On Thursday President Bush delivered a stinging rebuke to critics of his handling of the iraq war and prewar intelligence. If he didn't exactly silence his critics (indeed he explicitly said some debate is justified) he at least provided a useful framework for a debate about the debate, and called out those within the democratic party who have chosen crticism for purely political purposes. So what is the proper role of role of dissent in wartime? many of you here have suggested that all dissent is legitimate, while I and others have said that the particular method of dissent practiced here, and by extension by the kosians and DNC, are gratuitous, and perhaps unpatriotic, "deeply irresponsible" in the President's words. To answer the question, we must first examine what the US interest is in the current war, as well as the objectives of the enemy. The US had three primary objectives prior to the war. First, to rid the country of WMD. Second, to depose Saddam, and Third to establish a free and stable democratic government in Iraq. In addition, there is the ancillary benefit of changing the dynamic of the middle east, and breaking the cycle of hate and destruction in israel and palestine. All of these objectives are inextricably linked to the security of the united states. The Baathist remnants and what the NYTimes euphamistically referrs to as "Al Queda in Mesopotamia" are fighting to force an American withdrawal and project influence over, or in fact dominate, the eventual political makeup of post-saddam iraq. Since it cannot hope to defeat the US militarily, the insurgency must rely on asymetrical means to acheive its goals, one of which is the media. it is here that dissent in the US becomes particularly relevant. In that one goal of dissent is aimed at changing current US policy, forcing troop withdrawal, it is inherently aligned with the goals of the enemy. This does not necessarily mean such dissent is unpatriotic. however, when the goal of dissent is to damage the US war effort for purely political purposes, it crosses a line into "deeply irresponsible" territory. Into this category must fall the recent attempts by congressional democrats to rewrite the history of the prewar debate, particularly from an intelligence standpoint, press coverage (and posts) that deliberately emphasizes bad news and ignores the good, and other attempts to damage the president so as to defeat the "bush agenda." No one is suggesting there cannot be an honest debate about policy, but there are those who feel there is no problem that cannot be solved by US withdrawal. One cannot support US goals in iraq, and the troops, and advocate unilateral withdrawal. supporting the troops is meaningless without supporting their mission. The current trend of cherry picking intelligence reports to support charges of cherry picking intelligence briefings, may fall into the category of legal dissent. that does not mean it is legitimate, or patriotic. Such criticisms also ultimately ignore the context in which the current war is being fought, post 9/11, where it has been conclusively demonstrated that one man with the means and the will can inflict enormous damage upon this country, in blood and treasure. Post 9/11, it would have been folly to ignore the WMD consensus of the previous 12 years. Post 9/11 it would have been folly to trust in the reassurances of a madman. Post 9/11, i suggest an alternate approach, that we move forward together, as americans, to win this war. Post victory, there will be plenty of opportunity to asses blame, or assign credit.
Rewriting history is not defining the argument, it is rewriting homework. Bush is trying to protect his party's intrest by turning the spin cycle to speed of light.
I think it is fair to say that some of the dissent are politically motivated. However, how do you feel about Democrats who opposed the war before the invasion and still opposes the war today? Surely for those politicians they took a very unpopular prewar stance so it is not as likely that they are opposing the President merely to score points. Do you consider their dissent to be unwise and misguided, but not politically motivated and therefore not unpatriotic? I do feel better knowing that you don't consider all dissent to be unpatriotic. Given the heated arguments on the D&D lately, it is good go find some common ground.
wow, a lot of time spent repeating what Bush said. totally predictable. Do you have any original ideas different from the president?
unwise, misguided, certainly consistent, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not politically motivated and unpatriotic. there are certain posters here who have been entirely consistent, since well before the war, in fact, since well before 9/11. yet they constantly post articles that show US troops in a negative light, or constantly highlight negative news from iraq. the net effect is to damage the war effort, and as i outlined above, their interests are therefore in alignment w/ those of the insurgency. to the extent that they continue in this vein, they provide aide, comfort, and assistance to the very people who are working so hard to kill the troops they profess to support. unwise, misguided, who knows what's in their heart, and balancing these conflicting stances is the work of a great democracy. ultimately, our elected officials have committed us to this path. i believe it is much more important to win the war, than score rhetorical points. there will be plenty of opportunnity to judge those responsible after the mission is accomplished.
in the "look who else has joined the anti-war chorus" thread you state that sean hannity's criticism of the way clinton handled the kosovo war is "meaningless" because he is not an elected official. yet those who post negative comments on a basketball message board about the way bush is handling iraq are doing damage to the war effort. good thing the "liberals" on clutchfans dont have a major cable news show. why the double standard basso? "You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) obviously delay's "interests" were "in alignment" with the ethnic cleansers!
