How well does this argument hold up under close scrutiny?

Bug-Eyed Earl · Post by **Bug-Eyed Earl** » 2004-01-11 10:42pm

From a neocon site:

Making disparaging remarks about our commander-in-chief during a war is anti-American. You are encouraging the enemy to fight on, and demoralizing our troops. Those who protested before and during the war are responsible for the death of American military men and women. Yes, they most certainly are. Saddam Hussein boasted of the support he enjoyed in the streets of America. He saw no signs in those demonstrations asking him to disarm or to free his people. This caused him to not back down, betting that the world would dissuade the U.S. from attacking. The result: dead Americans and dead Iraqis. Imagine if the world united in one voice against Saddam--he would have been in exile in Libya and there would have been no bloodshed. Yes, the peaceniks have blood on their hands.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-11 11:04pm

Well, protesting during the war is one thing, but in the case of the Iraq war, the protestors were protesting for a course of action that would have saved the lives of a number of American troops. I suppose you could make the above argument for the Ted Ralls and Chrissie Hyndes of the world and it would be valid, but for the people who actively spoke out against the war before it started but supported the campaign once it was underway and sincerely hoped for things to go well, no, probably not.

As for criticism of the administration? For people who offer nothing but pessimistic, doom and gloom criticism, maybe. For people who offer constructive criticism that they feel could possibly induce the government to fight the war in a better way, again, I don't think so.

Mind you, I don't agree with nearly all of them one bit, I just don't think they were necessarily anti-American.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2004-01-11 11:07pm

When the cornerstone of the American constitution is freedom of speech, then loyalty should be to the principles stated therein, not to any one man who happens to be in charge of the guns at the time, if a war is wrong, or people believe the war is wrong, then to protest about it is to be American, surely... I'm not an American, mind you, and I am an idealistic sod, but that would be my response to that...

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-01-12 08:28am

Bug-Eyed Earl wrote:From a neocon site:

Making disparaging remarks about our commander-in-chief during a war is anti-American. You are encouraging the enemy to fight on, and demoralizing our troops. Those who protested before and during the war are responsible for the death of American military men and women. Yes, they most certainly are. Saddam Hussein boasted of the support he enjoyed in the streets of America. He saw no signs in those demonstrations asking him to disarm or to free his people. This caused him to not back down, betting that the world would dissuade the U.S. from attacking. The result: dead Americans and dead Iraqis. Imagine if the world united in one voice against Saddam--he would have been in exile in Libya and there would have been no bloodshed. Yes, the peaceniks have blood on their hands.

In rebuttal:

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

—Theodore Roosevelt
7 May, 1918

The neocons can shove that one up their asses.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-12 09:25am

Ouuuuuuuuchhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I would *love* to send that back to whoever wrote that.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-01-12 10:09am

Beautiful quote, man. Where'd you get it from?

Bug-Eyed Earl · Post by **Bug-Eyed Earl** » 2004-01-12 01:32pm

Vympel wrote:Ouuuuuuuuchhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I would *love* to send that back to whoever wrote that.

mark @ rightnation.us Just remove the spaces.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-12 02:17pm

That is a very good quote. While I am a conservative, maybe even a 'neocon' in the eyes of some, I am not some blind lackey of the Republican party. The president should be constructively criticized when necessary, as I have done with both President's Clinton and Bush, and supported when seen fit. If you agree with what the President does, by all means say so, but if you disagree, and if you have a viable alternative and constructive criticism, then you should speak out.

After all, what's the point of democracy if you aren't allowed to speak out against an action the governmnent made that you dislike?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-13 12:12am

Excellent quote. I am saving it so I can use it whenever needed.