Speak Out And You Will Be Punished! George W Bushes New America

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Americans pay price for speaking out
Dissenters face job loss, arrest, threats
But activists not stopped by backlash

KATHLEEN KENNA
STAFF REPORTER

He's a Vietnam War hero from a proud lineage of warriors who served the United States, so he never expected to be called a traitor.

After 39 years in the Marines, including commands in Somalia and Iraq, Gen. Anthony Zinni never imagined he would be tagged "turncoat."

The epithets are not from the uniforms but the suits — "senior officers at the Pentagon," the now-retired general says from his home in Williamsburg, Va.

"They want to question my patriotism?" he demands testily.

To question the Iraq war in the U.S. — and individuals from Main St. merchants to Hollywood stars do — is to be branded un-American.

Dissent, once an ideal cherished in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, now invites media attacks, hate Web sites, threats and job loss.

After Zinni challenged the administration's rationale for the Iraq war last fall, he lost his job as President George W. Bush's Middle East peace envoy after 18 months.

"I've been told I will never be used by the White House again."

Across the United States, hundreds of Americans have been arrested for protesting the war. The American Civil Liberties Union has documented more than 300 allegations of wrongful arrest and police brutality from demonstrators at anti-war rallies in Washington and New York.

Even the silent, peaceful vigils of Women in Black — held regularly in almost every state — have prompted threats of arrest by American police.

Actors and spouses Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon have publicly denounced the backlash against them for their anti-war activism.

Robbins said they were called "traitors" and "supporters of Saddam" and their public appearances at a United Way luncheon in Florida and the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., this spring were cancelled in reaction to their anti-war stance.

Actor/comedian Janeane Garofalo was stalked and received death threats for opposing the war in high-profile media appearances.

MSNBC hosts asked viewers to urge MCI to fire actor and anti-war activist Danny Glover as a spokesperson — the long-distance telephone giant refused to fire him despite the ensuing hate-mail campaign — and one host, former politician Joe Scarborough, urged that anti-war protesters be arrested and charged with sedition.

"There's no official blacklisting," says Kate McArdle, executive director of Artists United, a new group of 120 actors devoted to progressive causes.

"This is Hollywood, so there are always rumours starting up. Mostly it was producers saying, `We know your position — do you have to be so vocal?'"

Internet chat rooms have spouted "tons and tons of vitriol aimed at us," says McArdle, a former network TV executive.

"Things like, `Tell me where Tim Robbins lives and I'll go bash out his brains,'" she says.

"Or, `If you don't like America, why don't you move to Iraq? Why don't you move to Canada?'

"The real backlash comes from the right wing, from America's talk radio guys — when their ratings are down — not from the industry," McArdle says. "We get the `You're either with us or agin' us.'"

Comes with the territory, she adds.

"We're a nation of dissenters."

The Dixie Chicks country pop group won worldwide attention for their anti-Bush comments, which were met with widespread radio station bans against playing their music. Their fans have responded by circulating petitions on the Internet objecting to the "chill" that has tried to silence free speech in the U.S.

And opposition to the war has spawned many new songs — some remixes of old Vietnam protest songs — and Web sites devoted to anti-war lyrics.

Dozens of fans walked out of a Pearl Jam concert in Denver, Colo., last spring when lead singer Eddie Vedder hoisted a Bush mask on a microphone stand and sang, "He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer."

But musician Carlos Santana was cheered in Australia — a key U.S. ally in the Iraq war and recent proponent of the "Bush doctrine" of intervention in smaller states' affairs — when he spoke against the war and American foreign policy.

`I think it's important. . . for intellectuals to point out lies'
West Coast bands are organizing a Bands Against Bush free concert and rally in Los Angeles this fall to publicize their discontent with American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Even country singer Merle Haggard, whose song "The Fightin' Side of Me" was a pro-war anthem in the Vietnam era, penned a protest against tame media in the wake of the Dixie Chicks controversy.

"That's The News" has bitter lines like:

Soldiers in the desert sand still clinging to a gun

No one is the winner and everyone must lose ...

Politicians do all the talking, soldiers pay the dues

Suddenly the war is over, that's the news.

Peace scholar Stephen Zunes — so-named for winning a Peace and Justice Studies Association award for leadership in promoting such scholarship — says he was recently "uninvited" to speak to the Arizona state bar association despite a six-month-old commitment.

