When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History

``If you try hard enough, you will be able to make Saddam look like Saladin and Gandhi look like Jesus Christ. There is no intellectual integrity to this article at all. `` (stuka)

I disagree -- U don`t have to try hard enough -- for GANDHI to look like JESUS CHRIST -- OR -- Jesus Christ to look like Gandhi

There is no intellectual integrity to this post at all.

Very interesting article. Let us hope it wont happen again.
Let us hope it wont happen again.
Def going to check out yoru books.

``[Saddam Hussein`s] gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. ``
I dont recall this ever being a concern to the United States govermnet when these gruesome acts were actually being committed. Rather convenient!! It is funny how the label terrosist is accorded and to whom and when. I was surprised to hear that at one point Martin Luther King was also labelled a terrorist by the US govn.
Why people watch OReilly`s shows let alone appear on htem is a mystery to me. Pure waste!!

Ali87:

Does this article have anything to do with Islam? All this guy does is take two individuals and seek out superficially similar incidents in order to make a pre-ordained solution.

If you try hard enough, you will be able to make Saddam look like Saladin and Gandhi look like Jesus Christ. There is no intellectual integrity to this article at all.

the likes of tahmed32 cant be seeen on these discussions. it does not intrest the muslim baiters either.

Re: SR #21

Yes. It is really sad that people do not the see the gathering storm and the darkening clouds overhead. SR, I did my grad work in German politics and German history is a past time for me, and I see so many similarities; nationalism, xenophobia, militarism, ideologues, threatening diplomacy, lies, an industrial-military complex - 60 plus years ago it used to be known as Krupp, Siemens, I. G. Farben and now it goes by the name of Northrop, Litton (makes guidence software for the cruise missiles) and Dow Chemicals. All that is lacking is a new version of the Nuremburg rally and a new set of ``Ayran Laws``.

I, too, rue the demise of the American democracy and it was fine idea. Remember our little joke about the Roman empire revisited? It is not so funny any more!

Ciao

indeed history repeats it self - will we ever learn - or is this part of the human condition to perpetuate the same mistakes ????

Ferozk & Samina

It is indeed a historic tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. The ideals of Liberty enshrined in the US constitution were the best human civilization had experimented with and for a while it even looked as if they may prevail, but it now seems that the tide is turning. Actually, it was the Union victory in the Civil War that was the first blow and the process has gone one ever since. Each major war the US participated in since then (Spanish-American, WW-I & II, Korea, Vietnam -- the minor ones are far too many to count) has given the militants an excuse to chisel away at the statue of liberty. The process has been a gradual and stealthy one and not many noticed it. But the cummulative effect has finally reached critical mass and fascism now seems unstoppable. At this rate, unless these trends are reversed, in another decade or two, when the population of America is significantly ``browner``, it will be obvious to all. That will be the time when prison population will have exceeded 5 Million and the prison industries will be Big Business. At that time instead of the state paying private prisons to house inmates, the private corporations will be paying the state `fees` per-prisoner. Financial incintives will feed the system and everyone will be happy. Of course, the taxpayer will not be paying for the upkeep of these `criminals` who will be required to ``earn their keep``. Thus American industrial economy could be restored because China by then will have raised labor living standards and American prison labor force will be able to offer price competition as do the Chinese gulag slave labor of today. TERRORISM and DRUGS are the two mighty pillars upon which this sacred temple of prison industries will be built. This will keep the rabble in line and preserve the status quo in an increasingly ``brown`` America. We just have to follow the money and it becomes all too clear.

Yet there are many who cannot see it coming as is obvious from some remarks here. The power of the corporate media is indeed too overwhelming for the unthinking masses to see past.

Following is an item from the New York Times. It is just one more chip that is chiseled away from the beleagured statue of liverty.

Broad Domestic Role Asked for C.I.A. and the Pentagon

May 2, 2003
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN


WASHINGTON, May 1 - The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and
terrorism operations, officials said.

