"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
http://tinyurl.com/rrkj

Steve, I don't think this is exactly what you are looking for, but I offer it nonetheless, because there should be categories in the search.
Technically, the statement represents a type of fallacy of the undistributed middle. The statement, early on, did not encourage questioning -- quite the opposite. It fostered monolithic thinking of the sort Dobbins cautions against.

Speaking of comparisons to terrorists, Tony Snow to Helen Thomas: "Thank you for the Hezbollah view". Of course, I don't think that is technically calling someone unpatriotic for asking a question so it probably won't count.

Didn't like my link: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/18/snow-to-helen-thomas-%E2%80%98thank-you-for-the-hezbollah-view%E2%80%99/

I am curious to see what folks come up with, but I am also skeptical of the project. This administration has been extremely precise in public comments, aside from dubya's frequent gaffs and mangled pronounciations, saying just enough to get their nefarious point across but leaving the barn door wide open as to the veracity of the statement.

Example: "I do not have war plans on my desk," literally true perhaps, but at the time it was said, absolutely false. Bob Woodward in an interview on PBS about his book, Plan of Attack, said, "I've seen his desk a number of times and there's nothing on it, so I guess literally that's true. But, as I write in the book, it was not full disclosure, and he had used some formulations earlier when he said, "I'm going to keep my options close to my vest."" 72 days after 9/11 Bush asked Rumsfeld to work up war plans against Iraq in secret. His perogative, but it sure doesn't jive with public statements made in the following years up to March 2003.

They may have never come out and said, "Iraq was behind 9/11," but there are numerous examples of that being implied, or that there was a significant connection. The implication was all they needed to misdirect public opinion, and then give themselves an out through plausible deniablity.

The outing of Valeria Plame might be another example. The truth of why she was uncovered may never really be known, but many good indicators point to retaliation for her husband's public statements. It has taken several million dollars to learn as much as we know now through Fitzgerald's investigation, but was it "a plot."

This project will be interesting, but these criminals are not fools.

SDemetri is right. The administration is very smart about fingerprints. I am interested in this effort because I think many have the feeling that the administration did create an environment in which questioning the authority of the president and the executive branch bordered on traitorousness. I think that Hagel, Scowcroft and others had that sense -- but the question is where is the evidence?! Maybe there is little -- and that too would be interesting.

Peter Feaver does have a good list of cases of Dems questioning White House loyalty and patriotism -- and a list of positive, bipartisan statements from key Republican leaders.

I think that there is a lot of material out there of both Dems calling for bipartisanship as well as Republican and Democratic critics of the administration being pilloried by the White House.

But let's see what develops.

Steve Clemons

Here are some examples from another blogger:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/07/playing_the_tre.html

The problem you will have is that the right wing is very good at leaving the impression Democrats are unpatriotic while avoiding mouthing those exact words. This has been a tactic not just since 9/11, of course, but goes all the way back to Tail Gunner Joe. By agreeing to play the "gotcha" game as the White House defines it ("prove to me where we said the exact words: Democrats are not patriotic!") misses out on the complete picture, which is a decades-long intentional effort by the hard right to discredit the messenger so you don't have to argue with the message.

"So I asked Congress to give me the flexibility necessary ... the Senate is ... not interested in the security of the American people."
Bush Speech, September, 2002

http://tinyurl.com/z7goh

Criticizing those in Congress who were “questioning the president's leadership ...
These are people that don't want to protect the American people..."

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), House Majority Whip, expanded on Bush’s statement on CNN’s “Inside Politics”

September, 2002

When concerned citizens voiced opposition to excessive provisions of the Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft said:

"your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

http://tinyurl.com/j3kpo

12/6/01

Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld:

“... critics of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy are encouraging terrorists and complicating the ongoing U.S. war on terrorism.”

Newsday report 9/9/03

This from the Washington Post June 20, 2002,

"If the mugging of Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia is a fair indicator of what is to come, the fall elections will be ugly. Cleland, a decorated veteran and triple amputee, was attacked by his Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

Shades of Lee Atwater, the fabled Republican cutthroat politico who helped pilot the first President Bush to victory. But even Atwater might have hesitated before going after a man who lost both legs and an arm in the service of his country. Chambliss did not participate in Vietnam. He had a bad knee, he told columnist Mark Shields, who was the first to call national attention to Cleland's bizarre situation -- veterans whose war wounds confine them to wheelchairs are often given a pass on patriotism, especially by those who never wore the uniform.
But Chambliss was not deterred. On May 16 he issued a press release about Cleland's insufficient contribution to the defense of his country: Cleland had voted for an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty that eliminated a ban on citizens of terrorist nations being on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. It was a majority vote, 56 to 44, and among those in support were Sen. Bill Frist, the stately chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee who handpicked candidate Chambliss..."

"Chambliss may have been under the influence of Bush's top adviser, Karl Rove, a disciple of Lee Atwater, who has said from the first that the war on terrorism is a good issue for his party and can help close gaps such as Chambliss's 22-point deficit.

Throughout the country, patriotism, under Rove's coaching, has become the sub-theme of the campaign. The message is sometimes coded, sometimes not..."

