:smack: That should be “**same ** people”.
No, it wasn’t wrong (I agreed with Clinton, btw). Nor is it wrong to object to this war. What I’m trying to understand is what Democrats believe the limits, if any, are to legitimate expressions of disagreement with the government.
For example, I can remember a time not too long ago when it was unheard of for an ex-president to criticise a sitting president, and especially outside of the country. That limit seems to be gone now. In WWII, there was a lot of opposition to the war before it started, but once U.S. troops were committed most opposition stopped. You could criticise the way in which the war was being carried out, but criticism of the war itself was not common. And of course, if you actually went over to the enemy side and engaged in propaganda against your own country, you could be put up against a wall and shot.
In Vietnam, it seemed like ‘anything goes’. Spitting on soldiers? Sure. Screaming that they were baby killers? Why not? Posing with the enemy on a gun used to shoot down Americans? Right on, baby.
After the war, there was a generally consensus that the anti-war protesters went too far. We don’t look very kindly now at the people who stood at airports and yelled "Baby killer!’ to the soldiers returning home. Jane Fonda has apologized for some of the things she did. So even in that war, in which 50,000 Americans died, it seems that the opposition today realizes that there are limits to proper discourse.
So I’m just trying to find out what you believe the limits should be in the current war. Is it ‘anything goes’? What if, say, Michael Moore went to Iraq and made a propaganda film for the insurgency, urging them on in their cause? Is it okay for John Kerry to characterize American soldiers as thugs who kick in doors at midnight and terrorize women and children?
Sure. You can start by telling *us * why you think there should be a limit to opposing evil. How many deaths (of other people, of course, we know you won’t risk your own) are worth propping up one of our hirelings’ personal reputation? What is *your * limit? Do you, in fact, observe one, or is your odd party loyalty absolute?
Then you can provide cites for the “spitting on soldiers” stuff you claim as fact, despite your years on this board. That should still be easier than citing the not-criticizing-Presidents stuff you’ve picked up from one of your righty blogs. Here’s a hint: You won’t be able to.
But the rest of your fantasizing, as usual, does not merit a reply.
Depends. Are you talking about legal limits, or personal limits? Still, unless an existing law is broken, do we really want more laws? Better to “enforce our will” trhough simply not seeing her movies, if we feel strongly about it. I think she went too far. She admits it now herself. But, that was a long time ago. The bigger problem is, if we do anything more to the supposed “aiders of the enemy”, where does it stop? There was a very good editorial about this. It was titled “Mister Bush, Meet Mister Taft”. It says, even in war, the ability to speak out is one of the things that makes us different.
If we apply these people’s own standards to themselves, then they are/were. It points to the hypocrisy that some people can’t stand anymore. I don’t rmemeber them being called “traitors”, or being called “freedom haters”. Hypocrisy. Partisan garbage. Flag waving bullshit artists. In the end, it’s patriotism for partisan purposes and political gain.
Actually, I think I summarized your post quite well.
I can make it shorter, though.
“You signed now shut the fuck up. And, um, thanks. But shut the fuck up.”
You’re such a patriot!
-Joe
I thought I made myself pretty clear. I was not asking about legal limits. I was asking what behaviours you Democrats believe should be criticised, censured, or otherwise disavowed.
I think we’re all agreed that ‘speaking out’ is okay, in a generic sense. But are there any ways you would disapprove of? Let’s say someone made false claims about the military in order to whip up anti-war activists. Is that beyond the pale? How about telling the enemy directly that you believe their cause is just and your own country is wrong? How about propaganda aimed at demoralizing the troops so that it’s harder for the military to get them to re-enlist?
How about making documentary films that show the enemy in a positive light, whitewash their crimes, and make your own soldiers look bad? Beyond the pale? Or acceptable anti-war propaganda?
Yes Sam, and as we all know, anything can be taken to ridiculous extremes to make the other side look bad.
Because, after all, you can’t be for gun control, can you? After all, knives can kill people too. Are you suggesting banning knifes if you ban guns? Because I can kill a guy with a 2x4, too. Are you going to suggest “wood control” next? Well, smart guy, if we do that we won’t have any houses to live in, will we?
And don’t even get me started on blades of grass! You understand why they’re called “BLADES”, don’t you?
:rolleyes:
Same shit, different thread.
-Joe
I was putting out extreme examples to find out where YOU think the boundaries are. But I can see that no one is willing to answer my question.
The only problem I have is if they indeed are whitewashing the crimes of the enemy or telling them directly that their cause is right, OTOH what about whitewashing the efforts of this administration to get the troops to Iraq? What about the pathetic denials that a timeline from withdrawal is evil when even Bush is on record of demanding one to Clinton? As their plan is to follow an “El Salvador plan” the road to death squads is showing up in Iraq, and then you have to convince Iraqis that it is good to die for their country when their resources will be extracted with deals that the colonialists of the past would have been proud?
The fact that this is barely discussed in the mainstream media should tell you that the whitewash is on the other side. To make better decisions on the future of Iraq we have to consider all information, whereas is bad or good.
I see right now that the propaganda that will be launched will only be done to keep the course, well I say that:
Real surrender will be to only be able to say that we cannot change anything.
Surrender will be to allow the war to be a war for oil, we have to make sure the oil companies do the right thing to renegotiate the oil contracts with a more stable Iraqi government.
A white flag to the Neo-cons will be produced (the Republicans surrendered first) if we don’t take back the wheel from them when they are corrupting the war on terror for their own benefit.
The only shame is with the Republicans that will use fallacy as a propaganda tool to keep the course.
