This time it's Donal Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense claiming that criticism and debate of U.S. policies in Iraq helps our enemies.
It seems to me that Republicans trot this argument out every time they want to use their misguided definition of patriotism to silence their critics, and they are using the blood of our soldiers to accomplish it.
Mr. Rumsfeld, along with his allies, appear to be sadly deficient in two important areas. The first is obviously the First Amendment to the Constitution, which should be forcibly tattooed to the foreheads of every politician in the nation. The second is the American history of dissension during wartime.
The First Amendment obviously protects the ability of Americans to publicly disagree with the government. It is specifically not restricted by time of war or national emergency. This ensures that Americans can continue to debate war policies and aims.
Our history shows that we have used our First Amendment rights, sometimes quite vociferously, during time of war. This was true during the Civil War after President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, it was true during World War II, and it was definitely true of Vietnam.
Part of the problem with Mr. Rumsfeld and his ilk is that their memories of the effects of mass protest during Vietnam are skewed. Press coverage, debate, and protests did not defeat us. Our mis-understanding of the nature of the war we were fighting, including the nature of our opponent and our choice of tactics defeated us.
The Bush Administration needs to get over this self-inflicted pose that any disagreement with their policies is treason, and they need to stomp on those of their followers that perpetrate this garbage.
Posted by Chris at September 10, 2003 06:39 PM