Does dissent embolden enemy?

[MTAtech]

Responsing to John Kerry's speech on Sept. 20th, which said, “The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. I believe that Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. The question for this campaign… and for the American people… is whether the President has handled Iraq in a way that has made us stronger or weaker…safer or less secure.”


Last week (Sept 23, 2004), President Bush said

Quote:

"You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message. You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages. You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages. "

Does debate on Iraq embolden the enemy or is it Bush's way of shutting down criticism?

[muno]

I don't think it emboldens the enemy, but it diminishes troops morale.

The real question perhaps should be, whether it's better to continue on wrong reasons or right it. But since people have different opinions about that, nothing's going to chance.

//edit:
You embolden the enemy by feeding their righteous rage. And you can even make new enemies by doing that.

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by muno

I don't think it emboldens the enemy, but it diminishes troops morale.

The real question perhaps should be, whether it's better to continue on wrong reasons or right it. But since people have different opinions about that, nothing's going to chance.

//edit:
You embolden the enemy by feeding their righteous rage. And you can even make new enemies by doing that.

I believe the troops appreciate a debate on the issues and the policies that have them serve in Iraq. General Abizaid was on Meet the Press yesterday, and this was the question and the answer:

Quote:

MR. RUSSERT: General, I know you don't want to be involved in politics, but we are in the middle of a presidential campaign and I want to get your reaction to some of the charges and countercharges from your standpoint on the ground. John Kerry said "This is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." President Bush says those comments embolden the enemy and send the wrong message to the troops. Do you believe that the debate about Iraq in this country emboldens the enemy and sends the wrong message to the troops?

GEN. ABIZAID: Tim, I believe that debate in our country is what our country is all about. And if we're successful out here, debate will be part of the future of Afghanistan, it'll be part of the future of Iraq and it will be part of the future of all of the Middle East. As a matter of fact, as I look around the Middle East, we're going through a revolutionary times right now and debate is happening everywhere. So that there is a debate is certainly a good thing for the peoples of the region. That there's a debate back home is a good thing for our people.

[Chuckiechan]

I've always said that Kerry should have made a statement along the lines of:

"You won't get a better deal when I'm president!" just to make it clear that he won't cut and run if elected, and that they will not get better terms from him.

The problem with Kerry's statements, is the terrorists are waiting now wondering that if Kerry wins will he cut them some slack. Among his positions is one that seems to allow the terrorists to keep thier heads down while the USA quietly backs out over a six month period while changing places with the UN.

IMO, one reason no attacks have occured in this country is that it will help Bush and the reason more violence is occuring in Iraq is that it hurts Bush. The terrorists in Iraq probably believe the liberal press and feel that if Kerry is elected, Iraq will fall into their hands. They do have history on their side.

[M_Six]

Bush and his cronies love to label any dissenting voice as traitorous and dangerous. It's an old tactic used with great success by many oppressive regimes to dupe those who refuse to think for themselves.

See also: Hitler, Nazism, Stalin

[digby0668]

Htiler and Stalin didn't label dissent as traitorous and dangerous, they just killed the dissenters. BIG difference!!!!

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

I've always said that Kerry should have made a statement along the lines of:

"You won't get a better deal when I'm president!" just to make it clear that he won't cut and run if elected, and that they will not get better terms from him.

The problem with Kerry's statements, is the terrorists are waiting now wondering that if Kerry wins will he cut them some slack. Among his positions is one that seems to allow the terrorists to keep thier heads down while the USA quietly backs out over a six month period while changing places with the UN.

IMO, one reason no attacks have occured in this country is that it will help Bush and the reason more violence is occuring in Iraq is that it hurts Bush. The terrorists in Iraq probably believe the liberal press and feel that if Kerry is elected, Iraq will fall into their hands. They do have history on their side.

I don't know what the insurgents are thinking and I suspect not many do either. The Bush-centric view is that the violence in Iraq is to defeat Bush. Perhaps the world doesn't revolve around Bush and they are fighting for their own interests, like representation in their own government and forcing invaders out?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

"Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" -- Thomas Jefferson

[M_Six]

Quote:

Htiler and Stalin didn't label dissent as traitorous and dangerous, they just killed the dissenters. BIG difference!!!!

Not at first. Especially with Hitler. He shifted Germany's anger and resentment over the WWI armistice to focus on someone easy to blame, namely the Jews, the French, the Polish, etc. Then as he gained power, he labelled anyone who thought to speak out against him an agent of those he was blaming. Pretty soon it got to the point where everyone was afraid to speak up and once he had people feeling that way, the rest was easy.

The single most dangerous thing you can do right now is hold your tongue if you feel the government is doing the country more harm than good.

[MTAtech]

Another reason to vote Bush out and why these right-wingers are dangerous to democracy:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article...&mode=&order=0

[TOAD6147]

Quote:

The neocon Republicans believe they are the party of righteousness and morality. Perhaps they should be following the actions of one of their own. Long before he became a two-term Republican governor and then a two-term president, Ronald Reagan was a staunch Democrat and president of the Screen Actors Guild. At a time when super-patriots were washing the epithets of "Commie" and "pinko" on everyone who had an opinion different from their own, Ronald Reagan stood with his membership of actors, looked Congress in the eye and declared he wasn't about to play into their hands and name names during the witch hunts of the early 1950s.

Our nation and the wishes of our Founding Fathers would be better served if more Americans would stand up to the flag-waving Constitutionally-dense congressional leaders, and to the President and his minions who believe dissent is disloyal, and patriotism is unyielding, unquestioning, uncompromising acceptance.

Very profound and thought-provoking words, MTAtech.