"It's censorship" for his perceived anti-Israel views and outspoken opposition to a foreign policy that has made the U.S. a target of terrorists, says Zunes from his office at the University of San Francisco, where he teaches politics. "You'd think lawyers would be more concerned about civil liberties."

A recent tour for his new book, Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism, drew "obscenity-filled e-mails ... calling me a traitor" and similar "outrage" on-air from TV commentators, he says.

"I've been called all sorts of names on national TV. It's been pretty ugly.

"There are a lot of Americans who don't want to believe their government is lying to them. It's becoming more and more clear that the American people have been lied to, so I think it's important ... particularly for intellectuals, to point out those lies."

Full-page ads in the New York Times — at $37,000 (U.S.) each — and other high-circulation dailies have been bought by American religious leaders, actors and a range of wealthy activists to spur anti-war dissent.

Harvard dean Stephen Walt, an international affairs professor, helped organize such an ad with 32 other security experts at universities from coast to coast. The wordy ad detailed reasons for fighting terrorism and not Iraq, unless under direct threat, and warned of increasing Middle East instability.

Expressions of support came from colleagues at home and overseas, Walt recalls. "We said you could be against this war without being against uses of necessary force" elsewhere. "The world is a nasty place, but this is just stupid."

The 32 signatories "transcended a lot of the traditional (anti-war) lines," says Walt, who admits to disappointment that the Democrat minority in Congress and Democratic presidential candidates, except Howard Dean, have been "very slow off the mark" in backing public dissent over the war.

Non-politicians may fill that gap. MoveOn.org, claiming a membership of more than a million Americans — and another 700,000 beyond their borders — is running full-page newspaper ads across the U.S. demanding an independent inquiry into the apparently exaggerated need for the Iraq invasion.

"It would be a tragedy if young men and women were sent to die for a lie," the ad states below a photo of Bush, tagged "MISleader."

The ad has drawn about half a million replies after its New York Times kickoff last month. MoveOn.org, founded in 1998 by California spouses Joan Blades and Wes Boyd (inventor of the flying toaster screen saver), already has logged more than 1 million e-mails and calls to Congress with protests against the war.

Another national ad campaign has been launched by billionaire George Soros, urging Americans to call Congress and demand a post-war investigation.

"When the nation goes to war, the people deserve the truth," the ad states. "American men and women risked and gave their lives for a war based on fighting an imminent threat to homeland security. The case for this war — made unequivocally by President Bush and members of his administration — rested on intelligence that has been exposed as exaggerated or even false."

Zinni says he has no regrets about challenging the administration, despite the disdain of "senior Pentagon officials.""I was very, very careful not to say anything once the troops were on the ground. I worried that I would be accused of not supporting them."

His father fought in World War I, his cousins in World War II, and his only brother in Korea. "I'm not anti-war."

But his speech last fall at the Middle East Institute in Washington outlined reservations about "the wrong war at the wrong time" against a tyrant "who could be contained."

Zinni argued the U.S. risked alienating allies and possibly creating more enemies if it attacked Iraq without multilateral backing and without new proof of weapons of mass destruction. Warning "war should always be a last resort," he appealed for more weapons inspections, United Nations support and better post-war planning.

"I wish I was wrong. I don't feel good about it. I would rather be wrong," Zinni says. Still, as evidence appears to mount against the White House, he adds, "Whatever you take to the people, you should be accurate. If there is no imminent threat, if it's not true, then someone should be held accountable."

"It's an obligation you have — in our history there have been too many times when generals didn't say what they thought," he says. "We all swear an oath to the Constitution. One of the things I thought I was defending was the right to dissent."

Hmmm. Fascinating.

So are you saying that an administration appointee lost his job because he did not support the position of the administration he was appointed to represent?!? I can't believe it! It just doesn't make sense. Where is the logic in that?

They should have obviously kept him in that position representing the administration in the middle east even though he didn't believe in the administrations policies.

So, uh, regarding the movie stars... who cares? In a place as wonderfully diverse as the USA you will find people ready to "nuke gay whales for jesus." Does it surprise anyone that a hollywood star should get hatemail for voicing their opinions on whatever pops into their heads?

