« Answering John Henke's questions about George Allen | Main | What is Eric Alterman talking about? »

January 11, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d25c69e200d834b2322869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush attacks dissent at VFW:

Comments

So, what does the president consider proper debate? Whether or not the war is going good or going great?

It seems that most of the time "loyal opposition that points out what is wrong" are considered "defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right" anyway.

"Similarly, at the end of the passage, Bush suggests that debate about the war hurts troop morale and that questioning of the war brings "comfort to our adversaries.""

By using the phrase "comfort to our adversaries", isn't the President also bluntly implying that dissenters are, in fact, traitors?

Thank you, Brendan, for consistently keeping on-top of this whole "attack on dissent" thing. I find the hatred of dissent the right-wing has to be fascinating, and a little scary.

It's not just the politicians or the administration, as I'm sure you know, that are doing it. It's right-wing pundits, bloggers and ordinary citizens. Millions of people feel like this. I read alot of political forums.... and, all the time, see posters from the right throw the word "traitor" around like Marti Gras beads. I'm getting sick of being called a traitor, simply because I don't think the President is God.

Brendan:
Of course there is a legal right to dissent. But it is also important for people to point out the moral issue (not legal issue) involved when dissent has the effect of encouraging an enemy and demoralizing our guys. Saying "Please shut up" is free speech too.

"Does Bush think Al Qaeda is watching "Meet the Press" every week? Listening to C-SPAN call-ins?"

Does Brendan think that Al Qaeda is NOT monitoring the political discourse in America?

The comments to this entry are closed.