Cites that Right Wingers (pols or pundits) claimed dissent was unAmerican/traitorous

[Rhythmdvl]

(Remember, this is GQ)

Memory is a capricious thing. Lots of us “remember” that during the Bush years (before, during the run-up to Iraq, and thereafter), some folks on the right suggested/stated that dissent and criticism of the administration was unpatriotic, unAmerican, or possibly treasonous. But did they really? Lots of political statements get taken out of context, blown up, and assigned to the entire political spectrum. I’d hate to go on thinking that this particular facet of the RW Marketing Campaign was real, when in fact it’s actually a LW Marketing Outreach Program.

So can I get a cite (or two or three…) for a RW pol or pundit — preferably national, if the general recollection is to have merit — making such a claim?

I realize this may stray to GD territory, especially if there are dueling interpretations of what a cite means, but please refrain from pointing fingers at other posters.

Thanks~

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I’ll start off with the quote that started it all off:

@Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft

“To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens,to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”

(bolding mine)

[elucidator]

Should include the milder form, suggesting that any such criticism emboldens and/or empowers the enemy, but stops short of declaring intentional treason?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Can do!

@Pres. G.W. Bush

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war.

These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions, citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: “When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security.”

That’s why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

(APPLAUSE)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges.

(APPLAUSE)

These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.

As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.

(APPLAUSE)

Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: And our troops deserve to know that, whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

[YamatoTwinkie]

From the keynote speaker of the 2004 RNC:

[QUOTE=Zel Miller]
While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.
[/QUOTE]

[YamatoTwinkie]

Also, stolen from here

[QUOTE=Sean Hannity]
The only ideas that they espouse are ways to undermine the troops in harm’s way and undermine their commander in chief while they’re at war. Your candidates have no idea how to keep this economy strong

He’s the Commander-in-Chief. And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats – you have undermined our president…

You know, Norman, those comments while we are at war, while troops are in harm’s way, while he is the commander in chief, do you not see the outrage in that?

I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war…

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Bill O’reilly]
You don’t criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Michelle Malkin]
Can we do it without distorting their legacies and pandering to anti-American elites worldwide and using their deaths to embarrass and undermine our commander in chief?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tom Delay]
On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief (thereby emboldening the terrorists to kill more Americans in Iraq)…
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Pat Robertson]
And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason.
[/QUOTE]

[Ale]

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

“Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason..”

It doesn’t get much more blunt than that.

[Rhythmdvl]

@elucidator

Should include the milder form, suggesting that any such criticism emboldens and/or empowers the enemy, but stops short of declaring intentional treason?

Sure.

Basically, take a peek in the pit, and you’ll see all sorts of easily made accusations about a whole range of charges. It’s one thing to make such off the cuff remarks, it’s another for there to be some substance behind them. This being the Dope and all, I thought to check my assumptions and ask.

There was also this recent exchange:

@Lightnin

You know, I could swear that it wasn’t that long ago that the Bush administration said it was completely inappropriate for a former admin to disparage a sitting President’s policy.

@furt

You could swear it all you want, but it still wouldn’t be true.

Which is it?

[furt]

@Rhythmdvl

Basically, take a peek in the pit, and you’ll see all sorts of easily made accusations about a whole range of charges. It’s one thing to make such off the cuff remarks, it’s another for there to be some substance behind them. This being the Dope and all, I thought to check my assumptions and ask.

Why not really check you assumptions and ask for cites for people on both sides of the political spectrum questioning their opponent’s patriotism? Let one side trot out the Coulter and Hannity quotes, and let the other produce the Olbermann and Moore soundbites.

That should really do a lot for the fight against ignorance.

[Merijeek]

@furt

Why not really check you assumptions and ask for cites for people on both sides of the political spectrum questioning their opponent’s patriotism? Let one side trot out the Coulter and Hannity quotes, and let the other produce the Olbermann and Moore soundbites.

That should really do a lot for the fight against ignorance.

You could always start your own thread, of course.

-Joe

[Zakalwe]

@furt

Let one side trot out the Coulter and Hannity quotes, and let the other produce the Olbermann and Moore soundbites.

By all means, please produce the Olbermann and Moore soundbites that equate disagreement with their positions with treason against the United States. Please.

[Rhythmdvl]

@furt

Why not really check you assumptions and ask for cites for people on both sides of the political spectrum questioning their opponent’s patriotism? Let one side trot out the Coulter and Hannity quotes, and let the other produce the Olbermann and Moore soundbites.

That should really do a lot for the fight against ignorance.

Actually, you’re right. I didn’t start this as a backhanded way of sneering at one side, I did this because it was a common perception of one side. I guess you’d have to go back to the Clinton era to find similar claims, or contemporary claims that were (relatively) free of sarcasm or reference to the meme.

Note that I was looking for cites in case this whole thing was a left wing marketing point – though now it kind of seems like it was grounded. If, however, it is just as prevelant on both sides of the aisle, then so be it; ignorance fought. Are there such cites?

[WarmNPrickly]

@Rhythmdvl

Sure.

Basically, take a peek in the pit, and you’ll see all sorts of easily made accusations about a whole range of charges. It’s one thing to make such off the cuff remarks, it’s another for there to be some substance behind them. This being the Dope and all, I thought to check my assumptions and ask.

There was also this recent exchange:

Which is it?

Lightnin’ wins this one. There were many people claiming that there was some unwritten rule about previous presidents commenting on current policies. As the article demonstrates, there is no such unwritten rule.