The proposal, which was beaten back, would have given the C.I.A. and the military the authority to issue administrative subpoenas - known as ``national security letters`` - requiring Internet providers, credit card companies, libraries and a range of other organizations to produce materials like phone records, bank transactions and e-mail logs. That authority now rests largely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the subpoenas do not require court approval.

The surprise proposal was tucked into a broader intelligence authorization bill now pending before Congress. It set off fierce debate today in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, officials said. Democrats on the panel said they were stunned by the proposal because it appeared to expand significantly the role of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon in conducting domestic operations, despite a long history of tight restrictions, officials said.

After raising objections, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats succeeded in getting the provision pulled from the authorization bill, at least temporarily, Congressional officials said.

In a closed vote, the committee passed the bill unanimously without the proposal. But Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the intelligence committee, indicated to panel members that he wanted to hold further hearings on the idea, officials said.

There was some disagreement over exactly how the provision originated. Several Senate aides active in the debate said that Senator Roberts had included it in the authorization bill. But a senior Congressional official said the Bush administration had initiated the proposal and that Senator Roberts had not objected.

A C.I.A. official said the provision had come from the Bush administration, after the White House`s Office of Management and Budget signed off on it.

The official said that Congressional leaders had asked the Bush administration whether there were any additional powers needed to help combat terrorism. The administration responded with the proposal to give the C.I.A. and military the power to use the national security letters, the official said. Another Congressional official said the move came at the urging of the C.I.A. The White House had no comment last night.

Because the F.B.I. now has primary responsibility for domestic intelligence operations, the C.I.A. and the military must currently go to the F.B.I. to request that it issue a national security letter to get access to financial and electronic records.

The Bush administration believes that giving the C.I.A. and the military direct authority to demand the records would cut down on the lag time in the process and give those organizations more flexibility to combat terrorism, according to the senior Congressional official.

Administration officials played down the significance of the proposal, maintaining that it would not give the C.I.A. or the military access to any information that they cannot already get through the F.B.I.

But Democrats and civil liberties advocates said they were alarmed by the idea that the C.I.A. and the military could begin prying into Americans` personal and financial records.

They said that while the F.B.I. was subject to guidelines controlling what agents are allowed to do in the course of an investigation, the C.I.A. and the military appeared to have much freer reign. The F.B.I. also faces additional scrutiny if it tries to use such records in court, but officials said the proposal could give the C.I.A. and the military the power to gather such material without ever being subject to judicial oversight.

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal ``dangerous and un-American.``

Mr. Edgar said that ``even in the most frigid periods of the Cold War, we never gave the C.I.A. such sweeping and secret policing powers over American citizens.``

A Congressional Democratic aide said the measure appeared to go well beyond even hotly debated antiterrorism measures that the Justice Department has been considering in past months. ``This is a very odd and very far-reaching idea that came out of nowhere,`` said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ``It raises a whole series of questions about what the C.I.A.`s mission has really become.``

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the C.I.A. and the military have assumed greater authority overseas over what were once law enforcement terrorism investigations, and the traditional lines between domestic and overseas operations have become increasingly blurred. A new terrorism center, led by the C.I.A., started operation today in an effort to better coordinate the activities of different federal agencies. Civil liberties groups said they were worried it would give the C.I.A. authority to conduct domestic operations.

The proposal to allow the C.I.A. and the Pentagon authority to demand domestic records comes at a time when both Democrats and Republicans have voiced growing concerns about the government`s expanded powers to fight terrorism.

New figures released today also showed that the Justice Department is relying with increasing frequency on secret warrants that allow the officials to go to a secret court to get approval for surveillance and bugging warrants in terrorism and espionage investigations without notifying the target.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said in an annual report that the Justice Department used secret warrants a record 1,228 times last year, - an increase of more than 30 percent over the year before. The court that governs the warrants did not turn down any of the Justice Department`s> applications, officials said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/02/international/worldspecial/02TERR.html?ex=1052884789&ei=1&en=2c37f86592d9e622

“He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn`t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric..”

