Nick Arnett wrote: > > > If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't > > we return to normal political discourse, in which one is > > not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we > > can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is > > going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in > > 20 years? >
"Horn, John" wrote: > > Why is this any different than during World War > III (as some are calling the Cold War)? You answer that question in your own post, below. > The leadership was certainly criticized. Except > during the Vietnam Conflict, I don't recall anyone > being branded a traitor just for questioning the > leadership of the country or the direction it is > going? You seem to be forgetting Sen. McCarthy and his ilk, who were able to blacklist people on the most tenuous chains of logic to a political party calling itself "Communist". Besides, Why should such branding even be allowed now? Don't start with the crap line about this being wartime, and such questions as "what is our purpose in this war?" and "what, exactly are our goals and motivations?" are "hindering the war effort" and "costing lives". So far, there is no announced goal or purpose other than something vague like "make the world safer" or "we'll be finished when we're finished". This needs to be hashed out in public debate, has not been resolved (or even defined well for that matter), and what little that has been offered for motivation and/or purpose is not *all* holding up to scrutiny. What I sense in the right-wing's refusal to examine these issues is that, afterward, the only reasons left (while staying positive) will be that we invaded Iraq in an attempt to remove the brutal regime from the Iraqi people. That alone, as a reason to go to war, is simply not enough of a motivation for many Americans, with a high percentage considering themselves "conservative". > The consequences for the United States > during the Cold War were certainly greater than > those now. There was a better defined enemy who had (we thought) comparable resources and so on. In a way, having terrorists as the enemy-of-the-moment is an ideal situation for those wishing for a police state. -- Matt _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
