‘What is an appropriate way to dissent?’

January 17, 2007

The Senate is poised to consider a non-binding resolution criticizing the president’s new escalation strategy in Iraq, and for a symbolic measure that has no force of law, the White House seems unusually nervous about it. They even pulled out an old rhetorical line to help characterize the criticism as akin to bringing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Dick Cheney got the ball rolling over the weekend, telling Fox News that Congress would be “undercutting the troops” if lawmakers criticize Bush’s policy. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow followed with a similar take during yesterday’s briefing, in which he argued the resolution could have larger “ramifications.”

“Again, the question you have to ask yourself is, do you understand what possible ramifications are? In an age of instant and global communication, what message does it send to the people who are fighting democracy in Iraq? And, also, what message does it send to the troops?”

It’s amazing just how far we haven’t come in the last four years. Indeed, the discourse hasn’t changed at all — we’re right back to where we’ve been, with the White House arguing, publicly, that to publicly express disapproval of the president’s reckless and tragic policy is to necessarily help our enemies and undermine the troops.

Snow didn’t come right out and say, “If you love America, you have to stand behind the president, no matter how badly he screws up,” but he might as well have. That was the message he was conveying.

It prompted David Gregory to ask the pertinent question: “What is an appropriate way to dissent?”

Q: Can I just follow on that, because in the run-up to the campaign in the fall, if you were a Democrat who supported troop withdrawal, then you were branded — from this podium and by the President — as basically supporting terrorists; that if you made that statement, then “the terrorists would win and the U.S. would lose.” That’s a direct quote from the President.

Then there’s an election where the American people, the President acknowledges, speak out against the war. Democrats get power, they’re making a move to send a political statement that says we’re opposed to this troop increase. And you’re saying now the ramifications of that are is that it sends a bad signal to the enemy and to our troops.

So what is an appropriate way to dissent?

SNOW: No, I said, you just take a look at what ramifications they may have. That’s all I’m saying.

Notice how Snow is playing innocent here: “That’s all I’m saying.” He uses the White House podium to suggest criticism of the president undermines America, but as long as he puts a question mark after it, his demagoguery is just coy, instead of straightforward.

So Gregory was more direct in his questioning.

Q: Just to be clear, do you believe that a non-binding resolution that opposes a troop increase, does that provide comfort to the enemy?

SNOW: I don’t know. I think — the question again is, does this send a signal that the United States is divided on the key element of success in Iraq.

In other words, asked if bi-partisan congressional criticism of the war in Iraq is literally treason, Snow isn’t sure. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

Stick it in a time capsule. Future generations will marvel at what the Bush gang did to our public discourse.

An important thing to consider, is when Tony Snow talks like this, is whether we live under a mildly fascist regime or not… I’m not saying anything, I’m just asking YOU to consider it.

  • Iraqi leaders already have their opinion on the first operation of the ‘New Way Forward’:

    “They represent a kind of attack on Iraq’s sovereignty, and we hope such things are not repeated.”

    Mr Hakim, leader of the most powerful Shi’ite group ‘SCIRI’ talking to the BBC about the US forces arresting Iranian diplomats in Iraqi territory.

  • I can’t believe Snow uttered “the people who are fighting democracy in Iraq.” What balderdash! Democracy is the least of things on the minds of Iraqis caught up in a civil war of our making! Mr. Bush and his minions, it seems, will never give ground in their maddening delusionary view of the world. Fighting democracy is a fool’s rhetoric at this juncture. From what I have discerned, people are fighting people based on religious prejudice in Iraq. Oh, and they are also fighting at this time against members of an occupying force (our beloved men and women in uniform).

    Mr. Bush, please declare whatever victory you wish, and begin the process of redeployment. For the sake of future “ramifications” to our children and grandchildren, get us out of this mess you’ve led us into! -Kevo

  • I think it’s time we turned the tables on the people who use this sad equation like a blunt instrument against their political rivals.

