America in the Balance

IRAQ: AT WHAT POINT DOES CRITICISM

BECOME SEDITION?

by

Ken Eliasberg

While I have gone on at great length in addressing the assorted criticisms that various agents of the left have leveled against the Administration re either the inappropriateness of the manner in which the war in Iraq is being waged, or, worse yet, the war itself, I do not want to leave the impression that legitimate criticism is inappropriate. On the contrary, in a democracy, responsible criticism is not only desirable, it is essential. Indeed, it is the most fundamental of the checks and balances accorded by a democratic form of government. However, I believe that criticism, particularly during a time of war, should be prudent, restrained, principled and reasonable. That is, it should not be based purely on politics; rather it should be based on a genuine belief in the substance contained in the critical opinion, which, in turn, should be supported by facts, logic, and, hopefully, a shred of common sense. That said, and while I realize that reasonable people may differ as to what in this context is “reasonable,” it is my considered opinion that most of the left’s criticism of the war in Iraq goes well beyond the realm of either fair comment or legitimate dissent. In order to place current criticism in some sort of context, let’s see how the subject has been addressed in previous war contexts.

Historical Treatment of Crticism During Times of War.- War is obviously an exigent circumstance, produces an understandably heightened sense of anxiety, and calls for a strong, possibly extreme, reaction. Thus, we have previously noted the Alien Sedition Acts of the late19^th century (4 Acts which authorized, among other things, deportation and or imprisonment for as little provication as being an alien subject to an enemy power or publication of “any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” ), observed that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war, reminded the reader of the unfortunate acts visited on Japanese-American U.S. citizens by FDR during WWII (i.e. internment), and, finally, the particular treatment I’d like to examine today, that accorded Eugene Debs (and others), head of the Socialist Party, by Woodrow Wilson during the course of, and as a direct result of, WWI, to wit, incarceration. Before doing so, I hasten to point out that, on reflection, all of these measures might be considered extreme at a time when cooler heads could use hindsight to evaluate their appropriateness. However, when an external threat is upon you, hindsight is not an available resource.

Now to Debs - what exactly happened that furnished the basis for his imprisonment? Debs was head of the Socialist Party, and, in 1918, he delivered a speech denouncing capitalism and the war (WWI). Prior to his speech Congress had passed two Acts, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, both of which took a dim view of criticizing the country while we were at war. Specifically, the Espionage Act imposed jail sentences of up to 20 years for persons found guilty of “aiding the enemy, obstructing recruitment of soldiers, or encouraging disloyalty.” To that the Sedition Act added harsh penalties on anyone using “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government, flag, or armed forces uniform.” Some 1,500 persons were arrested under the new laws, and Debs, on the basis of his remarks, was incarcerated for the duration of the war. Again, looking at things retrospectively, this reaction may seem harsh, but in the heat of war, and in defense of our country, it is understandable that those in charge might react strongly. Indeed, personally, I would prefer to err on the side of national security—at the risk of offending affected groups—than I would of paying too much concern to the sensitivities of such groups. I can always atone for what might turn out to be an over reaction; I may not be in a position to do so if I err in the other direction. The point of all this is, whether right or wrong, our country has shown a heightened concern for our safety during times of external threat. Using previous governmental reactions to oppositional reaction to a war in which the country was then currently engaged as somewhat of a gauge, how are we to judge critical comments of today’s opposition?

And, for these purposes, I don’t want to focus on the screwball left, i.e. Michael Moore, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofalo (the Air America crowd). Nor do I want to deal with the disturbing comments of some of our anti-America Ivory tower types, like Noam Chomsky, Nicholas De Genova, Ward Chruchill (who have suggested things as absurd and disgusting as what America needs is a million Mogadishus, or that the people in the Twin Towers were little Eichmans), or the ranting of a local academic lightweight who argued that the Tower occupants were not “innocent” )—the theme of all of those who belong to this sector of the University crowd is either moral equivalence or, worse yet, we brought it on ourselves. Nor do I want to look at the brilliant observations emanating from la la land by such intellectual heavyweights as Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streissand, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandon etc. Finally, I do not want to look at much of the nonsense put out by the mainstream media, most of whom are either so clearly in the tank for the left and/or so blinded by their hostility toward George Bush that they have left all semblance of journalistic objectivity behind them. While all of these groups have been guilty of the most reckless disregard of American interests during time of war (or, for that matter, at any time) their comments concern me far less than those of the people I wish to look at today. Who might those be? Ruling members of the loyal opposition, i.e. Democratic leadership.