-- ah our own Fuhrer George Bush

``Gott Mit Uns`` - God Is With Us –

“one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief`` (``Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer``)”

“Germans ``lightning war`` or blitzkrieg -- ``shock and awe``

“ crossed ….[into Austria/Iraq] there met me such a stream of love “

“Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.``



Thank you Thom – for a refresher course in mid 30’s history.

now I believe in REINCARNATION -- not only reincarnation of evil individuals -- reincarnation of evil history -- lock stock and barrel – with amazing linguistic similarity as well/

indeed History repeats itself

in order to complete the cycle -- only ONE act of our national gratitude remains:

our grateful `Homeland` should make OUR German George -- President for Life.

Re: Saminasha

Yes, I had noticed that trend too, when I was working in the states. It was the sheer inseperation of the two main stream political parties, which really forced me to consider the option of being an independent on most issues and I think, over the period of time, I was drifting to the left. I had always said that, on the political fence, I sit slightly right of center, but leaning to my left. I was never a Reagan democrat or a liberal conservative or anyother oxymoronity; I was a centerist.

In the last elections, I was supporting John McCain, because of campaign finance reforms and the elections of 2000 painfully made it obvivious that I was right; the sytem was really malfunctioning. Yes, I agree with you and I am coming to the conclusion that being an independent is not a political affliation to a political party or an ideology as much as it is the freedom to think independently for yourself and not to follow the herd mentality on the issues d` jour.

Besides, Hillary Clinton will some day make a really fine republican president! LOL

Ciao

Now I believe in REINCARNATION

Thank you Tthomas Hartman for telling us that Bush is the next Hitler. This reminds me of the simplistic analogies drawn between Hitler and Napoleon back when we were in the 8th grade.

That is exactly the level of this article as well. No points for ignoring the fact that you have the right to dissent even now. Just because the government is ignoring you does not mean it is persecuting you.

Bush`s Top Gun Photo-Op
05/01/2003 @ 4:59pm
E-mail this Post
Winning a war or two goes a long way toward redefining a man.

As the cable news networks enthusiastically covered George W. Bush`s trip to the USS Abraham Lincoln--cool military hardware, guys in uniforms, the Big Man, and a touch of can-anything-go-wrong drama--there were plenty of references to Bush`s days in the Texas Air National Guard, when he flew F-102 fighter jets. (Well, sort of--but we`ll get to that.) On MSNBC, correspondent George Lewis noted that Bush, with his tailhook landing on the aircraft carrier, was ``becoming one of`` the troops on board. He didn`t add, only 25 years late. That is, neither Lewis nor any of the other television journalists covering this gee-whiz event (whom I saw) mentioned Bush`s rather spotty (to be kind about it) record in the National Guard.

Those of you who closely followed the 2000 campaign might already be familiar with the tale of Bush`s service--or non-service--in the Guard. It received some, but not much, coverage. Not as much as Al Gore`s not-quite-true remark about the cost of meds for Tipper`s mother`s dog. Bush dodged a bullet on this, for he offered dubious explanations in response to serious questions about his military record--and never was called on it. Here`s an all-too brief summary:

Getting into the Guard. Enlisting in the Guard was one way to beat the draft and avoid being sent to Vietnam. Is this why Bush signed up? During the campaign, Bush said no. Yet in 1994, he had remarked, ``I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.`` That sure sounds like someone who was looking to avoid the draft and pick up a skill. Obtaining a slot in the Guard at that time was not usually easy--for the obvious reason: lots of young men were responding to the call of self-preservation. (Think Dan Quayle.) Bush, whose father was then a congressman from the Houston area, has said no strings were pulled on his behalf. Yet in 1999, the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives told The New York Times that a Houston oilman who was a friend of Bush`s father had asked him to grease the skids for W. and he obliged.

What Bush did in the Guard. In Bush`s campaign autobiography, A Charge To Keep, he wrote that he completed pilot training in 1970 and ``continued flying with my unit for the next several years.`` But in 2000, The Boston Globe obtained copies of Bush`s military records and discovered that he had stopped flying during his final 18 months of service in 1972 and 1973. More curious, the records showed Bush had not reported for Guard duty during a long stretch of that period. Had the future commander-in-chief been AWOL?