Or a particular TV "news" program, who's political position / commentary appeals to a particular demographic whose sentiments correspond with the anchor's? That has high ratings? That increase advertizing revenues? What's your point?

Should old Joe not be allowed to voice his opinion on current events? At least that's his job, right? If you don't like it change the channel (that's what i do!).

I noticed how the Dixie Chicks were imprisoned and tortured when they returned to the US.

If that's your argument for getting Bush out of office, you're going to make his victory a landslide.

the man isn't saying to take bush out of office, he's saying there's something wrong with that picture. People's first constitutional rights are being infringed on. Everyone is free to disagree without having to worry about their livlihood taken from them or recieving death threats. Plenty of celebrieties (sp) have views that can be seen as stupid, just write them off as stupid and be done with it.

So what you're saying is that death threats are a bad thing. What a revelation! I think we all kind of had that one figured out.

As to their livelihood, if they offend their audience, is that audience still somehow obligated to watch their movies? No, of course not. Are production studios required to hire them now that they have reduced their potential to generate revenue for the studio? No.

When they dive into politics, they make a decision to risk some or all of their livelihood in order to do it. If they offend their fans and make less money or get less offers for work, then they have brought it upon themselves - it's just that simple. I missed the part of the Consitution which guarantees movie stars some exclusive right of free speech without repercussion from their fans.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or Ashcroft or anyone else in government. It has to do with the freedom of individuals (their audience) to decide which movies and shows they will and will not watch. If a fan chooses not to see a Sarandon movie because of her political views, then that is his/her right.

Perhaps we should set up some form of federal welfare system to compensate movie stars when they make asses out of themselves and hurt their careers. I think not.

I'm not a right-winger but I do believe that these Celebrity/Hollywood types should only make public statements on what made them famous in the first place, like fashion, movies, music, etc. Leave politics to the politicians. Don't try to do both, it ain't pretty.

Regan will go down in hostory as on eof the best presidents of all times. He wasn't acting.

People, please.

Reagan isn't going to go down in history as a great prez. He was as much of a nutjob as the rest. People liked him because he looked good on TV and he could take extraordinarily complicated ideas and make them sound simple, which made average americans feel smarter. (Note: this is a paraphrase of a comment Reagan's first National Security Advisor, Dick Allen, made to me last year.)

Right wingers have been tooting Reagan's horn since the day he left office, but not for any particular reason. That the Cold War ended on his watch was partly his doing, but it was mainly coincidence. It *is* kind of revealing that Carter's rating is higher than Ronnie's right now. Goes to show you what a little bit of historical perspective brings to "great men".

But back to the issue at hand. You people who think its o.k. that honest, patriotic American's are lambasted for disagreeing with the President would have liked Italy in the 1920s. I believe Hitler's brownshirts used similar tactics, too. In fact, despots the world over have always relied on easy appeals to patriotism and national unity to roll over their opponents. Lets not let it happen here.

So speak up, people. Use Patrick Henry as your guide. He would never have clammed up just because a two-bit tyrant like John Ashcroft or some anonymous wag on a message board ridiculed him.

Free speech is not only about being able to say what you want, its also about being tolerant of other people's right to do so.

Ok, here we go again, huh Clay Sails ...
George Bush is Hitler, and John Ashcroft is a tyrant ... gee man tone down the rhetoric or else you might lose some credibility .... too late.
If you ask me its about time liberals and US-haters finally get called out on what they say ... how many times have i voiced my opinion against things like affirmative action and other riddiculous social policies and been labeled a racist, and much worse. You guys better learn to live with what i have ever since i've been old enough to engage in political debate: A person DOES have the right to say anything he wants, but that person also MUST accept the responses of others as a consequence. Listen, nobody is being thrown in jail for what they say, but they do have to live with the consequences of their own opinions after they have been voiced.
Look at it this way, if Robert Kennedy's campain manager came out and expressed his support for the KKK and his hatred for certain ethnic groups, not only would you expect him to be fired, reproached, and publically assailed, but you would demand it. So lets not start saying that the 1st amendment is under attack because of the consequences of speech, the only thing that is different is that this time its happening to you. Maybe next time YOU will be more understanding of the views of others.

PS - I also spent time in the GDR/DDR in the late spring of '89 - just months before the wall came down.