Steve,

I'm afraid that if we are not entitled to give "interpretations of what people meant", then the quest is likely to be futile. We're probably not going to find some smoking gun statement: something like Dick Chyney saying explicitly and publicly that "critics of the President are traitors" at a VFW speech.

But to frame the matter in this way simpleminded and guileless way is both deeply misguided and intellectually dishonest. And to play along with Mr. Feaver's knavish exculpatory dodge is reprehensible. The villainous virtuosos of imputation, persecution and denunciation have never relied on bald, categorical accusation to work their malevolence. The prefer the sly hint, the round suggestion, the poignant association and the winking and subsequently deniable attack by proxy.

Consider this series of questions:

1.How many people did Joe McCarthy actually *say* were communists, communist sypathizers or traitors to their country?

2.How many people did McCarthy *insinuate* were communists, communist sypathizers or traitors to their country?

3.For how many people did McCarthy's witch hunt, his houndings and investigations and subpeonas, serve to surround with a cloud of suspicion and whispers and isolation?

4. How often did McCarthy lend moral and political support to associates in the media and public life who *were* explicitly denouncing enemies and accusing them of treason?

You can't wrench administration statements out of the context in which they are made, or away from its networks of its political alliances. Consider this 2001 statement before Congress by John Ashcroft (my emphasis in caps), presented in the context of widely reported concerns from administration critics about the Patriot Act and executive branch overreaching:

**We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; TO THOSE WHO SCARE PEACE-LOVING AMERICANS WITH PHANTOMS OF LOST LIBERTY; my message is this: Your tactics only AID TERRORISTS - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They GIVE AMMUNITION TO AMERICA'S ENEMIES, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.**

Now, of course, the statement is only strongly suggestive, and the embedded accusations are entirely deniable. Ashcroft can always say, after the fact, "I don't mean to suggest that these critics are *intentionally* giving ammunition to our enemies, or aiding terrorists *on purpose*. I accept they mean well, but believe they are misguided."

So forgive me, but I am offering an "interpretaion" of what Ashcroft was intending to do. Apparently, I'm not a semi-autistic hyper-literalist, and I do tend to assume that government professionals, skilled in the dark arts of political communication, choose their words carefully so as to accomplish their rhetorical ends without leaving a trail of smoking guns behind.

Consider, now, the very *explicit* accusations of disloyalty, cowardice and treason issued on a daily basis by the likes of Savage, Coulter and Limbaugh. How many times have White House officials *explicitly disavowed* these statements or *denounced* the producers of the statements? Haven't they instead eagerly cultivated the support of the the wingnut mobs who form the audiences for these cretins? These three are not small, obscure voices. They are right wing pundits with vast audiences and unquestionable celebrity and notoriety. The accusations are made on a daily basis on the radio and television, and then put into print and dispensed in best-selling volumes. Haven't administration officials, through their silence in the face of this rampant hate-mongering and villanous slander, expressed their support for the accusations just as clearly and definitively as they would through any explicit statements of their own?

"The President considers this nation to be at war,'' a White House source says,'' and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.'' �

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012503B.bush.treason.htm

As others have written above, a lot of it is innuendo and very carefully worded associations--just as that between 9/11 and Iraq--repeated over and over and over and over. Call it PR, advertising, staying on point, but it does work without being that direct. Loyal opposition needs to find similar simple and all the same talking points and repeat them over and over and over. It's clear that these tactics work. They
may be Rovian or just Pavlovian (Oh my,that might be Russian and Communist even!), but they do work.

Linda

When legitimate questions were asked about revelations that the White House was possibly warned prior to 9/11 about a high jacking threat, Vice President Cheney said:

”such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war.”

http://tinyurl.com/oqmro

5/16/02

Summary #1: I presented examples of instances where the Administration accused those who asked questions of not wanting to protect the American people. When elected officials and concerned citizens brought their concerns to the attention of the Administration those queries were publicly labeled as irresponsible and unworthy of reply.

Alicia Hill

"And then he challenged the some 20 or so people in our audience to send him by email clear cases -- in quotes -- of instances where senior administration officials, the President, or the Vice President, or other Republican party officianados had actually questioned another American's loyalty or patriotism."

Steve,

The clever part of this is that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al don't name a specific person. Instead, they say something like --- anyone who questions the wisdom of the administration is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. Then they wait for people to question and thus indict themselves.

So the statement is technically correct, but the effect is just as chilling.

Thanks ET and sdemetri ..those to me are actual examples.

But I don't now that this is a worthwhile project since we know that Bush,Inc. leaves it to his punits in the media and the crazy right wing section to do the heavy lifting on smearing. Now if we were asked to find examples among them we could list examples all day long.

I really wish instead we could see a discussion in this country about what America is..what we are suppose to be...what our national "principles" are. Maybe we need to write our "principles" down or add to the constitution and engrave them on some monument in Washington before we get into a discussion of who is and isn't patriot. Otherwise people will always be getting away with their arguements under the "difference of opinions" defense.

