[CLUE-Talk] [Fwd: MRC Alert Special: ABC's War News Touts Doubt and Dissent]

[Randy Arabie]

On Wednesday, 26 March 2003 at  9:25:59 -0700, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 07:43, Randy Arabie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 25 March 2003 at 22:47:58 -0700, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
> > <clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unlike the right-wingers, I don't have a problem with people exercising
> > > free speech -- even when they like to twist the facts as much as these
> > > folks. I won't call them traitors or cast aspersions on their patriotism
> > > even though they're doing their level best to silence dissent that is
> > > constitutionally protected. But, I'm just as free to call them on their
> > > bias as they are to spew it. So...you can pretty much expect me to play
> > > "watchdog" whenever Kevin feels the need to pollute the CLUE-talk list
> > > with trash from MRC. 
> > 
> > Ok, I can't let that one slide through.
> > 
> > Give me an example of the "right-wingers" who are calling the protesters
> > traitors.  And while you are at it, please tell me what they are doing
> > to silence the dissent.
> 
> Here are some excerpts from a good starting point... 
> 
> Some Dare Call It Treason
> http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15422
> 
> On a recent edition of his nightly program, O'Reilly said that "Once the
> war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support
> our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and
> indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once
> the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me.
 
Is that any worse than the protesters I've seen marching with signs that
say "Bush is the Terrorist"?  I don't agree with O'Reilly there, and I
don't think his opinion that protestors should "shut up" reflects the
opinion of most conservatives.

> A recent column by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin echoed Senator
> Graham's sentiments: "What color is a human shield?" Malkin writes.
> "Crayola needs to invent a new hue weaker than lemonade and paler than
> jaundice: Traitor Yellow." Malkin says that the human shields are as
> "willfully treacherous as American al Qaeda enemy combatant John Walker
> Lindh. The only place that's fit for these stateless turncoats to call
> home is a detainee bunk bed at Guantanamo Bay."

By definition, treason is "Violation of allegiance toward one's
country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging
war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its
enemies."

If a US citizen travels to Iraq and positions themselves as a "human
shield", on behalf of Saddam Hussien, then they are traitors.  While
thier intentions may have been to protect the Iraqi people, they have
effectively become the pawns of the Saddam's regime.  I read an account
from some human sheilds who left, becuase the Iraqi's directed them to
take up positions in front of military targets.
 
> In "An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch" dated March 4, the
> Nashville-based country western singer Charlie Daniels wrote: "Sean
> Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and
> comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, 'fact
> finding trip' to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think that we
> didn't have the stomach for war."

Did he give "aid and comfort" to Saddam Hussein?  If he did, then he is
a traitor.  I personally don't know what Sean Penn did while he was in
Iraq.  I heard he came back and declared that Iraq has no weapons of
mass destruction.  Sound like he has become a mouth piece for Iraqi
propaganda, which could be construed as aiding the enemy.

I distinguish a difference between protesting, excercising your right to
free speech, and actually travelling to the enemies camp to offer
assistance, aid and comfort.

<---SNIP--->

> > I have not heard anyone from the Bush administration calling the
> > protesters traitors or questioning their patriotism.  In fact, I have
> > seen several occaisions where Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell have each
> > stated that the protesters were simply exercising their constitutionally
> > protected right to free speech.
> 
> No, the Bush administration has been content to let their apologists do
> that for them. They started with that tack (see here:
> http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/26/backtalk.shtml) but backed off. 

This article doesn't really have anything worth commenting on, except
perhaps it's referrence to Ari Fleischer's comments.  Those were in
referrence to Bill Maher's comments.  Here is a cut-n-paste from the
Press Conference:

<BEGIN>

Q As Commander-In-Chief, what was the President's reaction to
television's Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our Armed
Forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists
who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly
moved off a Washington television station?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not discussed it with the President, one. I have
--

Q Surely, as a --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm getting there.

Q Surely as Commander, he was enraged at that, wasn't he?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm getting there, Les. 

Q Okay. 

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have
not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the
press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it
unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has
the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're
reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch
what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is. 

<END>

#1 - This statement was made on September 26, 2001.  It has nothing to
do with the anti-war protesters.

#2 - This hardley qualifies as "doing their level best to silence
dissent". 

> > I even tuned into that evil bastion of right-wing filth, Rush Limbaugh,
> > one day last week.  He wasn't calling them traitors or questioning their
> > patriotism, either.  Granted, he was questioning why so many people were
> > participating in ani-war rallies funded and organized by organizations
> > with strong ties to self-described marxist organizations like the
> > Workers World Party.
> > 
> > Here is a "right-wing" media story about that:
> > 	http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81314,00.html
> 
> Yeah, note the spin: We won't criticize what they're saying -- just the
> timing and costs. Where are the articles questioning abortion protesters
> and the costs of protecting abortion clinics?

I think you missed the focus of the article, which was researching the
source of funds for some of these large anti-war rallies.

> Oh... and about Rush. Maybe wasn't calling them traitors on that
> particular occasion, but it wouldn't be the first time -- here's the
> words straight from Rush's mouth:
> 
> If they were for peace, they would give every dollar they raise to the
> U.S. defense department because it's the U.S. defense department that
> keeps the peace and liberates the oppressed in the world and gives them
> the opportunity to have freedom, which is what we want for Iraq. It's
> beyond me how anybody can look at these protesters and call them
> anything other than what they are: anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro
> Marxists and communists." - Rush Limbaugh
> 
> So, he didn't specifically say "traitors" but I think this qualifies. 

Isn't it possible to be a Marxist and NOT be a traitor.  I think so. If
you disagree, please please refer to the definition of traitor.  It
makes no mention of your political leanings.  IMNSHO, Rush's statement
most certainly does not qualify as an example of calling the protesters
traitors.

> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/weekinreview_012003_012403/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html
> 
> Oh... and let me take the opportunity to address that issue: Yes, some
> of the protesters may be connected to lefty political parties that even
> I find distasteful - but the last time I checked, that was a guaranteed
> freedom as well. There are plenty of soccer moms, business people and
> Gulf War I vets who are protesting this war as well. 

You'll get no arguement from me there.  That's why I won't call someone
a traitor, just because they are a Marxist.  You seem to believe that
calling someone a Marxist, pro-Marxist, communist, anti-American, or
anti-capitalist is the same as calling them a traitor.  It isn't.  Each
has it's own, specific definition.

> > There is trash on both sides of the political spectrum.  Please don't
> > pollute CLUE-talk with any lefty trash in your attempts to police for
> > right-wing trash.
> 
> Show me the trash, Randy. Show me one thing that I've brought up that
> isn't true. 

I misunderstood your your statement. I took it to imply that the Bush
administration was calling the anti-war protesters traitors and was
attempting to stifle their voices.  It seems that your referrence to
"right-wingers" was directed at many non-administration people who were
expressing their opinions on the anti-war protesters. 

I could likewise find accounts of anti-war protesters stating that
"Bush is the Terrorist" and likening the USA to Nazi Germany.  Those
are all instances of positions just as extreme as calling anti-war
protesters traitors.

If you can unilaterally declare the Media Research Center "trash", I
think it is fair for me to declare Alternet "trash".  I didn't say
anything you said was untrue.

I think the subscribers to CLUE-talk are smart enough to take the Media
Research Center and Alternet for what they are, sources of informatin
with well known biases.
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/