In May 1972, with two years to go on his six-year commitment to the Guard, Bush moved to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. He asked if he could do his Guard duty there. This son-of-a-congressman and fighter pilot won permission to do ``equivalent training`` at a unit that had no aircraft and no pilots. The national Air Reserve office then disallowed this transfer. For months, Bush did nothing for the Guard. In September 1972, he won permission to train with a unit in Montgomery. But the commander of the unit and his administrative officer told the Boston Globe that they had no recollection of Bush ever reporting for duty. And when Bush returned to Texas after the November election, he did not return to his unit for months, according to his military records. His annual performance report, dated May 2, 1973, noted he had ``not been observed at this unit`` for the past year. In May, June and July of that year, he did pull 36 days of duty. And then, as he was on his way to Harvard Business School, he received permission to end his Guard service early.

The records suggest Bush skipped out on the Guard for about a year. (And during that time he had failed to submit to an annual physical and lost his flight status.) A campaign spokesperson said Bush recalled doing duty in Alabama and ``coming back to Houston and doing duty.`` But Bush never provided any real proof he had. Asked by a reporter if he remembered what work he had done in Alabama, he said, ``No, I really don`t.`` A fair assumption was that he had gamed the system and avoided a year of service, before wiggling out of the Guard nearly a year before his time was up. It looked as if he had served four, not six years.

When he enlisted in the Texas Air Guard, Bush had signed a pledge stating he would complete his pilot training and then ``return to my unit and fulfill my obligation to the utmost of my ability.`` Instead, he received flight training--at the government`s expense--and then cut out on his unit. He had not been faithful to the Guard. He had not kept this particular charge

But that was then. After 9/11, after Afghanistan, after Iraq--and before who-knows-what--Bush has become a man with no past. He is a different fellow, that`s for sure, and now wears the commander-in-chief uniform more comfortably than before those airliners crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But could Bill Clinton--even in a similar situation--have gotten away with joy-riding a S-3B Viking aircraft onto a carrier for a mega-photo-op without commentators reminding viewers of his sly draft-dodging ways?

Bush looked quite heroic--so Tom Cruise-ish--hopping out of that plane dressed in a flight suit and striding across the flight deck. What imagery. This entire trip was only about imagery. He flew out to the Lincoln to announce that the major combat operations are done. What a news flash. Who didn`t know that? And he could not have made such an announcement from Washington? Bush did not even plan to say that the war was officially over, because then Geneva Accords provisions pertaining to occupation would kick in and impose obligations upon the United States, such as releasing POWs. So what really was the point? Could it have been to score free television time during an hour that tends to draw one of the biggest viewing audiences of the week? Bush`s communications people just so happened to have scheduled his Lincoln speech for the time slot usually inhabited by CSI on CBS and Will & Grace on NBC. Last week, these two shows attracted 43 million viewers. Bush`s primetime one-on-one with Tom Brokaw earlier this week only drew an audience of 9 million and lost out to an America`s Funniest Home Videos rerun featuring dog tricks. (A nod of thanks to Lisa de Moraes, The Washington Post`s television columnist for pointing this out.)

Was this, then, just a campaign stunt? Nah, Bush and Karl Rove wouldn`t waste taxpayer money and exploit a war that claimed the lives of 128 Americans--and thousands of Iraqis--for crass political advantage. And Bush really did serve honorably in the Guard.

OLDER Where Have All the WMD-Hunters Gone?