However I am all for our politicans and goverment employees having to sign a "loyalty" oath..and for severe punishment for violating it. There is no way that people like Ney and other politicans who use their office to enrich themselves at the expense of the country can be called anything but traitors. There is no way that people like Feith and his cohorts who deliberately lied us into a war are anything but traitors. There is no way that people like Tom Lantos who uses his office to legistate for Israeli interest is anything but a traitor.

What is and isn't disloyal needs to be legally established first, out current definitions of traitor are outdated.

Llooking through archives of Cleland's campaign battle, Chambliss at one point, as you might remember, placed a reprehensible TV ad which,

"...opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators," said a narrator, "Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth. Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times!"

No appearance or utterance of the word "unpatriotic," but what's implied is weakness and inability to lead. (Hagel and McCain condemned the ad.)

Looking through Media Matter's archive, I find the same thing from Cheney quotes. No personal accusations, always "those people," "those liberals," "those democrats," without a single name mentioned.

Feaver's challenge may or may not have arisen out of a smug knowledge of how the administration works. Sure seems that way.

Dan Kervick and the compilation by Brendan Nyhan offered here are precisely on the mark in their observations. As detailed earlier, the Republican Party for years has vastly outmatched progressives in political messaging and public opinion formation efforts, through passive embrace of venomous polemicists who slash viciously without sullying the togas of those in power, through the skillful use of secrecy and subliminal communication, and through well targeted contact with the media sources frequented by the MAJORITY of grassroots Americans in the marketplace of ideas, i.e. NOT the Boston Globe or New York Times. Moreover, Democrats are incredibly bad at keeping secrets concerning some of their political strategems. Already, there is some open talk of the DNC's choice of date and location for the 2008 Convention, which is doubly bad on two scores: location and date. (No Southern city or conservative stronghold appears to have made it to the final list of candidate cities, and once again, the DNC is poised to allow the RNC to have the "last word" in party position presentations to the nation - a fundamental error in any elementary lesson in rhetoric.)

As an aside, Dr. Feaver is a Harvard-trained academic who ought to recognize that the onus is on him and his cohorts in the current administration to prove their bona fides in forthrightness and integrity following the Republican Party's incontrovertible resort to FRAUD to market the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq to the American public. Rather than hire his political opponents to assume the heavy burden of proving their own innocence, Dr. Pleaver ought to make inquiries of his own at his own expense in time and money.

Any student of politics knows that explicit lies are not required to accomplish deceit. Deceit can be achieved through mendacious use of omission, subliminal communication and the active working of fraud by allies. Empirical example: from now until the election, every time you observe Ken Mehlman, GWB, Cheney, Hastert, Frist, Boehner, Rove or other senior Republicans making statements on issues of national security ON TELEVISION, count the number of flags or the magnitude of the image of the flag in their immediate presence. As predicted earlier, unless hit hard - rhetorically - for the offense of their slander, Republicans will once again smear Democrats as unpatriotic and disloyal to "the troops" and, therefore, to the nation.

In the meantime, progressives leave the vulnerable and very juicy flank of the Republican Party inexplicably untouched.
http://www.radnofsky.com/

Feaver may actually, sincerely believe in the rightness of the folks he's working for. In fact, he probably does. He may not have been smug at all.

The scary thing then is, he must also believe that this level of hateful innuendo, obfuscation, and doublespeak is all just the rough and tumble but ultimately fair game of governance.

The points above about rightwing punditry doing so much of the heavy lifting, with nary a word of rebuke or disaggreement from the administration says alot. Roll in a compliant media echo chamber and you have... well, what Cleland said after losing his seat in the Senate, "the state of American politics is sickening..."

When White House reporters pointed out that Bush had appeared poorly informed in an earlier statement about missile strikes against Iraq, press secretary Ari Fleischer blustered:

"the president's actions and his words are supported by all but the most partisan Americans."

reported by Nick Confessore in The American Prospect
3-11-02
http://tinyurl.com/kmyfy

----------------------
When people questioned whether the President’s aircraft carrier speech was appropriate with combat still taking place, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said:

“It does a disservice to the men and women of our military to suggest that the president, or the manner in which the president visited the military would be anything other than the exact appropriate thing to do."
5/7/03
---------------------
Responding to a questioner who said he did not support previous U.S. alliances with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said:

"You said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him. It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies."

10/30/03

Steve,

I introduced myself to you this morning at the Cato panel- I enjoyed your outlining of the state of bi-partisanship, by the way- but I wanted to make a point to you that I did have a chance to make to Chris Prebble (?) afterwards.
Whether one agrees that the complex hashing out of foreign policy should be done by experts or elites behind closed doors as you suggest or that the debates be in a more public arena (or that in the course of a crucial debate degrees of each are called for at different stages) my point is that the sequence of disingenuous post hoc justifications for the invasion of Iraq have soured the public on both.
Few trust the elites, the bushies, or even any attempts to frame the issues involved. At no point has any protest, argument, or landslide of evidence altered the policy. It may be a sort of learned helplessness.