Let’s take a look at some of these comments, and, more to the point, who’s making them. Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, opined (with no supporting data, of course), that President Bush knew of 9/11 in advance (the unstated premise being that Bush knowingly and intentionally sacrificed over 3,000 lives). Dean is understandably vague about why Bush would do such a thing (but, then again, Dean is vague about just about everything). This position was shared by that upstanding Democratic Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney (that paragon of wit and wisdom), who, in addition, distinguished herself shortly after 9/11 by corresponding with Prince Talawheed of Saudi Arabia, imploring him to donate the 10 million dollars that Rudy Guiliani (to his credit) turned down to needy black causes. God, what an embarrassment this woman is! Now this was almost immediately after 9/11, and the majority of the terrorists involved in that horror had come from Saudi Arabia (the prince’s home). How low can one person go? Judging from McKinney’s recent run-in with the Capitol police, we have yet to find out.

Then there is Al Gore who, in a performance that can only be described as unhinged, asserted that Bush betrayed us, i.e. Bush is a traitor. And, if that wasn’t bad enough, Gore recently went to Saudi Arabia to deliver a speech in which he stated that we were abusing Arabs in this country - a patent lie; hell, Arabs may be the only group we are too fearful of abusing in this country. Ted Kennedy, the Democrat’s moral stalwart, opined that the Iraqi enterprise was the result of a plan concocted in Crawford, Texas (the implication being that the war was not meritorious). Congressman Murtha opined that we cannot win and, as a consequence, we should leave post haste (although he tried to fudge this slightly after he was taken to the woodshed on this comment by the American public), a position which Nancy Pelosi, the ranking House Democrat, almost immediately endorsed; the second sentiment—we cannot win—was also advanced by Howard Dean. Jimmy Carter that sanctimonious fraud (Bush is incompetent), Harry Reid (Bush is a loser, a comment from which he rapidly retreated when it appeared not to gather any glory). And on and on it has gone.

Thereafter, an unrelenting torrent of criticism (most of which I have detailed in preceding columns), all of which was calculated to attack every phase of our conduct not just in Iraq, but in the war on terror, e.g. Abu Ghraib, GITMO, exit strategy, NSA, etc.? Folks, as I have mentioned—no, emphasized—we are at war? What effect do you think these comments have on our ability to successfully wage that war? How do you think these comments play out on Al Jazeera? What hope and comfort do you think our enemies might find in these comments? And then you add all the other preposterous, irreverent, and, yes, seditious comments of the brainless left—e.g. Bush is a Nazi, Bush is a dumbbell, Bush is pursuing this war because of some Messianic vision—and what do you come up with—rational dissent?? Pullleease! How do you think FDR, or Lincoln, or, more to the point, Woodrow Wilson would have responded to this withering barrage of mindless drivel, having nothing to support it but the unrelenting pursuit of power.

Again, one is reminded of General Giap’s statements in his memoirs, i.e. that it was the vigorous protests of the left-wing in this country that sustained North Vietnam’s will to continue the fight, even though they were losing and had suffered a huge number of casualties. And this, in the final analysis, is the only real point of making the case for sedition; that these irresponsible voices in opposition are making it difficult, if not impossible, to wage a war that many of us feel is not only appropriate but necessary (and thus prolonging it, thereby adding to the death toll which they repeatedly call to our attention). However, I have no illusions as to the prospect of either sedition or treason being raised again in any context. After Jane Fonda sat on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun and made preposterous statements impugning the integrity of America and nothing happened to her, I knew that sedition was not going to reappear on the American scene, no matter how absurd and damaging to American interests the opposition’s comments might be. Folks, with this kind of useful-idiot “loyal” opposition, we may not win another war—these people scare me far more than Osama and his Islamic fundamentalist whacko buddies.