Talking out of Turn: The Right`s Campaign Against Dissent
Read the Newsletter Online
Last February, on the eve of the conflict with Iraq, the right-wing New York Sun urged Mayor Michael Bloomberg to do whatever he could to obstruct a planned anti-war demonstration. The Sun`s reasoning went like this: ``[T]he smaller the crowd, the more likely that President Bush will proceed with his plans to liberate Iraq. And the more likely…that the Iraqi people will be freed and the citizens of New York will be rescued from the threat of an Iraqi-aided terrorist attack.`` The editorial went on to suggest that dissent in the face of the Bush administration`s war plans was tantamount to treason:

[T]here is no reason to doubt that the “anti-war” protesters--we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq--are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein…. So the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution.
In the months surrounding the war in Iraq, the Sun`s views--from its expansive definition of treason to its contempt for the First Amendment--have been common in right-wing circles. While most people see President Bush`s post-9/11 assertion--``Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists``--as a call for the world community to join America in defeating terrorism, right-wing activists have taken a narrower view. To them, what the President is really saying is ``Either you toe the administration’s line, or you`re in league with terrorists.`` They see Bush`s policies toward Iraq as indistinguishable from America`s interests. In this ``Freedom Fries`` age, when the Right views all things French with suspicion, ultraconservatives still give King Louis XIV`s declaration, ``I am the state`` surprising currency. To them, President Bush is the state and, therefore, dissent is treason.
With this in mind, the Right’s commentators, preachers, and media outlets work to demonize dissent, presenting straw men protesters—Marxists who love Saddam Hussein and hate America—to be burned in effigy.

Protesters Are Communists

From the beginning, the Right has sought to portray anti-war protesters as radicals. This does not gibe with the facts. A New York Times piece on dissenters emphasizes the diversity of the peace movement. While it is true that one group involved in the peace protests, International ANSWER, has socialist ties, most major anti-war organizations have mainstream connections to groups like the NAACP and the National Council of Churches. These mainstream peace coalitions have gone out of their way to distance themselves from more radical elements and to disavow their tactics. However, the Times’ nuanced description of dissenters does not lend itself to easy caricature. Thus, right-wing groups spend most of their time talking about ANSWER. When they discuss other organizations at all, they paint them with the same red-baiting brush, indicating that any variation from ANSWER is merely a Marxist marketing ploy. This piece from NewsMax is typical, with its emphasis on far-left protesters, and its suggestion that dissent is somehow criminal:

NewsMax.com has learned that preliminary inquiries are or soon will be under way on Capitol Hill exploring the possibility of investigating the link between communists and radical Islamic terrorists. Evidence mounts that this coalition orchestrated the recent appeasement demonstrations against President Bush’s policy in Iraq….Workers World Party, a tiny Marxist organization that admires North Korea`s repressive dictatorship, has coordinated much of the anti-war activity, partly through such fronts as A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)….
Former Reagan administration official and self-appointed moral arbiter Bill Bennett takes a similar tack: ``Communists are certainly glad to...sponsor and organize [the anti-war rallies]. I don`t think everybody who participates is a communist, but communists are certainly behind it--and that should give people who participate in these protests some pause, I would think.`` Not one to miss a trick, Bennett has added two new chapters on the ``propaganda of the anti-war brigade`` in the recently-released paperback edition of his book, Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism.
A piece by WorldNetDaily commentator Craige McMillian goes further, suggesting a leftist conspiracy theory:

Tolerance was never the goal, was it? It was merely a convenient stepping stone in the leftist agenda to Saddamize America--to gain control of our institutions, our government, our workplaces, our families and our children. From this position of power, the left can silence its critics. Silent critics are necessary to make America into the communist paradise that leftists have never given up on, despite Stalin and Mao`s murdered millions, or Saddam`s murdered and brutalized tens or hundreds of thousands.
Note McMillan’s use of the made-up verb “to Saddamize.” Apparently, he cannot resist an opportunity to link the anti-war movement with another great bugbear of the Right, homosexuality.
Meanwhile, the Free Congress Foundation’s Paul Weyrich calls on Congress to investigate groups in the peace movement:

If Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge wants to do something useful with all his new powers, he ought to find out how these neo-Communists are being financed. If Ridge won`t act, then Congress should. Congress should hold hearings and compel the organizers to testify.
Protesters Love Saddam
Simply painting protesters red is not enough. Why not suggest that they secretly carry a torch for Saddam Hussein? Daniel Pipes, of the Middle East Forum doesn’t simply suggest this; he comes right out and says it in a piece entitled “Why the Left Loves Osama (and Saddam)”:

[Saddam Hussein`s] gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can`t be too bad--never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer.
Remarkably, Pipes, well known for his anti-Muslim rhetoric, was recently appointed by President Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace. Understandably, Muslim groups oppose his nomination.

