Freedom of speech is not restricted to election day only. It is supposed to be guaranteed 365 days a year.
I don't agree that it emboldens are enemy. I think it shines light on their weakness. By using our freedoms, we show why we are greater than they are, and why we have been the greatest nation around. I think what hurts troop morale more is when the troops are told by the folks who sent them into a mission and their allies that certain members of the U.S. don't support them. If they were told even those that don't agree with leadership sending you on this mission, do appreciate your service to the country. You guys should feel proud(which I believe is ultimately more accurate) troop morale wouldn't be damaged at all by lawful dissent.
no one's suggesting that freedom of speech be abridged in any way, just that pulic figures exercise good judgement when the shooting starts.
This elective war was started due to a Republican, George W. Bush. He has, in my opinion, shown himself to be grossly incompetent as President, in this and many other things vital to our country... but in bringing this nightmare upon us more than anything. To ask those who would punish him and his party to "shut up," with midterm elections coming up, is ludicrous. Those elections are the chance for Americans to make known their displeasure in a way far more effective than a political poll. Get a grip. This is a democracy, and our elected officials are held accountable in the polling booth. To expect everyone who isn't part of the 36% who like the job he's doing to just keep quiet, and let the Republican money machine roll over the opposition, is beyond the pale. I'll even turn this around... if you don't like it, move to another country. Keep D&D Civil.
you're avoiding the real issue, and resorting to demogougery to suggest i'm asking dissenters to keep quite. i posed a direct question on this point above, which you've missed, or ignored. so i'll repost here, and perhaps you'll respond constructively: but on to substance- i have yet to see anyone address the meat of the issue. do you feel such dissent, whether justified, consistent, patriotic, etc, but political speech that demonstrates a lack of resolve on the part of members of government, damages troop morale and emboldens the enemy? and if you agree that it does, is that just the necessary price we pay for living in a democracy, or should dissent indeed stop at our nation's shores?
Understood. But these are the words you used. I do include myself in anyone so your repost was wrong. Someone did address the meat of the issue directly. Whether it was the poster you wanted or not doesn't matter as far as that statement goes. It was inaccurate.
This question is not directed at me, but I am just interested in such discussion. So just feel free to ignore me. Honestly, I think the answer is not a clear NO, but certainly is not a yes without any context. Enemy's propaganda can always spin the dissent's voice in such a way, that they would claim that they are represent the right, and even people from you will disagree with you. Every country, and every politician played, is playing and will play this game. There is no doubt about it. In other words, yes, it is possible to damage troop morale and embolden the enemy. However, if you silence all the critics, it will cause far greater damage not only to the troops (not just moral, but real harm to the troops), to the people, to the country, but also to the value this country stands for. Let me tell you why. Let's say that all the motives of the administrations, governments, and the leaders are pure and good, they want to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to the country, people and the whole world. Since we all know that goal is not achieved yet, which means none of the administration, government, or leader has done that so far. In other words, they must have done something wrong. In democratic countries, the society can afford some wrong-doings from politicians, because public voice, especailly different public voices can be heard, and the system helps watching politicians, and the general public have a powerful weapon in election. So the dynamic balance helps the country NOT go too far in the wrong direction. However, in those totalism countries, where dissents are slienced. Albeit the possible good motives of those leaders, even dictators, nobody dares to criticize or disagree. Everything is in the hands of the strong leadership, which means the whole country will benefit if the leader is doing correctly, and the whole country will suffer if the leader did something wrong, and it could get worse and worse. As a Chinese, I know full well how culture revolution started. Mao is a strong man, and I do believe that he wanted Chinese to live a happy life. Otherwise, his party wouldn't have won the support of the public, on the end won the war against the Nationalists with strong US support. Because he's a strong man, with super ego. Once his decision was questioned and criticized, he truly believed that enemies were attacking, and they were trying to stop him from taking China to a bright future. What did he do? Instead of examing himself, he crushed the dissents, and started the imfamous Culture Revolution. Of course, there were lots of power struggles and fights inside the party etc etc. But all in all, if one man, or one party has all the say, it's just too much a risk for the people to absorb. History proves that every single time, because we all know NO man is perfect, no matter how smart, kind, loving, religious that person is, no matter how noble his motive is, if his action is not controlled, he will become a larger threat than the enemy. Why? Because people don't trust their enemies, but trust their strong leaders. If dissents were allowed, Culture Revolution would have never happened. If dissents were not allowed, US troops would not have withdrawn from Vietnam, and God knows what would it be now. Democracy is not perfect, at the time it brings you freedom, it will bring in some negative effects as well, even it means in the war time that enemy could use your different voices as their own motivation. It's the people who should weigh the pros and cons. If someone tells you, that his suggestion or plan is just pros and no cons, he's lying, even if he's a strong leader. There is an old Chinese saying, something like that "Good medicine are bitter, but it's helpful to your health; good advices are sometimes not something you like to hear, but it's helpful to your action." Confident and wise people have open hearts, even in tough time, or especially in tough time. If you cannot have democracy is those "special" times, you wouldn't have it in any time. Democracy would just be decoration then.
Why do GOP Senators with actual war records hate America? Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy Administration Calls Statements by Democrats Harmful to War Effort, Troops By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A06 Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them." With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible." Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late." "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices." Hagel said Democrats have an obligation to be constructive in their criticism, but he accused the administration of "dividing the country" with its rhetorical tactics. Hagel supported the 2002 resolution to authorize military action in Iraq, but he has emerged as a strong skeptic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. In his speech, he called for a regional security conference to help invest Iraq's neighbors in the effort to stabilize the country. At one point, while answering a question from the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that the Middle East is worse off after the invasion because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East because of consequences and ripple effects," he said. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld joined other administration officials yesterday in attacking critics of the Iraq war for attempting to "rewrite" history, warning that setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops could "give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, that they can outlast us." At the same time, Rumsfeld acknowledged what he called honest mistakes in the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. "There's no doubt in my mind that people made honest mistakes in . . . the pieces of that intelligence that were presented at the United Nations," he said at a news briefing. Rumsfeld described an evolution of U.S. policy toward Iraq embraced by Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use weapons of mass destruction. However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program. Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it.
Just responding to the post. I thought you would have been happy to have the issue you wanted to discuss addressed. When I addressed it you reposted something saying nobody addressed the issue. I am sorry if it bothered you. Have a good day.
No, it does not. The leadership claiming that 64% of the country doesn't support the troops is what damages their morale. The political speech demonstates a desire to bring the troops home safely, and our mere presence is what is emboldening the enemy.
so if we leave, what what do you think the isurgency will do? will it stop, al queda will go home, and the baathists will join in a representative government?
Personally, I am not calling for us to leave NOW. I want us to have a timetable with benchmarks (not necessarily that in march of '06 we will rotate out X number of troops) that allow us to draw down our troop strength as the Iraqi army becomes ready to take over the security of that country (replace US units with Iraqis and rotate those troops out as the Iraqis become trained and equipped). GWB doesn't want to have any kind of timetable it seems and as such, we have no clue how long this nation building excercise will last. Maybe they will and maybe they won't, but at some point it will have to be the responsibility of the Iraqi army to take care of those problems. I just want to have some kind of idea what goals we have to reach in order to bring our troops home.