I believe that some in the administration understood that such a dysfunctional dynamic would short circuit any organized resistance to their policies within the various bureaucracies (CIA, Defense, NSA, etc) for quite a long time. I think their string played out earlier for them than expected. In short, however, they pissed in the well. Its going to take a long time undo.

Re: Peter Feaver: I sensed the same strains of victimhood and tortured rationalization that appear throughout the administration. On one hand he claims that he was hired because "his rolodex was different" on the other hand, he spends all of energy at the panel in tendentious defense of
Bush policies. I always want to asked these people: "So, tell me, by what measures would you judge this approach a failure..."
I get a headache just thinking about the response.

I'm delighted I got to meet you. Keep up the good work.

Given the Administration's demonstrated intolerance for being *questioned* by citizens, their representatives and the press, it simultaneously:

. asserts the right to use any interrogation technique that does not “shock the conscience” in a particular situation, in the face of the McCain amendment banning torture and other inhumane treatment --and the court holding in Hamdan, which prohibits certain techniques as inherently constituting torture or cruel and inhuman treatment.

. asks Congress for broad authority to try people without the safeguards required by the Geneva Conventions.

. continues to assert that it can detain people anywhere in the world, detain them in identified or secret camps, deny access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and hold them for as long as the struggle against al-Qaeda goes on.

So: While denying *us* the right to question them, this Administration insists upon the equally lawless position that it has the right to interrogate *anyone* for any reason, at any time, in any way. Those are internally consistent "lock and key" positions. Any questions?

The premise of this challenge is a false one and should be resisted. The number of meaningful quotes to be found is going to be small. This would be akin to a prosecutor poring over the minutes of a Fortune 500 company's BoD meeting minutes looking for incontrovertible proof of corporate criminal conduct. Parties such as these are too sophisticated for that, which is why Peter Feaver proposed such a challenge. I'm surprised it was accepted.

Heck, perhaps the first accusations for being unpatriotic and treasonous came from those who justifiably called this administration out for lying their country into an unnecessary, illegal and immoral war that would come to no good. That's where I think the patriotic accusations began which resulted in unjustly turning the accusations back on the patriots who saw through the evil machinations of this administration, if you want to get back to first causes.

Isn't the term "swiftboating" related to called into question ones patriotism?

Calling into question one's loyalty and patriotism is the stock and trade of the Right wing. MaCarthyism; America Love It or Leave It; America Right or Wrong; If you don't like it here move somewhere else. The Republicans are natural blind Nationalists who revert to innuendo of treason at the drop of a hat in times of war talk. Donahue was canned from MSNBC because he question the build up to war in Iraq. Dixie Chicks ...

Perhaps the administration doesn't say outright that those who disagree with them are unpatriotic, but they have plenty of surrogates in their propaganda machine to do it for them; Coulter, Limbaugh, Horowitz, Savage, O'Reilly, Hannitty ........

Personally I was told to go join Hezbollah by family members because I told them as Israeli war started that Israel would not defeat Hezbollah, that they would still be there after all was said and done. My family is a bunch of right-wingers who go knee-jerk nationalistic without thinking. They remind me of what Germans were under the Nazis. I got the same treatment when I told them before the war that Iraq was going to be another Vietnam. It's like if you question the country going to war you're automatically a traitor.

I think the attempt to conflate or present situation with WWII is another attempt, by innuendo, to call those who don't believe in this administration as being akin to WWII Nazi supporters. The administration wishes to conjure the myths of WWII and impose them over our present situation to make us feel inferior to the "Greatest Generation" and instill guilt that we are not like the Americans of Hollywood propaganda films during the war.

I apologize for rambling ......... but I have a personnal feel for these circumstances having been accused unto righteous wrath.

Slogans insinuating unpatriotic/traitorous attitudes when used:

Cut and Run

Support the Troops

Defeatocrats

Appeasers

Blame America first

Lie and Die (oops!)

Those who wrap themselves in the flag automatically accuse "the other" of disloyalty.

This game has been played in politics forever and I don't think that Machievelli would advise calling your political enemies outright traitors if there is a more Machievellian way of doing it.

Via Greenwald, in an interview Bill Frist brings up the the disclosure of the NSA wiretapping program on U.S. citizens: We’ll use those two arms, those two platforms to address the sorts of issues on war and terrorism, regarding giving the enemy the playbook and threatening the security of the American people.

Cheney, Frontiers of Freedom dinner, Nov 2005

"I�m sorry we couldn�t be joined by Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Jay Rockefeller. They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment." (Laughter.) "I�ll let you think about that one for a minute."(Applause.)

"And the suggestion that�s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

I agree with those pointing out that this administration rarely gets specific. They spew innuendo, and conflate fact with irrelevant quasi-truth. Then they send out surrogates to fling the mud and do the dirty deeds.

The treatment of Jack Murtha is classic, the white house paying lip service to acknowledging his distinguished service, while the RW noise machine churns out a swift boat style attack. Googling "murtha"and "traitor" yields 170,000 hits, this is a coordinated attack, but Bush and Cheney techinically have clean hands, they just unleashed the attack dogs.

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/democrats.asp

Ashcroft made the following statement to the house judiciary hearing:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/06/inv.ashcroft.hearing/
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."