Protesters Hate America

Then there is the other side of that rhetorical coin. Not only do dissenters love Saddam, they also hate America, or so the Right would have us believe.

On the March 30th edition of Fox News Sunday, panelists discussed a statement made by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) in which he voiced concerns about civilian casualties in Iraq: “I just don`t believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce something against a lying cheat [i.e. Saddam], that`s all.” Rangel’s comments prompted Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol to say:

I really honestly now believe that a certain chunk of the Democratic Party, a higher chunk of liberal commentators, take a certain relish in the fact when something goes badly in the war….[T]hey hate the Bush administration more than they love America.``
During this exchange, Fox`s moderator, Brit Hume agreed with Kristol regarding the Democrats, saying, ``It`s the anti-American stuff.`` Only when NPR`s Mara Liasson challenged Hume on this point, did he correct himself: ``I mean, anti-war stuff. I won`t say anti-American.``
Meanwhile, WorldNetDaily CEO Joseph Farah compares supposedly anti-American dissenters with terrorists:

Many dangerous, violent and profoundly anti-American organizations are using the current war as cover to try to bring America to its knees. They hate this country and openly advocate destroying it. Their cause has nothing to do with opposing war, but everything to do with opposing America. In some cases, both their tactics and their goals are not far from those of the very terrorists we are fighting.
Gary Bauer, American Values president and former GOP presidential candidate, does Farah one better. In an email to supporters, Bauer argues that anti-war protesters are more damaging to America than terrorists:
In the long run, who most harms the United States? Is it clueless U.N. bureaucrats like [weapons inspector] Hans Blix, feckless French Leaders like Jacques Chirac, or radical Islamic terrorists? They all make a contribution, but at the end of the day I believe we have more to fear from the anti-American crowd right here at home.
Protest Is Treason
Once the Right has created a mythology in which peace protesters are actually Communists who hate America and love Saddam, it isn’t much of a stretch to claim that dissent is in fact treasonous. To do so, they frequently reference Article III of the Constitution, which defines treason as giving “aid and comfort” to America’s enemies. By the Right’s reasoning, voicing opposition to the war, or even expressing doubts about American tactics, constitutes treason. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) found this out the hard way on March 18th, when he argued that President Bush had squandered diplomatic alternatives to war. Daschle said, “I`m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we`re now forced to war.”

According to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), “Those comments may not undermine the president as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close.`` House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) took a swipe at both Daschle and the French by saying, “Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle,” which translates as ``Shut your mouth, Mr. Daschle.`` Columnist Diana West described Daschle’s comments as “hateful, shameful words.” And, televangelist Pat Robertson argued that this proved that Daschle and his ilk hate America:

Now, when people like Sen. Daschle stand up in the Senate and attack the president one day before the war starts, then that, to me, borders on lack of patriotism and I think it is wrong….there are people…who have got so much money they feel ashamed of it and they hate America….They hate America. It isn’t just a war; they hate everything. They also hate the idea of standing up for freedom.
David Horowitz of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture is perhaps the most rabid advocate of the view that dissent equals treason. Each weekday Horowitz and his colleagues at FrontPage Magazine offer new articles on the evils of dissent, liberally sprinkled with such key phrases as “aid and comfort,” “clear and present danger”, “blame America first,” “hate America Left,” and “fifth column.” In fact, FrontPage has an entire “Fifth Column” section containing 380 articles to date.
A January 21st piece entitled “The `Peace` Movement Isn’t about Peace,” demonstrates Horowitz’s standard modus operandi: link dissenters with Communists and dissent with treason.

