So, having an honest debate on the issues is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

There is something very, very wrong when the President of the United States, the man who took an oath to protect democracy and liberty, condemns Democrats and those who do not support him for offering aid and comfort to the enemy. Yes, we are well aware that we’re at war (It’s kinda tough to miss, what with all the flag-draped coffins being shipped home from Iraq). Yet hasn’t this war been sold to us as (among other things) a war to protect American freedom and security? And isn’t freedom of speech and expression part and parcel of what makes America such a great country? Since when is the right to voice dissent not viewed as an essential component of freedom of speech and expression?

New York Times Article:

President Bush issued an unusually stark warning to Democrats today about how to conduct the debate on Iraq as midterm elections approach, declaring that Americans know the difference "between honest critics" and those "who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people."

In a speech here to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Bush appeared to be issuing a pre-emptive warning to critics at a time when Democrats are divided between those who say the United States should begin a troop withdrawal now and those who have criticized Mr. Bush but say the United States should stay in Iraq as long as necessary.

In some of his most combative language yet directed as his critics, Mr. Bush said Americans should insist on a debate "that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries."

Mr. Bush was speaking in the same room in a Washington hotel where last month he described the effort to reconstruct Iraq before a skeptical audience: the Council on Foreign Relations, whose members greeted him with only tepid applause. But today 425 members of the V.F.W., which has passed a resolution supporting the Iraq action, interrupted the president repeatedly as he predicted that progress would be made in both fighting the insurgency and stabilizing the newly elected government.

Mr. Bush acknowledged major human rights abuses by the Iraqi police, who he said have been "accused of committing abuses against Iraqi civilians."

"That's unacceptable," he said, adding that the United States was adjusting how it trains Iraqi police officers, including the establishment of a new "Police Ethics and Leadership Institute" in Baghdad that will establish a curriculum for the nine Iraqi police academies. He made no references to disclosures over the past year of American abuses of detainees, in Iraq and elsewhere.

The president acknowledged slow progress in restoring basic services in Iraq, but argued that those problems paled in comparison to the progress he said Iraq was making.

"The vast majority of Iraqis prefer freedom with intermittent power to life in the permanent darkness of tyranny and terror," he said, an amplification of the theme he hit repeatedly in December in an effort to rebuild support for the war at home.

President Bush also pressed coutries that have promised aid to Iraq to make good on their pledges. He praised Slovakia and Malta for forgiving all of Iraq's previous debts to those countries - though their concessions amounted to a couple of hundred million dollars. Among large countries, only the United States has forgiven all past Iraqi debt.

But it was Mr. Bush's warning to Democrats that ventured into new territory.

"There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas," he said without specifically naming his critics.

In discussing Iraqi politics, the president directly addressed Sunni Arabs, the minority in the new government, saying that "compromise and consensus and power-sharing are the only path to national unity and lasting democracy."

Mr. Bush added that "a country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward and risks sliding back into tyranny."

The US has become a much different country post-9.11, and while many of the changes are understandable and even desirable, most of what we see taking place in this country is truly disturbing. We have become a collection of sheep, collectively willing to sit idly by as our civil liberties are gradually and inexorably whittled away in the name of safety and security. Yet there is nothing in the erosion of our liberties that can justify the trade-off in the name of protecting us from terrorism. Tyranny, illegal eavesdropping, and demagoguery in the name of liberty and freedom are oxymorons…and yet how much discussion of this do we see in the mainstream media?

It was Thomas Jefferson who once said the dissent is the highest form of patriotism. You may not agree with me, but that does not mean you have the right to silence me…and Mr. Bush has no right to use his bully pulpit to attempt to quash dissent because it’s inconvenient.

In a speech here to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Bush appeared to be issuing a pre-emptive warning to critics at a time when Democrats are divided between those who say the United States should begin a troop withdrawal now and those who have criticized Mr. Bush but say the United States should stay in Iraq as long as necessary.

In some of his most combative language yet directed as his critics, Mr. Bush said Americans should insist on a debate “that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries.”

We wonder just how Mr. Bush would define this debate? Those who speak out in opposition to his never-ending war on Iraq are guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Those who voice support for his war are the true Patriots?

Honestly, this is not a matter of “responsible” or “irresponsible” debate. We all know what Mr. Bush will consign to each category. We should be having this debate EXACTLY BECAUSE AMERICAN TROOPS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES OVERSEAS. These are are sons and daughters and brothers and sisters who are following orders, risking their lives in a war that some of us view as illegal, immoral, and illegitimate. That 2,200 Americans have now died in this war is criminal. Yes, we should be having this debate, and we should be having it loudly and proudly. This is a democracy, which means that everyone has a right to be heard. You might not like what I have to say, you might think it “irresponsible”, but by God, I am going to say it- because I can. I’m an American, and I have the right to speak my mind. If you honestly think that my voicing my opinion is giving in to the terrorists or “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”, might I suggest that you get yourself a copy of the Constitution- AND READ IT?

51% of y’all have elected a President who seems to think that attempting to control free speech is a perfectly acceptable action in post-9.11 America. Let me clue all y’all in to something, though: 9.11 took down four planes, three buildings, and 3,000 innocent Americans. It did NOT take down the Constitution, or my right to freedom of speech and expression. Anyone who seriously agrees with Mr. Bush that dissent is “irresponsible” might just want to get a grip on reality….
Jack Cluth People's Republic of Seabrook

BACK TO TOP
HOME