The Republican Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to George Bush, of the Royal Family of America
And to the Republicans for which they stand, because they were chosen by God,
Unassailable, indisputable and incontestable, with no voice for dissent at all.

Amen.

The Republicans had an enormously successful convention. I admire the stagecraft and think Bush gave a great speech – especially when he managed to fake that tear in his eye. It was an effective and well-managed convention, and one of the scariest things I’ve ever watched.

Last week, the Republican party managed to convince America that dissent was not only unpatriotic, but dangerous.

"Our nation is being made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief."

Miller, Giuliani, McCain, Pataki, Schwarzenegger and Cheney told us that Democrats were unpatriotic because we dared to question this President at a time of war. But this was not the emotional hate-filled tirade that you might think. It was a calculated and well-crafted political strategy by George Bush and Karl Rove to tie protest about the Iraq War to John Kerry’s protest about the Viet Nam war.

Circulating in the Republican viral messaging currents this week, is a section of the Constitution about providing aid and comfort to the enemy:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President… having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

I first got this emailed to me by someone who professes to be an “independent, swing voter.” He was questioning my commitment to Kerry because he claims it’s clear that Kerry provided “aid and comfort to the enemy”, by testifying before the Senate against the Viet Nam War, and traveling to Paris during the war to try and broker peace. He argued that not only is Kerry not a patriot, but that it’s illegal for him to even hold, or run for, office. At first, I thought – wow, this guy’s done his research. He’s nuts, but at least he’s well read.

Then I heard that EXACT SAME PHRASE from a caller to C-Span the next day - again questioning Kerry’s patriotism, but this time using that section of the 14th Amendment to condemn ANYONE who spoke out about THIS WAR in IRAQ. Then, by searching the internet, I began to see the strategy take shape.

New Swift Boat ads started running last week, specifically targeting Kerry’s testimony before Congress, about the atrocities perpetrated by American Soldiers in Viet Nam. Then Republicans derided the patriotism of all Democrats – except Zell Miller, of course – in questioning the execution of Bush’s war in Iraq. Then, as if by magic, the right wing bloggers begin using the Constitution itself to question Kerry’s right to free speech during Viet Nam, and to paint ANY dissent against the President at times of War as unpatriotic and illegal.

Cool, huh? To see examples - simply google "Kerry aid and comfort".

Did John Kerry speak out about the Viet Nam War? Yes. Did he travel to Paris to try and broker a prisoner release from the Vietnamese? Yes. Did this amount to aid and comfort to the enemy? No. And don’t let anyone tell you differently. Kerry was asked to testify by the Senate, where he simply told the truth, and in Paris, he was trying to bring home POWs. Damn him!

Those who tell us that Kerry provided aid and comfort to the Viet Cong are the same people trying to change the subject AWAY from Iraq, and away from how Mr. Bush and his neo-cons misled us into war. They use Kerry’s dissent in 1972 to try and keep us all quiet now.

To my friend the “swing voter”, I asked this question: Which is a better example of providing aid and comfort to our enemy – Kerry’s attempts in 1972 to end the Viet Nam war and save thousands of American lives; or Bush and Cheney’s refusal to listen to General Shinseki – Chief of Staff of the Army – when he told them we needed 200,000 troops to win the peace in Iraq?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

In 2003, for political reasons only, Bush and Cheney decided to ignore the advice of their most senior military analyst and send American Soldiers into battle without the proper support or armor. Now, THAT’S treason.

I keep bringing that up that point, and have yet to get a proper answer from my “independent” friend or ANY Republican, for that matter. The best they come up with is Bush’s admission of “miscalculations” in his pre-war strategy. Pardon me, but “miscalculations” makes it sound like they forgot to pack sun tan lotion. This was a POLITICAL decision NOT to put an additional 100,000 troops on the ground – a decision that has killed nearly 1,000 American Soldiers and wounded ten thousand more.

America was built on dissent – The Pilgrims, the Minutemen, the Suffragettes, the Civil Rights movement. It is the very ability TO dissent that makes us a Democracy. But the Terminator, Zig Zag Zell Miller, right wing bloggers, my “independent” friend and others, who throw around the Constitution when it serves them, seem to think differently.