    It is Bush and his remaining supporters on the right who are undercutting our troops, and sending the wrong message to America’s enemies. Charles Hagel himself said these policies are “destroying our military” on the Charley Rose Show the other day. Now you should ask yourself: “What’s worse? Being undercut, or being destroyed?”

    Never mind what message we are sending the Shiite death squads or the Sunni insurgents, what message does the fact we are “destroying our military” send to China, Russia and Korea? What about the nations who pose real threats with real WMD?

    Make no mistake, the guy most capable of wrecking the school bus, happens to be the guy charged with driving your children safely to school. Bush is driving us off a cliff, and most Americans are waking up to this.

    There’s no way the Democrats can go “too far” to try to stop him.

  • If SnowFlake wants to discuss “ramifications,” then maybe we ought to start discussing the ramifications of people simply turning their backs of this misfit of a propoganda peddler. Quote him, and then question his comments in the media.

    Gregory should bring the debate outside the press-room, and into the streets. Snow can’t control the discussion beyond the walls of his cage—and his master in the Oval Office damned well knows it….

  • Wait … so we’re fighting democracy? I thought we were helping to spread democracy? Methinks Snow had a bit of ye ‘ol Freudian slipage on that one.

    As far as the proper way to “dissent,” the American people did so in November … the troops are doing it from within their own ranks … Democrats plan to do it through resolutions and tightening the purse strings … bloggers have been doing it since the war began … and more and more people are going to anti-war rallies and speaking out against this abortion of a war.

    Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn how people do it — just so long as they are doing something to stop this madness.

  • “… bringing aid and comfort to the enemy”

    Will someone in the administration please define “enemy”? Against whom are we waging this “war”? Sunni? Shiite? Or perhaps we’re waging war against the Iraqis as such … after all, their (our puppet) government wants us out, and insurgents don’t carry identity cards. Does anyone sense an Alice-in-Wonderland aura to this administration?

    The appropriate way to dissent is actually now out of our hands. We’ve already done the hard part, electing Democratic majorities to both houses of Congress. Now it’s up to our Representatives to Impeach Cheney/Bush and our Senators to convict them.

  • SNOW: No, I said, you just take a look at what ramifications they may have. That’s all I’m saying.

    A follow up, if I may. How can Americans, who may honestly disagree with the administration’s policies and actions, show that disagreement without the negative ramifications you’re worried about? Or is it the White House’s position that it’s impossible to honestly disagree with the president, or to show that disagreement in any way that isn’t harmful??

  • Bush and his crowd have undercut the troops from Day 1 on this Iraq Gamble. They have never been serious in this effort. Rather, recklessness and incompetence, are the hallmarks of Bush and Company. This was a roll of the dice taken on faith that Bush gave scant second thought toward.

    It would take all day to list all the examples of bumbling. Read Cobra II, Read Fiasco and you get the picture.

    Here’s an older but a good example that sums BushCo’s attitude toward our troops and the gravity of the situation they created in Iraq.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL&type=printable

    These guys actually planned to cut the Combat Pay of troops fighting in a war zone in 2003. These guys were never overly concerned about the troops. And bad decision after bad decision follows right up to Shrub’s urge to surge. BTW it isn’t a surge at all its just a temporary “time out” for the insurgents, mitilias and death squads. I seem to remember that at one time, not to long ago, timetables only emboldened the “terrorists”, who would wait out the timetable and resume fighting thereafter. But I am sure Snow can tell us why this is wrong or I guess pre-2007 thinking.

    As the downard spiral of the Iraq adventure picked up monmentum, whenever shit hit the fan Bush was AWOL, out of the loop, but always cocksure and still sleeping like a baby at night.

    Now our troops find themselves trying to prop up some type “government” in Baghdad while refereeing a centuries old sectarian conflict stemming back to 640 AD. And even republicans say that continued BushCo recklessness will “destroy the Military” or send on a decade long rebuilding plan.

    During this Gamble and all the bad decisions that followed, one factor has remained constant and this common denominator is the Grand Decider. If there is to be any responsibity assigned for failing the the troops, it is clear where that responsibility rests.