Attorney General John Ashcroft lashed out Thursday at critics of the administration's response to terrorism, saying questions about whether its actions undermine the Constitution only serve to help terrorists.

Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

Ashcroft flatly rejected criticism of the administration's policies, including President Bush's decision to allow the use of military tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, the detention of hundreds of immigrants in connection with the terrorism probe, the "voluntary" questioning of thousands of men from mostly Middle Eastern countries, and eavesdropping between attorneys and their clients in terrorism cases.

"Charges of kangaroo courts and shredding the Constitution give new meaning to the term 'fog of war,'" Ashcroft said.

You should read the whole article, it is really scary to look back and see what was foisted upon us, with no checks or balances, and with absolutely no concern, on the part of the administation about what was right, legal, or dammit, so UN-American.

And they have the nerve to say their critics are aiding terrorists! The greatest aid in terrorist recruiting was the unjust actions of the American government. Period.

First Steve, you need to get over the delusion that Feaver is your friend and colleague. Then you won't fall into these traps.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

http://tinyurl.com/zigk

"The CIA has imposed new and tighter restrictions on the books, articles, and opinion pieces published by former employees who are still contractors with the intelligence agency. According to several former CIA officials affected by the new policy, the rules are intended to suppress criticism of the Bush administration and of the CIA. The officials say the restrictions amount to an unprecedented political "appropriateness" test at odds with earlier CIA policies on outside publishing."

http://tinyurl.com/mnnnx

Every time Bush assures us that he doesn't think it unpatriotic to disagree with the administration, he's implying that other reasonable people might believe that disagreement is, in fact, unpatriotic. Why else mention it?

No smoking gun there.

Late Friday a series of memos between senior Bush Administration officials and management at Viacom, Inc. were leaked calling for the media giant to focus on stories and programming choices that "reinforce the Administration's positions" and to "ignore and/or discredit points of view in opposition to the Bush Administration's foreign policy objectives for the purposes of National Security."

http://tinyurl.com/ncjs9

When Vice President Dick Cheney visited Eugene, Oregon on Sept. 17, a 54-Year old woman named Perry Patterson was charged with criminal trespass for blurting the word "No" when Cheney said that George W. Bush has made the world safer. One day before, Sue Niederer, 55, the mother of a slain American soldier in Iraq was cuffed and arrested for criminal trespass when she interrupted a Laura Bush speech in New Jersey. Both women had tickets to the event.

http://tinyurl.com/lmhal

...three teachers were removed from a Bush speech for wearing "Protect Our Civil Liberties" on their shirts.

The women were ticketed to the event, admitted into the event, and were then approached by event officials before the president’s speech. They were asked to leave and to turn over their tickets – two of the three tickets were seized, but the third was saved when one of the teachers put it underneath an article of clothing.
The women said they did not intend to protest. "I wanted to see if I would be able to make a statement that I feel is important, but not offensive, in a rally for my president," said Janet Voorhies, 48, a teacher in training. “We chose this phrase specifically because we didn't think it would be offensive or degrading or obscene," said Tania Tong, 34, a special education teacher.

http://tinyurl.com/lmhal

As pointed out in this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/opinion/main615239.shtml
the Bush machine is very careful about using surrogates to do the actual smearing of the Administration's critics.

Whether it be Karl Rove's whisper campaigns against political opponents such as Ann Richards (lesbian), John McCain (black baby conceived by his adulterous, crazy wife), John Kerry (coward, traitor) and Democrats (want to ban the bible),

Republican members of the House,
(who can forget Jean Schmidt's outrageous attack on Jack Murtha "Cowards cut and run. Marines never do." or Tom Davis' "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country." attacking Tom Daschle for saying success will be measured by whether we capture bin Laden),

the members of the right-wing punditocracy such as Limbaugh, Coulter, Novak, O'Reilly, etc.

One of the many Ann Coulter smears - "I'm not blaming the Democrats for 9-11 alone. I'm blaming them also for the [USS] Cole bombing, for the embassy bombings, for 20 years of attacks that have not been stopped. " [8/16/04]

(CONservative radio has been SO bad, that I keep expecting the message "Cut the tall trees" to go out at any time.)

or the many conservative websites who specialize in bashing critics of the Iraq war such as Freerepublic

(who offer this gem: "Jack Murtha's call for immediate disengagement took him far outside the boundaries of legitimate disagreement. He has never been able to articulate any plausible basis for his position on Iraq. There is a simple reason for that. There isn't one.

Reasonable people cannot differ about whether or not the United States should press forward with our war against the terror masters. For the time being Iraq is inevitably the principal front in that war. A congressman who tries to duck his share of the responsibility for prosecuting that war is displaying moral cowardice. Any American who recommends retreat is injuring his own country and calling his own patriotism into question),

there has been a concerted effort, orchestrated by this administration, to label its detractors as traitors or worse.

Just because Bush hasn't directly uttered the words himself does not make him any less guilty, and if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republican noise machine would be howling at the top of their lungs for the alleged culprit to condemn those responsible and to swear on a stack of bibles that they did not back or believe any of the charges made, and, in fact, that they believed entirely the opposite to be true.