Republicans tell America – and even those within their own party – that dissent is unpatriotic. This is a brilliant political move: Quiet opposition by showing a pattern of dissent and calling dissent “aid and comfort to the enemy”. It really is an inspired strategy. And, worse, it seems to be working.

REAL swing voters – who are not as tuned into politics as the “true believers” – see a Swift Boat ad with a long-haired Kerry giving “aid and comfort,” then hear "talk-show" radio calling democrats unpatriotic, then hear country music screaming “USA – Love it or Leave it”, and suddenly they begin to think a vote against Bush is a vote against America. So much for the media's liberal bias, I guess.

There’s a reason Republicans have won six out of the last nine Presidential elections – they play hardball – see: Watergate, Willie Horton and Swift Boats.

But I keep thinking, what would Ronald Reagan have thought about all of this? Reagan didn’t need cheap parlor tricks to get Americans to vote for him, he simply offered them hope. He would have never – ever – called his opponents unpatriotic, because he just wasn’t capable of that type of hatred. That’s what made him so frustrating for Democrats – you wanted him to be an evil motherfcuker – but he simply refused.

However, this President and his band of thugs have decided that fear and hate are their best tools for winning this election. And they may be right.

It’s an electoral Stop-Loss: Force even your faintest supporters to vote for you, by convincing them it’s unpatriotic NOT to. It’s akin to the military Stop-Loss that keeps National Reservists in Iraq, even though their voluntary commitments have expired.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm

The result? Staggering: Bush took a commanding 11 point lead into Labor Day – despite 1,100 wounded and 66 killed US Soldiers in Iraq, just in August. He gets a big bounce, while seven US Marines were killed in Fallujah today. He takes cruises into swing states, while 855 US Soldiers have been killed since Bush declared “Mission Accomplished”, and 993 have been killed since he decided to invade with only 100,000 troops.

http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=3a623aff-ce58-440a-9d2d-39fb7d70abc2

Listen, perhaps we are wrong – we Democrats who oppose Mr. Bush and his totalitarian plans to hold onto power. Maybe he is the right person to lead this country after all. Maybe he has a plan in Iraq and for the economy that we simply do not understand.

Does that mean it’s unpatriotic to disagree? Geez, I hope not.

When Republicans question the patriotism of democrats for opposing Mr. Bush or of John Kerry for opposing Viet Nam and the execution of the war in Iraq, they prove they are truly the party of Nixon – whom they mentioned in reverence several times during the their convention. Can’t you just picture Bush’s “enemies list”? Bush IS Nixon – only with better packaging.

Dissent is Democracy. The “vision” that cannot stand the test of dissent, is just more snake oil in a pretty bottle. The angrier Republicans get about Kerry’s dissent in 1972, the more nervous they are about Iraq in 2004. They realize that Bush’s behavior before the invasion cannot stand up to harsh questions, so they turn the campaign into a referendum on the questioners.

Was it treason for Woodward and Bernstein to investigate Nixon? Was it wrong for the Senate to investigate Iran-Contra? Was it unpatriotic for Sgt. Joseph Darby to report his fellow soldiers for abuses at Abu Ghraib? Geez, I hope not.

Kerry was right about Viet Nam. He is right about Iraq. And the Republicans know it. Rather than answer the questions about how Dick Cheney helped prolong Viet Nam, or about how he and Bush ignored the advice of their generals in Iraq, they question the patriotism of those who ask the questions.

When Republicans say Kerry was unpatriotic, ask them how many more of his friends should have died, before he was “allowed” to speak out. When Republicans (or pretend “independents”) try to accuse Kerry of giving “aid and comfort to the enemy” – ask them if sending too few troops to Iraq isn’t a far worse example "aid and comfort".

When they demur, ask them how they think the families of those 993 soldiers feel about Bush’s “miscalculations”.

If we let them question our patriotism, they win. If we MAKE THEM ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, we win. It’s that friggin’ simple.

“Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism.”
[President Thomas Jefferson]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
[President Theodore Roosevelt, Republican]

e