Met with Germans from both east and west, attended seminars on how important the separation of Berlin was for the superpowers, met with representatives from FRG political parties, etc., etc.

No one had ANY idea of what would happen just a few months later. Not the people, not the pros.

Even if Ronnie was not an intellectual genius - there was something you could call genius inside him that allowed him to balance the situation, make a decision, and execute. His analysis, decision, and execution were perfect.

but many would smugly claim even a stopped clock is correct twice per day...

Although I am struggling to use my (apparently) surpassingly vast intellect to understand exactly what it might mean to be a "mental fruitcake", I will simply take it on faith that it might be so and proceed. Still, I hope nobody has to wait for christmas before getting me.

I agree that people use Hitler analogies far too often for credibility, but in this case the comparison rings true not insofar as the Right has actually started gassing people or singling out specific groups for literal destruction. The analogy holds true in the *way* that dissent was isolated, silenced, and eventually broken. Appeals to extreme nationalism, a slow erosion of German civil rights, state-sponsored volunteerism, mass-media propaganda, blurring of national and local police power, and the use of even venerable old democracy led to the rise of fascists. The parallels are scary. Do I think we are currently living under a regime as bad as the Nazis? Of course not. All I'm saying is we must be vigilant, aware of history, and not make the mistake of saying "it couldn't happen here".

As for what Clinton did or didn't say about talk radio, who cares anymore? The vast right wing conspiracy actually surpasses any chatter from the left in shrillness. Frankly, its all disgusting.

As for whether Ronnie deserves credit for ending the cold war or not, well...I guess there's just a difference of opinion there. Nothing wrong with that.

OK. We all agree we should be vigilant. Great. Neither Clinton nor Bush can be compared with Hitler on any terms.

Many think Hitler was either gay or had erectile dysfunction so that knocks Clinton out at least.

In any case, please consider that Howard Dean is running for President of the USA on primarily an anti-war platform.

If there were any truth in what the US bashers have to say, this would be completely impossible. It wouldn't be happening.

Here we have a guy with a ton of public support running for the highest office in the country, with commercials on TV, whose main platform issue for now is consistent opposition to the war.

He may be smart/dumb/right/wrong, but he is running for President.

Notwithstanding the opinions of the wackos of this world, many of whom have found their way to this forum, the US is a decent country with decent people, and a decent system to regulate our lives and relations.

Originally posted by ickle
He gambled and he lost.

And you won. I think that pretty much sums up your attitude.

HUMANITARIAN INSPECTORS??? Where did you come up with that one? Ha!

I can't remember where I heard it but is sounded pretty good. To put it simply for you - they're like weaons inspectors but they inspect for human rights abuses.

Maybe the real motive was "ousting hussien"... Maybe there wasn't an immediate threat. Maybe they did play the U.N. and the rest of the world off as idiots in order to get saddam. I think Bush knew that if they didn't attack A.S.A.P. that he'd never get the chance, and Blair knew this too. The fact is, we KNOW that Hussien was willing to USE W.M.D., and we also know that he DID NOT account for the ones WE KNOW he had. There for the war was JUSTIFIED according to the resolutions passed. The motive behind the war probably wasn't W.M.D. rather just ousting saddam, a terrorist-supporting, humanity-torchering-raping-and-killing, dictator who was viewed as some kind of hero to much of the terrorist culture. It's a war on terrorism, not W.M.D. which is why N. Korea is still on the map... for now.

Search4Truth

The only fool here is you.
Were you born this stupid or did someone drop you on your head when you were young?

Its so sad that these people think that the government only does good

AND THEY WOULD NEVER CAUSE ANY HARM

Blind trust always backfires
Americaaah & USA1.....just remember that

I will repeat my question incase you right wingers didn't hear it

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ISN'T ATTACKING MORE CORRUPT AND EVIL DICTATORS THAN SADDAM HUSEIN?

Why were they so reluctant to send soldiers into Liberia?

Why is there a double standard with North Korea? Bush seems to want to have War as the last resort even though its prooven that they have WMDs, but Bush wants to attack countries when its not sure that they even posess them

How about Saudi Arabia a country that funded 9-11 terrorists...oh yea by the way did you notice that most of the hi-jackers were from Saudi Arabia too?? But Bush continues to be allies with them


I'll be waiting for responses

Hey Search4truth

First of all -- if you are truely oblivious to the idea that Hussein has used W.M.D. on innoscent people, maybe you should do a little bit of research on the topic.