The Bush machine has been SO careful about keeping those words in other people's mouthes that now that the tactic is starting to backfire, and the public and the press are starting to display their displeasure, there seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign to absolve the President of any responsibility for these attacks ("Bush is calling people traitors for disagreeing with him? Well PROVE it! I'll bet you can't find even ONE quote with him saying it. I'll DARE you!"). I came across at least a half-dozen of these discussions.

Oh yeah, that''s why we're here ;}

In closing, here is part of an editorial by the Washington Post's Michael Kelly that says it all:
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2001_09_23_archive.html#5943594

"Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist."

A well-documented piece titled "Bully Brigade" which documents many of the attacks is here at Spinsanity:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020304.html

Generally Steve, its the words of smaller fish --not just the coulter/limbaugh morons and the hannity's and o'reilly's and other obnoxious mouthpieces but also the likes of the state representative who supported the rabid Congresswoman from Ohio (both of whose names escape me) who called Murtha a coward. They are are the proxys for for the Bush/Cheney leadership. But here's a few of the implied challenges to patriotism direct from the horses mouths that give the minions their direction:

Dick Cheney, Interview of the Vice President by John King, CNN, 06/22/2006 (via Project Vote Smart):
"The worst possible thing we could do is what the Democrats are suggesting. And no matter how you carve it, you can call it anything you want, but basically it is packing it in, going home, persuading and convincing and validating the theory that the Americans don't have the stomach for this fight."

George W. Bush (campaigning against John Kerry, a decorated war hero) in Marlton, NJ, 10/18/2004

THE PRESIDENT: He declared himself an anti-war candidate. Months later he said that knowing everything we know now, he would have still voted for the war. Then he said the war was a "mistake," an "error," or "diversion." Having gone back and forth so many times, the Senator from Massachusetts has now flip-flopped his way to a dangerous position. My opponent -- my opponent finally has settled on a strategy, a strategy of retreat.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: He has talked about artificial timetables to pull our troops out of Iraq. He has sent the signal that America's overriding goal in Iraq would be to leave, even if the job is not done.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: And that approach would lead to a major defeat in the war on terror. So long as I'm the Commander-in-Chief, America will never retreat in the face of the terrorists. (Applause.) Thank you.

Aid and Comfort

Truckloads of google hits but no actual source quotes.

However, I managed to find this tidbit, via the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10cnd-prexy.html?ex=1294549200&en=12d1246eaac6f666&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

'In some of his most combative language yet directed as his critics, Mr. Bush said Americans should insist on a debate "that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries."'

The first paragraph is absolutely stunning.

Regarding the current administration's obsession with loyalty oaths, one need look no further than
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31019-2004Jul31.html

Well...maybe just a little further:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hess1.htm

I haven't the time to search right now, but those of you that do have the time need look no further than the press conferences where the White House has spoken against those that have leaked the revelations about the NSA wiretaps. Not only are these bastards accusing the leakers of treason, they have also threatened to prosecute.

I am not sure, but I seem to also remember that the tactic of questioning a critic's patriotism was also lodged against people that were vocal critics of the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

When anyone dare point out or even question this blatant bungle parade, they’re attacked as anti-American. I’ll never forget the Republican Convention, and those horrible Purple Heart band-aids, mocking the physical sacrifices made for our country. These people mock troops wounds, ignore their dead, and willingly pitch additional thousands of troops onto the dead pile - and for what?
When Bush says stay the course it means he doesn’t know what to do.

Steve, without seeing Feaver's list I'm confident every one of his examples of the administration's "calls for polite bipartisanship" is a demand that Democrats capitulate to the regime's position and/or that they shut up. That's what the Republican leadership in the executive branch and Congress understand by "bipartisanship."

Feaver's suggestion that you should go dig up quotes where administration members impugn critics' patriotism is just laughable, following only days after over-the-top speeches by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush that do exactly that. Each of them conflated completely separate armed organizations into an undifferentiated "Islamic fascism", and painted critics of the Iraq war, as well as reporters who uncover assaults on civil liberties and the separation of powers, as appeasers and enablers.

Karl Rove in New Hampshire, June 2006
MR. ROVE: Like too many Democrats, it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party’s old pattern of cutting and running. They may be with you at the first shots, but they are not going to be there for the last tough battles. They are wrong, and profoundly wrong, in their approach.

I think a common trait of the conservative faction of any political system has been to attack the patriotism of their opponent when particular assaults on their worldview are made.

Conservatives have always played the patriotism card as a form of intimidation. It's prominent in their playbook.

It's a fool's errand to try to pick out particular instances of conservative accusations of disloyalty when the whole attitude, their very existance is founded on remaining loyal to tradition, the past, the myths built up over time.

Now we find ourselves having to be loyal to the mythos of WWII in a newly contrived WWIII, and if we don't see things as simply as they want us to, we are being disloyal to their version of what it is to be an American.

Conservatives have been calling Liberals traitors forever.

You're going to have trouble with this.