What if the “propaganda” is absolutely true? Re-enlistment is a moot point, thanks to “stop loss”, better known as the “back door draft”. Demoralization, or “undermining” is no longer an acceptible argument these days. If anything, the problems are coming as the result of government incompetence, arrogance, and stupidity. You want to support the troops and boost morale? Show them in ways they can readily see, that we DO care. Make sure they get the equipment, benefits, and decent pay that they deserve. Give them the truth about why they are fighting. Stop degrading them with ridiculous photo-ops for the president. For those who die, treat them as something more than cargo. Stop playing football with appropriations bills - Bush was prepared to veto the entire bill, in a hissy fit over McCain’s “rebellion” over torture. Start treating them like people, not like pawns to be used up and discarded.
Stop the degrading and demeaning “interviews”, with their canned “questions”. Stop the “mission accomplished” photo op flights. Stop acting macho, when the people you (Bush) ordered to war are the ones taking all the risks.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/12/dems.radio.ap/index.html
Yeah. Support the troops. Screw them out of everything they deserve, but don’t raise your voice - it will hurt morale. Whose morale are we talking about here? Soldiers, or the White House?
http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=512
Again, the only true way to boost morale is to put the money where the mouth is, and stop cheating soldiers and vets out of what they deserve. Anything else is just sloganeering.
SteveG1, do not post all or most of a copyrighted article. This is a violation of our rules; in the future, simply post a link. Short quotations are allowed, in the midst of your own work, but whole posts (let alone a succession of several posts) of entire articles are not.
Actually, you’re changing the subject, trying to distract us with an empty hypothetical, because it’s too awkward to deal with the stark reality that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea when we on the left said it was a bad idea, continues to be a bad idea made even worse by ridiculously inept execution, and is not going to become anything but a bad idea no matter how many lives are sacrificed to it.
Perhaps additional consideration of your empty hypothetical will be called for when Lindsay Lohan and Paul Walker participate in a photo opportunity next to terrorists bearing the severed head of a Christian peace activist, or when a cadre of Berkeley professors sprays pig blood on returning veterans at the airport with a fire hose, or some other obviously irrelevant fringe group engages in unacceptable behavior requiring the mainstream disavowal you are so inexplicably desperate to hear. Until then, speculative cogitation on the precise placement of unapproached boundaries is a waste of brain time, and I for one will be much more interested in dragging the discussion out of the realm of partisan fantasy and back to the difficult reality staring all of us in the face.
But maybe that’s just me.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512100004#2
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE) of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees: “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. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years.”
Note first that I vote for Democrats more often than not, but only because they’re better than Republicans. Most Democrats are to my right.
I’ll take these in order.
- False claims? Unethical. More so if they lead to death. Less so if they do not. Antiwar activists who make false claims are behaving unethically, but not as unethically as pro-war activists who make false claims.
- Telling an enemy directly that you believe their cause is just and your own country is wrong? This is the essence of patriotism in a democracy: you can speak your mind, and you can speak out against the actions of your government. Now, if you’re telling someone who’s committed atrocities that their cause is just, you’re fucked up, whether you’re talking to the US Army right after My Lai or Iraqi insurgents after they’ve beheaded a hostage. But you’re not fucked up for speaking out: you’re fucked up for speaking in favor of something fucked up.
- Propaganda aimed at demoralizing the troops so that it’s harder for the military to get them to re-enlist? As long as it’s honest, that’s a fantastic, wonderful thing to do. I’d far rather protect the life and ethics of an individual person than protect some recruiter’s target goal, especially when the military is involved in an unjust war. It frankly boggles my mind that anyone would consider this to be unethical activism.
- Documentary films that show the enemy in a positive light? As long as they’re honest, not a problem. If they’re dishonest, it’s a problem. That whitewash their crimes? By definition dishonest, and therefore unacceptable. That make “your own” soldiers look bad? As long as they’re honest, not a problem. If they’re dishonest, it’s a problem.
It comes down again and again to honesty. I don’t give a shit whether the speaker is American, Ukrainian, Iraqi, or Kryptonian: they’ve got an ethical duty to put forward honest arguments supported by evidence. If they do not do so, then they’re behaving unethically, no matter where they’re from; if they do so, then I don’t have a problem with the nature of their speech, although I may well have a problem with its content.
Daniel
In principle the Democrats should be all ethical and stuff. But then this is a war conducted for and by the Republicans. Considering what our hypothetical Democrats are poised against, the knife in a gunfight problem presents itself.
While SamStone checks in to ensure the Dems remain susceptible to academic integrity in a down and dirty game, this must be a sign that other tactics are called for. As the Republicans have demonstrated, the benefit of political advocacy that is entirely unscrupulous is that it works. Indeed I am informed it is now a matter of pride amongst senior Republicans to have not uttered a truthful word for years. Instead the arts of deception have been refined to a plane heretofore unimaginable.
Probably the 2 major tactics the Democrats should emulate are as follows:
- Acquire a number of tame media outlets. Cash is the problem with this one.
- Practice and refine the art of the deniable insinuation: “*He never said 'Imminent Threat.” “It was never stated that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.”
It’s really much like debate here: Respect through fear. The Democrats are never going to win with logically cogent positions: They must display the same deep aversion to integrity that has proven such a winner. Now that God is dead, everything is permitted.
And in practice it should be the same. I want Democrats to win because I see them as behaving more ethically. If I believed they were as corrupt as the Republican party currently is, I would no longer advocate for the Democrats.
Daniel
So to keep you happy, all we have to do is draw the line somewhere short of organ failure or death?