  • Remember, the President has the authority to surveil anyone and everyone who provides aid and comfort to the enemy. This includes: wiretaping their phones, reading their email, scouring their bank accounts, opening their mail. All without review of a judge. Bush gets to decide who emboldens the enemy.

    Gregory asks if the Democratic non-binding resolution to oppose the troop increase provides comfort to the enemy. Snow’s response is “I don’t know”. Very scary times.

  • “In an age of instant and global communication, what message does it send to the people who are fighting democracy in Iraq? And, also, what message does it send to the troops?””

    How about basically telling “the people who are fighting democracy in Iraq” your plans to sweep through Baghdad almost two months in advance? Kind of like what happened in Fallujah in 2004.

    As for the message it sends to the troops, how about “C’mon, a fourth tour won’t be that bad. Think of the combat and hazard duty pay you’ll get.”

  • For once Snow could have answered truthfully regarding dissent and the philosophy of this administration:

    “David, there is no appropriate way to dissent. We’ve told you already, dissent equals treason. Oversight equals obstruction and accountablility is unwarranted and is nothing more than liberal partisanship. Every time you question the President’s statements, actions, or motivations you give aid and comfort to the enemy. Every question undermines the President’s authority and the press and the public have no right to do so. The President’s authority in wartime is absolute and unfettered and will not be compromised by anyone. The President has spoken clearly: the Constitution is just a piece of paper and he will not be bound by its archaic restrictions or quaint notions of governance. David, dissenters will not be tolerated and, if necessary, rendered to another location reserved for the processing of dissenters.”

  • America is looking at Bush’s lunatic policies, and “tak[ing] a look at what ramifications they may have”.

    Hopefully they will support the war crimes trials of Tony Snow and all his buddies.

  • The non-binding resolution won’t provide aid and comfort to the enemy because George Bush is the enemy and he certainly doesn’t like it.

    Bin Laden took down the two towers, but Bush is destroying the army, destroying us fiscally, destroying the nation’s sense of unity, detroying our stranding in the world … the list goes on. Al Qaeda couldn’t even dream of such vengence upon us. Why have we not been attacked since 9/11? Bin Laden’s smiling and whipering to his buddies, “Don’t stop Bush, he’s on a roll!”

  • This is actually Fox News’s M.O. They don’t say that Bush is a great president, but they put a title on the screen during a conversation that reads, “Is Bush the greatest President ever?”. The point is to alter the conversation by appearing neutral. I’m not saying that Tony Snow likes to kill puppies…I am asking “Does Tony Snow like to kill puppies?”.

  • Hes rite you know. Critisism has killed our and are soljers morall when we should be puting more boots on the grond and more money to kill terorests. All you cut and runers; try dueing something positive insteed of negative about are wining the war or just leeve!

  • SNOW: No, I said, you just take a look at what ramifications they may have. That’s all I’m saying.

    Grumpy: A follow up, if I may. How can Americans, who may honestly disagree with the administration’s policies and actions, show that disagreement without the negative ramifications you’re worried about? Or is it the White House’s position that it’s impossible to honestly disagree with the president, or to show that disagreement in any way that isn’t harmful??

    Me: Mr. Snow, since your policy is an abject failure enacted by incompetents, isn’t your prescense at that podium a “negative ramification” for the country? Shouldn’t you and your boss be run out of this city and country on a rail, tarred and feathered as the best possible “message” to send to America’s enemies that we are now back on track to hunt them down if they do not renounce their opposition to our policies and interests?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.

  • Q: Just to be clear, do you believe that a non-binding resolution that opposes a troop increase, does that provide comfort to the enemy?

    SNOW: I don’t know. I think — the question again is, does this send a signal that the United States is divided on the key element of success in Iraq.

    A: No, America is not divided. They have overwhelmingly voted to end the war and get out of Iraq. The question is, does “We, The People” MEAN anything to the to the one man in the Whitehouse?

    • Comments are closed.