While the Administration has been very careful to refer to critics as "misguided" or "misinformed"...and on occasion have questioned our morals and where our loyalties lie... they have never had the need to flat out lay the label "traitor" on anyone...

No...they have the likes of O'Riely, Coulter (her book "Traitor" is a prime example), Malkin, and Rush to do it for them.

This is a fascinating post and important responses. Even if the list complied becomes one of lots of innuendo and chit chat like that from Anne Coulter, it's valuable as a complete picture of the vile environment that the Republican hate machine has generated without always saying the words themselves explicitly.

What Mr. Clemons has suggested here is really important, even if the "lines themselves" are not as long as the ones the White House may have. They set the temperature of debate and Fox News as the thermostat.

If Senator Hagel made that comment, that is more than enough indication that the tone exists and was White House manufactured. I think that other of Clemons's friends like General Scowcroft, Lawrence Wilkerson, Flynt Leverett, Paul Pillar, and others he has supported who used to be in the Bush administration will also attest to this tone that the Bushies have manufactured.

I just want to say a big thank you to Steven Clemons. I do live in Washington and am only a student, but for those of you who have not had the pleasure to meet him, he is highly approachable and personable. And in groups of young people interested in foreign policy or defense matters, Steven Clemons's name comes up constantly as one who is trying to do something new and unique and better in Washington.

It is nice to have someone to look up to, and I just wanted to admit here that several of my friends and I are inspired by what this blog and Mr. Clemons do at the New American Foundation and other places that he has influence.

Although Washington DC is cluttered with people who often look alike and sound alike, Mr. Clemons is seemingly unique.

Bravo!

Now I will look on lexis nexis for quotes.

The accusation of disloyalty, however overt or subtle, springs from the lips of the Conservatives with such ease because they value loyalty as the highest of attributes no matter what the sins may be of those who lead them, in their faulty opinions or failed ideas. The highest sin for Conservatives is disloyalty to their cause, and they see disloyalty automatically in the political opposition, as they have annointed themselves the only real true Americans, under God. Anyone who is not with their program is being disloyal to America and God, especially Liberals.

This is how we find ourselves overtaken by Conservatives being in "lock-step", The great wurlizter of their propaganda machine, the machine politics of Delay, the K-street project, their "moral clarity" meaning issues being cast in black and white, no shades of gray ........

Ever since Reagan, at least, the insinuation of disloyalty to America was made by the Right, and the drumbeat got stronger over time.

John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" addresses todays strong Conservative trait of authoritianism and blind loyalty.

Strong feelings of loyalty, beget strong feelings of disloyalty against others.

During the American Revolution the conservative faction called themselves Loyalists, and they were called Tories by those who fought for Independance.
Those who fought for Independence were called Rebels by the Loyalist conservatives, and the Independance minded people called themselves Patriots.

What about the following. If it is commonly accepted that "If you are patriotic, then you do not do Q" (e.g. P --> -Q). If you assert that a Democrat or American does Q (e.g. --Q) aren't you also saying that the Dem/American is not patriotic (e.g. -P)? It seems to me that the GOP goes to great efforts to make certain (P --> -Q) statements commonly understood. They also make many --Q assertions (e.g. Q). Thus, they never have to say "-P" though it follows from "--Q".

If you are patriotic then you do not tell terrorists about our NSA wiretapping (even though you have to be foolish to think they didn't expect that). The NYT told terrorists about about NSA wiretapping...

"Senate Democrats were expected to meet Wednesday to discuss several issues, including whether they will try to force a vote of no confidence on Rumsfeld. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has vowed to push legislation next week calling for Rumsfeld to resign.

"Nothing can change the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld insulted the patriotism of the American people, and he needs to be held accountable for it," Boxer said Friday."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_9514.shtml

One point that is being missed here. To any intelligent or moral human being, the strategies employed by this Administration to attack the credibility of it's critics is obvious and undeniable. To imply or state that this administration does not malign the patriotism of its critics is blatantly and purposely dishonest. That makes Feaver nothing more than a liar. By using attack dogs such as the swiftboaters, or scum like O'rielly or Limbaugh, the White House has consistently and relentlessly exhibited a willingness to employ tactics of character assasination that have sunk to a new low, even for the slimey kind of human waste that seems to gravitate towards Washington politics of late. Feaver's challenge is a sham, because he is well aware of how carefully couched the rhetoric oozing out of the Oval Office has been, and how this administration is so adept at casting implications without actually stating them. Feaver has cut his own credibility off here. Either he is a man completely devoid of integrity, or he has been living on another planet these past five years.

.

POA,
Don't forget that the Bush Administration had an attorney who was directly tied to the Swift Boat group. That was direct involvement not some secondary player.

FYI, team,
I dug up a power point presentation by Feaver in my university stuff:

"Cyber Jihad and the Globalization of Warfare
Computer Networks as a Battle Ground in the
Middle East and Beyond"
by
Kenneth Geers, NCIS
Dr. Peter Feaver

elementary teacher

You should be able to download it at:

http://tinyurl.com/qcsm3

Here's the problem with most of the examples brought up so far:

It shows the administration pointing out the effects of criticism, but that is different than stating the motivations of those who criticize. Treason and being unpatriotic has to do with motives, not just results. When Republicans were criticizing Clinton's military policies saying that he was just trying to distract from his scandals, that actually did hurt our country as it made taking action against Al-Qaeda more politically risky. Now am I saying Republicans were being unpatriotic? Nope. I'm saying though that they should have been more careful in their accusations and realized the consequences of their actions.