When your country is attacked, when the enemy has targeted every American regardless of race, gender or age for death, there can be no ``peace`` movement. There can only be a movement that divides Americans and gives aid and comfort to our enemies….The so-called ``peace movement`` today is led by the same radicals who supported America’s totalitarian enemies during the Cold War. They marched in support of the Vietcong, the Sandinista Marxists and the Communist guerrillas in El Salvador. Before that they marched in behalf of Stalin and Mao.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that Horowitz isn’t capable of varying his formula from time to time. For example, in a February 28 exchange with NewsMax, Horowitz compares protesters not with Communists, but with Nazis instead:
If you read Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” Horowitz warns, you see “how kooky views can result in the deaths of seventy million people.” Just because the leaders of the appeasement demonstrations don’t make sense “doesn’t mean they are not [dangerous or that they will not] get hundreds of thousands and millions of followers.”
Preaching to the Choir
There has been widespread dissent against the war from religious groups, ranging from the Catholic Church to the World Council of Churches. This poses a particular problem for the Right, as they find religious groups less easy to demonize than all of those atheistic, Communist, America haters. That’s not to say that they haven’t tried. For example right-wing talk show host Tom Marsland wonders, “Is ‘mainstream Christianity’ morally relevant right now?” The answer, of course, is no:

In condemning free nations for desiring to liberate oppressed peoples from despotic regimes, virtually all World Council of Churches member congregations have sided against the war…therefore against freedom for the Iraqi people, and thereby with Saddam, and with the U.N. too.
He goes on to argue that Jesus himself would have supported the war.
D. James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, suggests a more political motivation for church opposition to the war:

Why any churchman would choose to support [Saddam] rather than to support our own president, I don’t know. I think that some of them are doing it for purely political reasons, and [because] they have a very strong liberal bias….
Nor is the pope, a vocal opponent of war with Iraq, spared criticism. Bill O`Reilly, host of Fox News` The O’Reilly Factor calls the pope ``naïve`` for his opposition to the war in Iraq. He even suggests that John Paul was complicit in 40 years of Soviet domination of Poland when he served as a bishop in Krakow:
Let`s look at Poland, where the pope came from. For 40 years...that country was enslaved by the Soviet Union and the pope didn`t call for armed insurrection against the Soviets. I don`t know about you, but I`m not willing to live under somebody`s boot heel for 40 years.
Shut Up
O’Reilly frequently pats himself on the back for what he terms ``the most honest and accurate coverage of the war with Iraq.`` However, when someone has honest differences with his pro-war views, he oftentimes shouts them down. Not that he hasn`t warned them. On the February 26th edition of his show, he says:

Once the war against Saddam [Hussein] begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if they can`t do that, to shut up. Americans and, indeed, our allies who actively work against our military once the war is under way will be considered enemies of the state by me.
Still he can’t resist inviting occasional dissenters on The Factor to serve as punching bags. His assault on peace activist Jeremy Glick, whose father died in the 9/11 attacks, was especially vicious. During the interview (more accurately described as an O’Reilly monologue with brief interruptions) he talked over Glick’s criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, suggested that Glick’s father would be ashamed of him, claimed that Glick is “exploiting” the victims of 9/11, and finally, yelled at Glick to shut up before cutting his microphone.
Celebrity Talk Show

While disapproving of all dissenters, the Right attacks anti-war celebrities with particular relish. In the Right`s view, singer Bonnie Raitt is a ``longtime radical activist``, comedian Janeane Garofalo a ``short fat idiot``, and actor Martin Sheen a purveyor of “hate-filled, militant, purpose-filled, bourgeois-baiting language.`` Web sites, such as hollywoodhalfwits.com, have sprung up to echo these sentiments.