Just out of curiosity Basso, what do you mean by "politically motivated." Do you mean that some dissenters actually secretly believe that the President's foreign policy is the correct course for the country, but attacks the President with falsehoods so that they can advance some kind liberal domestic agenda like gay marriage or universal health care? That's a pretty bleak view of the opposition.
"Marine," the colonel says. "What is that on your body armour?" "Sir?" "That...thing." "You mean this button, sir?" "What is it?" the colonel says. "A peace symbol, sir." "Where did you get it?" Joker thinks for a couple of seconds. "A liberal gave it to me, sir," Joker says, keeping a serious face. The colonel jabs Joker's button with a forefinger and giver him a fairly decent Polished Glare. His blue eyes sparkle. "That's right, son, act innocent. But I know what that button means." "Yes, sir! "It's a ban-the-bomb propaganda button. Admit it!" "What is that you've got written on your helmet?" "Born To Kill?" "You've written 'Born to Kill' on your helmet." "Yes, sir." Why did you do that?" "I don't know, sir. Everyone writes things on their helmets." "You write 'Born to Kill' on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What is that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?" "No, sir." "Well, what is it supposed to mean?" "I don't know, sir." "Answer that question, corporal, or you'll be standing tall before the man." "Well, sir," Joker says with exaggerated thoughtfulness, "I suppose...I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man." "The what?" "The dual nature of man?... You know, sir, the Jungian thing about aggression and xenophobia on one hand, and altruism and cooperation on the other?" There is a fairly considerable mouth-breathing pause from the colonel. "Whose side are you on, son?" "Our side, sir." "MARINE!" "Yes, sir." "Don't you love your country?" "Yes, I do, sir." "Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come in for the big win?" Joker still manages to keep a straight face. "I'm certainly ready to do that, sir." "Confess corporal, confess that you want peace." "I confess, sir." The colonel leans closer and lowers his voice, "Son, we've all got to keep our heads until this peace craze blows over." Joker makes a serious face to consider the full implications of this statement. "Yes, sir." The colonel tries to think of something more inspiring to say, but he hasn't got it. So he says: "You can't wear that button, Marine. It's against regulations. Remove it immediately."
"Any man in the uniform of his country who refused to give information to a committee of the Senate which represents the American people, that man is not fit to wear the uniform of his country." -J. McCarthy
no, i believe they're ambivalent about the war, but have other agendas, whether it's simply a matter of payback for clinton bush hatred, or a larger domestic policy goal, such as judges or abortion, so they do all they can to discredit the president. certainly much the same tactics were at play during the clinton years. that doesn't excuse current tactics, when the stakes are so much higher.
I agree that the degree of political grandstanding from both parties is getting ridiculous. I recall right before the election Kerry said something like we should fight a "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." Cheney immediate attacked Kerry as being soft and irresponsible. On the other hand, when Bush said we cannot "win" the war on terror, Democrats jumped all over the President even though he was obviously referring to the unconventional nature of fighting against terrorists and not expressing doubt about our ability to prevail. We need more reasoned dialogue that goes beyond the talking points of each political party. If that cannot be achieved on a forum where its members are united, at least, by our love of of the Rockets and our country, then perhaps it cannot be done anywhere. I appreciate you sharing your views with us, Basso, even though we obviouisly do not agree on many issues. I do see that you love our country deeply and I hope your continued contribution to the board will help us liberals understand the president's position.
ambivalent about the war? the war is THE issue. there is no bigger issue. are you really this clueless? i fully supported going into afghanistan. for me and most everyone else who disagree's w/ bush, iraq is the #1 issue.
