Why the left cannot cheer this liberation

steissd

I think you really ought to get straight on this speech matter. Dissent and criticism of state policy, or of politicians, is considered a good thing in a democracy. They are considered to be negatives in a totalitarian state.

Some speech furthers hatred and prejudice, for example, 'Hitler didn't finish the job' (from the Birch types), 'brainwashing of students by Arab professors' (from you), or the comments on gay relationships (from Santorum). It's stupid and despicable, but the First Ammendment does protect it. Damned First Ammendment.

It's downright scary to think what this administration has done to our liberties in just a little over three years in the white house. Can you imagine what will happen if they control the white house for a second term? Now, that's scarier. c.i.

There's a great article in the 5/5 Nation by Philip Green, "'Anti-Semitism,' Israel and the Left." Mamajuana first recommended it and now that my (always late!) copy of that Nation has arrived, I'll go through it carefully and post whatever seems relevant to this discussion. Probably all of it. However, the dang thing is not available on line, not even to subscribers, one of the many flaws The Nation has when it comes to distributing their weekly. One subheadline reads: "It is not anti-Semitic to say that 'the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest obstales to a rational American Middle East policy." Green parses Congressman Moran's statement along these lines and comes up with a good definition of anti-Semitism...

Re: dissent and criticism. I caught the end of the Diane Rehm Show this morning and heard Stephen Brill urging accountability, the main support system of democracy:

Steven Brill: After (Simon & Schuster)
Legal journalist Steven Brill talks about the profound changes that have taken place in politics, the law, and many other areas of society as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
http://www.wamu.org/dr/

Now where does one hear the word "accountability" over and over again. Oh yes, from the Right -- welfare mothers, local officials, Big Gubment. Okay, how about George Bush? Is he accountable, or what? Is he expected to be above accountability? Were Clinton or, for that matter, Bush Sr., above accountability?

Shame on us for not making the president accountable.

Tartar, Americans don't know how to make their president accountable for anything. We have become a nation of "yes, if the president says so." I doubt anybody can prove me wrong. c.i.

Okay, C.I., if that's true, we have to speak out strongly against it.

What we need here are a few succinct arguments to throw at idiots (oops, I mean lovely American people) who think the president shouldn't be second-guessed.

Or "first guessed," for that matter . . .

Tartar, We HAVE been speaking out, but the Bushie supporters call us "unpatriotic" and some such bull. Simple minds can't seem to understand anything about democracy and our right to "free" speech. Only the folks that support our president have that right. c.i.

From what I've seen in A2K, we're pretty wimpy.

Its quite simple really. You just wrap yourself in a flag and say everything with bombastic piety. If people critize you, their patriotism will be questioned, nullifing their scrutiny.

It is OK to criticize anyone except God, but some of the A2K members tend to reject and to ridicule everything that has any connection to the current President. I am afraid that if tomorrow Mr. Bush claims that 2*2=4, there will be people that will claim that this is bulls**t and 2*2 is anything you want except four, just to prove and accentuate their opposition to the President. Mr. Bush is not God, hence he is not perfect; but I cannot agree that he has only disadvantages accompanied by absolute lack of positive sides.

If Bush asserts that 2+2=4, I'd have to agree, while taking into account that he has a nefarious purpose for stating the obvious.

steissd we have a 229 yr history of severe criticism of every president we have had. this is a significant part of our political process.

If Bush states that 2+2=4, it doesn't take a political scientist to know the obvious answer. However, if Bush states that we must attack Iraq because Saddam has WMD's and will sell them to terrorists, I would question that statement. It's probably true that Saddam had WMD's, but it's connection to selling them to terrorist groups is highly questionable, because we have/had no proof. On the 'assumption' that Saddam has WMD's, does it justify a preemptive attack on Iraq? My answer is "no," because having possession of a dangerous weapon does not justify killing the owner for fear he/she will use it against me/us. c.i.

Steissd -- We have customs which must seem odd to non-Americans. One of them is that one speaks respectfully to the President -- just about everyone but his spouse calls him "Mr. President," even his best friends (usually). But just as a British MP, his voice dripping with disrespect, refers to a member in the opposition as "honorable," so we reserve the right to tell the president and anyone else who cares to listen just what we think of him. In this case, Mr. President, you are a piece of sh*t worse than anything a sick dog could produce, and the sooner you are retired to rattlesnake ranch down there, the better for the country and the rest of the world.

And what is your opinion, Tartarin, about millions of your compatriots that gave their votes to Mr. Bush in 2000, and still are satisfied with him, as the polls show? Do you really consider that all them are stupid, and only you (and the people that agree with your assessment of Mr. George W. Bush and his administration) are the only smart person in the United States?

And of the majority of people that did not want him as our president? we should button our lips? gosh i think not, i think we will do and say anything and everything within our power to replace his asap, just as the opposition did during Clintons terms in office.

Well, this did not prevent Mr. William J. Clinton from being a President for eight years.

I'm not alone, Steissd! And people I know who voted for Bush (not all of them, but many) who now believe they were -- well, they don't say "stupid," they say "misled" or "misinformed" and most commonly, "I'm a Republican and I didn't like Gore, that's why." I don't know what they will do in 2004, but I think some of the people I know will just not vote.

But your implication that someone who is tenaciously against Bush must think he/she's the only smart person is demeaning and makes you sound resentful and thoughtless.

and that Steissd is the point, that is what our political system is all about.