Secondly --

"sayzak21, if this war was about ousting Saddam

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ISN'T ATTACKING MORE CORRUPT AND EVIL DICTATORS?"

Is that what you want? Do you think dropping a bomb on every evil dictater all at once will result in peace? That will look good, "America attacked 6 countries today, completely unprovoked". Is that what you would do?

Or were you being sarcastic?

Bush and his administration are going to let N. Korea claim themselves a "Nuclear Nation" and then keep a very close eye on them. N. Korea isn't as aggresively evil as Hussein, all they want is money from us since they're too selfish to both trying to stabalize their economy. Search4truth -- I'm sure if you were president of the U.S. you'd give N. Korea anything they wanted so we (little people) wouldn't even know they were a threat -- wouldn't you?

Sorry I replied to your last post before I even finished reading it, I didn't even see the saudi arabia part. I have to eat dinner -- don't think I'm not comming back.

I got most of my knowledge from researching the topic. I don't believe ANYTHING at face value. Not even from George Bush. The media has two stories, the "right wing" and the "left wing". At least that's how the information is percieved. I'm not a journalist, a scientist, or a politician, just a regular guy who doesn't accept people's "word" for it.

It just so happens that I like freedom.

I'll compare N. Korea to a little child. Some of you are going to love this analagy:

A little kid is naturally selfish and spoiled. Their maturity level is such that they want to be pleased immediately, and they don't care at what cost. They ignore the effort their parents put forth in providing them with food, a bottle, a blanket, toys, etc. It's please me now now now. As the child gets older you have to teach it that some things have to be worked for. Not everything is for free. Some parents are too lazy, or too scared to "guide" their child through maturity, so they continue to allow their kids to have whatever they want. "Dad, can I have $200? I need a new outfit" Dad replies, "No, we need that money to buy food" What happens? "But daddy!"

This is the situation the U.S. is in. It can either appease to the North Korean Government, and give them the energy that they're too lazy to produce themselves, or we can say "No, we're not going to negotiate"

"No, we need this $200 for other things, go get a job"

So we're going to allow them to claim themselvs a Nuclear Nation, as long as it's for energy purposes. Of course N. Korea would prefer we do it for them, so they're going to piss and moan until they finally give up, and do it themselvs. Maybe Bush has a plan for N. Korea, who knows. I don't want to see them with W.M.D. but we can't stop them without going through the U.N. or attacking them. They want to negotiate, because they're not makign enough money themselvs. That's my understand of it, and that's why I'm saying that Iraq, and Hussein is more of a threat. Hussein has used W.M.D. and has also attempted assassinating a U.S. president.

I'm looking for real information, not right or left. (No offense to either party-supporting troopers)...

Iraq, and Hussein, were a threat. He's evil. Their's no questioning the things he's done in the past, and the way he was forcing his own people to live. If he cared about his people at all he would have lived in maybe one or 2 houses, and used the money from his 18 palaces to feed the starving people in Iraq. Sanctions obviousely had no effect on his fun.

The North Korean regime is evil.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq is evil.
George Bush & his cronies are evil.
People who defend evil are evil.
People who act evilly trying to eradicate evil are evil.
Ignorence is evil.
Veterans who believe that they are the only defenders of freedom are evil.


That just about settles it.

"Same ol' sh!t from the same ol' anti-U.S. malcontents."


dog, your only fueling his fire...lol
you actually made his point without him having to really say anything...well done SOLDIER!

i dis-like the US...(right winger comes with a glock and blasts 41 shots)

you pro-'anti U.S'er


and we still havent linked IRAQ with Sept. 11th, the beginning of this bull...and Bush's only real chance for re-election which brings me to another point...is it possible bush planned sept. 11th in an attemp to cement his re-election thru attacks on "the enemy"? seems like this ******* would do it...

wag the dog...

Fill -- I usually don't replye to such ignorance, but this one had to be addressed.

So you're saying the Bush administration dreamed up this so-called "terrorism" in an effort to get re-elected? He PLANNED 9/11?

I'm forced to believe you are completely joking. Tell me your joking.