Still, none of this quite compares with the Right’s reception for country group the Dixie Chicks after lead singer and Texas native Natalie Maines told a London audience, ``Just so you know, we`re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.`` The response from the Right has been deafening. Right-wing pundits have fallen over themselves to come up with clever plays on the group`s name: Ditzy Chicks, Blixie Chicks (after the Right`s unlikely villain, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix), etc. Paul Weyrich accused the group of treason:

The Dixie Chicks may be entitled to their opinion, but for them to give aid and comfort to the enemy when we are on the edge of war is just outrageous….With more than 250,000 troops deployed in and around Iraq did it occur to these brazen performers that they might be doing harm to our brave men and women in uniform?

Frontiers of Freedom`s Karen Pittman praised ``a defiant mob, some 200-strong, [that] brazenly took to the streets--faces red with anger, not humiliation--to riot, tractordozing the trio`s CDs.`` Meanwhile, Clear Channel Communications, the nation`s largest radio broadcaster, has been accused of boycotting Dixie Chicks music in an attempt to curry favor with the Bush administration.

The First Amendment as a Model

The irony of the Right`s anti-dissent stance is that it claims to support the war so as to provide Iraqis with the same freedoms that they would deny peace protesters. Oftentimes, as in this National Review piece, visions of Iraqi freedom are printed right next to rebukes of peace protesters:

[I]n years to come Iraqis will enjoy peace and freedom in their homeland, will build civil society, [and] will have the right to speak and worship freely without fear of reprisal…. And all of these blessings will come about with no thanks whatsoever to the peace movement.
As the United States and its allies work to work with Iraqis to build a new society, we can only hope that America`s First Amendment traditions will be viewed not as seditious but rather, as a model to follow.

PFAW © 2003

Feroz,

But, I am aware that Clinton did put the begginnings of the Patriot Act in place during his Admin. Same with some of the welfare acts that are perceived as Draconian.

It seems that the Reps are planning for 10 years down the line-hence their biding their time during Clinton`s 8 years; the whole Monica thing was a public performance/warning of what was to come- the hijacking of an election, invasion of Iraq, rollback of Constitutional Amendments, stacking of the Supreme Court with conservatives, money for faith based orgs... I`m not a conspiracy theorist, but arguably, 9/11 really just put this agenda into motion...

Re: Saminasha

Bravo!

Where are the republicans? Indeed!

If anyone is interested, please scan through the party platform of the Republican Party at www.gop.org It makes for a fascinating reading and it spells out clearly, what the GOP is doing today. That platform was written in 2000!

The GOP and the republicans were lusting after this scenrio since 1996 and 2001 gave them the opportunity to implement their facist plans. I remember John Ashcroft, when he was a senator and I remember, how conservative he was and how eager he was to regress the issue of civil rights in the United States. PATRIOT ACT I & II was a wish list of the Christian Coalition for a long time and there is nothing new or alarming about it; it is only now, that we are waking up to the reality and while the majority of the Americans were sleeping walking through their ``American Dream``, the GOP was quietly and systematically erasing the Bill of Rights.

1998 was a wasted year. It was the year of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton and I was working for the Republican Party. We did nothing that year except try to impeach Clinton and for the first time, American politics became personalized and ``person driven instead of issue driven`` based on political ideologies and not on political pragmatism. Bush was nominated the next president of the United States months before New Hampshire and months before the presidential primaries and the elections of 2000 ended up as nothing more than a Supreme Court verdict. The day that verdict came out, was the day when the American Republic born out of the strive of 1776 and tempered by the trials and ordeals of the civil war, died; the funeral was marked by the events in New York and Washington nearly a year and a half later.

Re: SR

My apologies! I doubted your words, when you predicted that the Bill of Rights and the consitution had been torn asunder and I replied that the Americans, will soon correct their erring ways. I seemed to have misjudged and I thank you for seeing the truth; and seeing it first from the other side!

Ciao

Too many people, from Indias Advani and Modi, to GWB to Tony Blair, secretly admire, and want to be, 21st century Hitler.

But is it a mere coincidence that have to use religion to defend themselves?

A well written article, Thom.
The world would be a safe place to be in, if more from your ilk agreed with your thinking.