I don't think there is any doubt that people are exaggerating or playing up certain positions of political gamesmanship. That shouldn't happen. But to pretend like one party is doing it and the other party isn't is ludicrous. Please look at the list of people who were involved with this very administration that have taken very principled stands against the Iraq war policy coming from this whitehouse. It even includes the first head of Iraq's reconstruction, the chief of staff to the secretary of state when the invasion happened, etc. The list has been posted before. These people actually have more to lose politically by making such a stand. I wouldn't call them ambiguous.
basso, thanks for a substantive and less vitriolic post. One of the few posts with no links that's worthy of it's own thread. I don't get this. Who has the goal of damaging the US war effort? In all seriousness, feel free to give your opinion. Any of the posters on this board, or any politicians. I honestly can't think of anybody- the thought is so despicable, which I guess is why you get so mad and say such insulting things. How could you actually believe that of any of us, if you do?
Well said. I don't trust anything GWB says. But in all seriousness, what does "winning the war" mean? Is it another case of "we had to destroy the village to save it?" Based on the current level of opposition in Iraq, I do not see how any government we try to install would last much past the time of our occupation there. That is, unless it is another tyrannical dictatorship that uses force to quash dissenters and maintain its rule. It seems highly unlikely (IMHO) that a true democratic election would yield the results that this administration wants, given the demographics of the country. If a pro-Iran Shiite government came to power (quite likely in a fully democratic election, given the 66% shi'a population there), wouldn't the US see that as a threat and a shift in the balance of power counter to our own interests? I'm sure the Bush administration is interested in a "stable" government coming to power in Iraq. However, it seems to me that there is more priority on the new government being friendly to US interests than on it being a true democracy. So, what exactly is the objective must we achieve in order to "win?" Is it destroying "the enemy" (whoever exactly that may be)? Is it acheiving a Jeffersonian democracy? Is is installing a US-friendly government (that will allow us to keep military bases there)? I find it ironic that our country has the gall to demonize Iraqis who would fight to remove a foreign occupying power. I am in no way condoning the murder of innocent civilians to acheive that goal. But if for one second I were to put myself in their shoes, perhaps I could understand the feeling of pride and a desire for self-determination that drives this fury.
Basso; Tell me then what sort of dissent is acceptable and what isn't? Is saying that is war was poorly planned unacceptable or acceptable? Is saying that US troops have behaved in reprehensible ways acceptable? Is saying that the President lied acceptable or unacceptable? Is saying that the US should withdraw acceptable? At what point do you draw as saying that dissent is unacceptable? We live in a democracy and War is a democratic decision. While we may not agree with every piece of dissent its our right and even our duty to weigh in positively or negatively about the direction our country is going.
How to fight Communism on a Basketball BBS, Part 1 by basso Chairman of Clutchfans Hangout D&D Committee on Un-American Activities Lesson 1: Calling people commies for no apparent reason is an invaluable tool and can be employed at any juncture: Examples: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=1150662&highlight=fellow+travelers#post1150662 [NB - the battlefield weapon referred to is the hypothetical "shoulder launched WMD" - which is as existent as screen doors on submarines, for obvious reasons. I still find that funny today ] Lesson 2: Make sure you attack the media as communists, because they are, if they report things you don't like. Example: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=1345673&highlight=fellow+travelers#post1345673 Lesson 3: Shoot the messengers and call people commies. Yes, I know this sounds redundant of lessons 1 and 2, but I can't emphasize how important it is. And use words like "ilk", "kith", etc. Example: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=1565032&highlight=fellow+travelers#post1565032 Lesson 4: When discussing matters beyond your depth, randomly calling people commies is your best friend. Example: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=1818804&highlight=fellow+travelers#post1818804 Lesson 5: When you have to call people commies, it can create a lot of value added if you call people terrorist sympathizers as well: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=2021641&highlight=fellow+traveler#post2021641 Lesson 6: Call people commies. A lot. Even if you only have Ed Koch on your side. Just call them commies. If you don't, you're probably a commie too. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=2020460&highlight=fellow+travelers#post2020460
