.

Not working for me, I'm afraid.

 

[Mycroft]

No, he said tht certain forms of criticism "provide comfort to our adversaries" which is pretty darn close to the Constitutional defintion of treason. If that is what he meant to imply, then that is worrying in and of itself. If that is NOT what he meant to imply then, considering that the constitution prescribes the death penalty for treason, it was a stupid and irresponsible choice of words on his part.

Let's be honest, Bush Jr. isn't exactly known for his careful choice of words. The context was a short Q&A, his statements were not prepared in advance, you're reading way too much into it.

 

[Mycroft]

...any criticism of Bush's war is aiding and comforting the enemy, and is (at least) close to treason.

I don't see any conservatives making that argument. I see liberals extrapolating that from words that say no such thing.

 

[Mycroft]

Let me turn this situation around. If Osama put out a video tape urging all al Qeada fighters to discuss the war, but said that anyone who expressed the opinion that the war is wrong, bombing the World Trade Center was wrong, Osama is a liar, or that the reason al qeada fighters are fighting is just so Osama's friends and family can control oil in the region are "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" would we construe this as an honest invitiation to debate, and a democratic statement?

I think expressing those views would disqualify a person from membership in Al Qaeda.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think expressing those views would disqualify a person from membership in Al Qaeda.

Likewise, Bush thinks that anyone expressing disagreement with him disqualifies themself from being an American.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Let's be honest, Bush Jr. isn't exactly known for his careful choice of words. The context was a short Q&A, his statements were not prepared in advance, you're reading way too much into it.

Maybe. But even if I give him the benefit of the doubt and and assume it to be a verbal gaffe, it is orders of magnitude more severe than the slip up of the "Americans are working hard to put food on their family" variety and deserves the scrutiny it gets.

 

[Mycroft]

Likewise, Bush thinks that anyone expressing disagreement with him disqualifies themself from being an American.

There is no evidence to support that, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There is no evidence to support that, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Evidence:

I fully expect in a democracy -- I expect and, frankly, welcome the voices of people saying, you know, Mr. President, you shouldn't have made that decision, or, you know, you should have done it a better way. I understand that. What I don't like is when somebody said, he lied. Or, they're in there for oil. Or they're doing it because of Israel. That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on false premise. It's one thing to have a philosophical difference -- and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible. But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy.

The President does not want me to say that's a liar. At least he's being honest about that.

 

[Mycroft]

Maybe. But even if I give him the benefit of the doubt and and assume it to be a verbal gaffe, it is orders of magnitude more severe than the slip up of the "Americans are working hard to put food on their family" variety and deserves the scrutiny it gets.

I think that degree of scrutiny is going to find something alarming no matter what. C’mon, this is BDS.

 

[Mycroft]

Evidence:

The President does not want me to say that's a liar. At least he's being honest about that.

Where does he say you're disqualified as an American?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think that degree of scrutiny is going to find something alarming no matter what. C’mon, this is BDS.

He's the President of the United States. His words are heard by billions of people. That's the Carl Sagan billions. He has numerous speach wrtters, advisors, and other people whose job it is to make sure that each word says exactly what he means. I think it's prefectly reasonable to expect the President's prepared statments to be carefully worded.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Where does he say you're disqualified as an American?

Apparently, my calling Bush a liar gets soldiers killed. He's not implicitly stating that, he's implying that.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I think that degree of scrutiny is going to find something alarming no matter what. C’mon, this is BDS.

BDS? Broadcast Data Systems? British Deer Society? Not sure what that particular set of initials means (unless the D is a typo)

But yeah, one probably CAN find something alarming in something given that level of scrutiny. However, I am also of the opinion that too much trust in one's government is a bad thing. It should be given about the same amount of trust a parole officer gives a convicted felon, and for much the same reason: because if you begin to give it too much leeway, it will probably go out and do something harmful.

 

[Mark]

I don't see any conservatives making that argument. I see liberals extrapolating that from words that say no such thing.

Um...wow. (Emphasis mine)

"Cindy Sheehan is using her dead son as a mechanism to give aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war, whether she understands that or not," asserts essayist Joseph Gutheinz of The Conservative Voice. Fox News commentator Bill O�Reilly, seeking a deniable way to traduce Sheehan as a traitor, has stated that "some families who also lost loved ones in Iraq believe what she's doing borders on treason." David Horowitz, a supposedly reformed Marxist radical, is more forthright than O�Reilly, accusing Sheehan and her fellow protesters of "conducting a psychological warfare campaign against their own country whose aim is to cripple our military mission in Iraq�. The fact that these people are using compassion to help destroy us make them more reprehensible not less. Grief is one thing; treason in wartime is quite another."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2063.shtml

"It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal – or 'redeployment,' as liberals pointlessly distinguish – will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives....

"The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.

"They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1001571054

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think expressing those views would disqualify a person from membership in Al Qaeda.

Mycroft, I've found you to be a polictal analyist with generally high quality critical thinking skills, and extensive knowledge of many subject. that, or you have strong google fu.

I find your quip dissapointing. Not because I disagree, but because I expected you see that when our leader attempts to quash dissent, it's at least as bad as when out enemy's leader does so.

 

[Tony]

It should be given about the same amount of trust a parole officer gives a convicted felon, and for much the same reason: because if you begin to give it too much leeway, it will probably go out and do something harmful.

I'd say government should because given an even a lesser amount of trust than that. Why? Because government is more powerful and the consequences of its actions have the potential to be much more deadly.

 

[Mycroft]

He's the President of the United States. His words are heard by billions of people. That's the Carl Sagan billions. He has numerous speach wrtters, advisors, and other people whose job it is to make sure that each word says exactly what he means. I think it's prefectly reasonable to expect the President's prepared statments to be carefully worded.

From the article:

After his opening remarks, Bush fielded about 10 questions from the audience of invited groups. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the questions were not prescreened. Bush said no topics were off-limits, and even invited a question about Iran, but nobody asked one.

No speech writers, no prepared statements. It was an answer to a question.

Apparently, my calling Bush a liar gets soldiers killed. He's not implicitly stating that, he's implying that.

Where are you disqualified as an American?

 

[Mycroft]

BDS? Broadcast Data Systems? British Deer Society? Not sure what that particular set of initials means (unless the D is a typo)

No typo, but not everybody has heard the term used:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/160406.html

As I said earlier, it's very similar to the irrational Clinton bashing of the 90's.

But yeah, one probably CAN find something alarming in something given that level of scrutiny. However, I am also of the opinion that too much trust in one's government is a bad thing. It should be given about the same amount of trust a parole officer gives a convicted felon, and for much the same reason: because if you begin to give it too much leeway, it will probably go out and do something harmful.

That doesn't mean every criticism is rational. One doesn't need to blindly trust the government in order to be a little more discriminating as to which criticisms one gives credence to.