When did all the dissenters vanish?

I cannot recall when the United States of America ceased being a land of dissenters; of arguers, of contrary thinking; of people blessed with the right, in the words of the very First Amendment to their Constitution, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

When did protest become unpatriotic? When did the Founding Fathers' vision of a land that honored and embraced contentiousness disappear?

It must have vanished without millions of Americans ever noticing. How else does one explain the view of so many Americans that to question our policy in Iraq is unpatriotic? How else does one justify the stated opinions that protesting government policy gives "aid and comfort" to our enemies?

Such opinions are stated regularly in letters to this newspaper, by senior government officials, by political supporters of President Bush and by many millions of others, who, for reasons that escape me, hold this notion that wartime somehow requires us to keep our political feelings to ourselves.

The great Republican U.S. senator from California, Arthur Vandenberg, once said, "Politics stops at the water's edge." He made that quip to discourage partisan sniping during wartime.

But that doesn't mean Americans should cease questioning government policy, or even challenging a wartime president as many Americans are doing today. Most Americans know their boundaries. Sitting in an anti-aircraft gun, joking with enemy gunners who had killed American pilots - as Jane Fonda did in 1972 during the Vietnam War - crosses that line.

That act still sticks in the craw of many Vietnam veterans, including mine. Protesting government policy through civil disobedience, which millions of Americans did during that time, remains an appropriate form of political expression.

But it seems today that such expressions of disagreement hit a nerve at every turn. To speak out against some aspects of the war against terror, in the minds of many, constitutes an unpatriotic act.

It stands for liberty. It stands for freedom, but certainly within the bounds of good taste and community standards. The country stands for people's right to speak their minds freely.

Something must have happened to change many Americans' minds about freedom of political expression.

Maybe it was the goons who introduced the United States to their monstrous brand of terrorism on Sept. 11, 2001. They hit us on our own turf, not in some nightclub or military barracks far away. That could bring about a fundamental change in many Americans' outlook about freedom.

Are we now free to express ourselves only if we support our president and his policies?

The Founders didn't put any provisions into the Constitution that suspended our rights to protest when the shooting starts and Americans start dying in combat. By omitting those restrictions, the Founders said quite the opposite. They said protest is a fundamental American right, which I would hasten to add is a totally foreign concept to our enemies.

Another great Republican, President Theodore Roosevelt, said this: "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. ...(I)t is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."

Old Roughrider knew a few things about combat, which he fought in the political arena and on the battlefield. The Founders had it correct when they set aside our rights to seek "redress of grievances." If a policy is strong, it will stand up to any protest. If it is weak, it will change according to the people's will.

Our current crop of leaders, though, needs to stop the overheated responses to those who question them and their policies. Don't they give aid and comfort to those who seek to undermine our very way of life? Last time I checked, that way of life included a healthy dose of dissent.

John Kanelis is editorial page editor for the Amarillo Globe-News. He can be contacted at the Globe News, P.O. Box 2091, Amarillo, TX 79166, or via e-mail at john.kanelis@amarillo.com. His column appears each Sunday.

Only idiots would vote for a traitor.

My favorite post for DUmmies and trolls.

"I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through [sic] the world
only at the directive of the United Nations."
Hanoi John Kerry, The Harvard Crimson, 1970

HANOI KERRY
has a Campaign Platform
Just like the old days!

"It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle.
We lost the war at home and at home John Kerry was the field general"
- Bob Elder, Swift Boat Veteran For Truth

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces,"
said retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman of the organization.
"This is not a political issue. It is a matter of honesty."

I was there the same time Hanoi Kerry was.
I served on the destroyer USS Corry DD-817 which supplied PCF's and PBR's
and gave gunfire support in North AND South Viet Nam.
My ship may have even supplied Hanoi Kerry's boat.
I VOW I will do everything I LEGALLY can
to keep this traitor from being elected.
68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub

The book that Kerry
wishes would just go away. HanoiJohnKerry.com is a blog with a primary purpose. That purpose is to counter the preposterous claims of Sen. John Forbes Kerry (D-MA) that he has any legitimate claim to any sort of "brotherhood" among combat veterans of the War in Vietnam.
While it is generally supposed that his service as a Naval officer on a "Swift Boat" in that theater was adequate and honorable, there is much to question regarding his readiness to allow the accolade "war hero" to be applied to him.
Likewise, it is not at all uncommon for more senior Naval officers to raise an eyebrow at the swiftness and relative comfort by which Lt. JG Kerry attained those medals, and who is available to vouch for the efficacy of his being awarded them (since, as boat commander, it would be his own task to make recommendation for awards for all personnel, including himself, on the Swift Boat).
But most egregious was his conduct, words and associations upon his early-out (from SEA) return to the USA and discharge from the US Navy. His leadership role with the radical pro-Communist (inaccurate to deem this group "anti-war") group called "Vietnam Veterans Against the [Vietnam] War" (hereafter VVAW).

It was while climbing the social and political ladder of the pro-Soviet Left as a principle of VVAW that John Kerry found his political soul-mate in Hanoi Jane Fonda. Granted, these politically formative years for Kerry were prior to the more outlandish acts of Fonda that earned her that name, but it is easily documentable that Fonda did not under go any radical transformation in belief or character from the time she and Kerry were working the same side of the street to the time she traveled to Hanoi, NVN and entered US history as the most overt traitor to ever NOT be charged, tried and executed.
John Kerry went to his own overt extremes to demonstrate that, politically, socially and in lowness of character, there wasn't a nickel's worth of difference between he and Fonda. Thus, in the spirit of fairness and accuracy, we are reasonably certain that he will be agreeably flattered by calling him Hanoi John Kerry.

Here, testifying before the Fulbright Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is where John Kerry, spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, cemented his position and moniker as "Hanoi John" Kerry. This was the occasion where US troops still in the field in Vietnam learned from one of their FORMER brothers-in-arms that they were heinous murderers and war criminals. HJK would now like to call on them for support in his bid to be the new Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Perhaps the most preposterous hypocrisy of all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.