And it is true that hurting the credibility of the President is damaging to our country. It seriously reduces our ability to be effective at diplomacy for one. Now obviously the main reason for the President's lacking credibility is the President himself, and his continuous lies and deceit. But it is also true that some of the criticism made of the President, both accurate and inaccurate ones, have also been a contributing factor. And so of course any criticism made of the President must be one that the person making has done enough research to be sure that what they are saying is true. But am I saying that it's unpatriotic if such criticism is made, even intentionally untrue ones? Of course not.

And that's been my main problem with the accusations that Bush says people who criticize him are unpatriotic. Is that I have yet to see an example of Bush saying or doing something where the only explanation for such action would be that he is questioning someone's patriotism. And because I believe that saying someone is questioning someone's elses patriotism is a very serious accusation, it should only be made when it is the only logical explanation. And right now, I can come up with various explanations for the Bush's statements and actions besides questioning their patriotism.

HERE'S A GOOD ONE FOR YA STEVE (and so obvious I can't believe your very astute readers didn't mention it thus far)

Dick Cheney, darkly warned that the Connecticut primary victory of antiwar candidate Ned Lamont over Sen. Joseph Lieberman would only encourage "Al Qaeda types." (Interviewed by NEWSWEEK, former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge bridled at his former colleague’s remark: "That may be the way the vice president sees it," he said, "but I don’t see it that way, and I don’t think most Americans see it that way.")
http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/dick-cheney/

Right out of the horses mouth(Cheney being the horse):

"The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060809-2.html

President Dick Cheney said that Lamont's victory was encouraging to “Al Qaeda types
http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2006-08-15.html#44e1a9fa6c4e7

By insinuating that the sizeable majority of American voters who oppose the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy, Vice President Cheney on Wednesday may have crossed the line that separates legitimate political discourse from hysteria.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/14/BL2006081400528_pf.html

Dick Cheney, darkly warned that the Connecticut primary victory of antiwar candidate Ned Lamont over Sen. Joseph Lieberman would only encourage "Al Qaeda types." (Interviewed by NEWSWEEK, former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge bridled at his former colleague’s remark: "That may be the way the vice president sees it," he said, "but I don’t see it that way, and I don’t think most Americans see it that way.")
http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/dick-cheney/

Oh come on, you can't possibly advance that kind of rationalization in honest sincerity.

"And it is true that hurting the credibility of the President is damaging to our country.".....

What a load of horsehit THAT is. You can't "hurt" the credibility of a liar, you can only point out the lies. The damage to his credibility is already done. It is the LIES that dammaged his credibility.

I suggest you reread your own essay. It is twisted morass of confliction. You cannot possibly imply, or believe, that this Administration has not purposely called into question the patriotism of its critics through innuendo, and scripting of the media rhetoric. To deny it is to deny reality. Stop with the intellectual dancing and contrived rationalization, and stop ignoring the obvious. The truth is recorded by history, and not all of us out here in the real world are so fucking stupid that we can't see through this bullshit.

Karen K.....

Sometimes I feel like we have all been drugged to forget...

The astounding regularity by which this administration acts against everything we once stood for has resulted in a massive sensory overload, and impedes our ability to call up specific examples.

"What a load of horsehit THAT is. You can't "hurt" the credibility of a liar, you can only point out the lies. The damage to his credibility is already done. It is the LIES that dammaged his credibility."

Sure you can. There are degrees of credibility after all. And I already pointed out that the administration's lies were the primary reason for his credibility being damaged.

And you say it's "obvious" that Bush has questioned people's patriotism. But then don't go into why. If it's so obvious, it should be easy to make a case for it being so. Although considering that you said in a previous post that anyone who thinks Bush doesn't question people's patriotism is immoral, I imagine you will feel that it's not worth it, because I'm obviously an unitelligent and immoral buffoon.

"And you say it's "obvious" that Bush has questioned people's patriotism. But then don't go into why. If it's so obvious, it should be easy to make a case for it being so."

Again, you imply that reality is a figment of our imagination. Reread this entire thread, there is plenty of evidence offered to support the conclusion that questioning the patriotism of those critical of the Bush Administration is an often used tactic. And the "why" of it has already been explained by the historian's examinations of why Geobbels did it, has it not? If you want to dominate a society, give them a common enemy, and then question the patriotism of any that dare challenge the policies justified by the existence of the "common enemy".

"Although considering that you said in a previous post that anyone who thinks Bush doesn't question people's patriotism is immoral,...."

Yep. Or disconnected from reality.

"....I imagine you will feel that it's not worth it, because I'm obviously an unitelligent and immoral buffoon."

Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing about you, Jeff.

".....I imagine you will feel that it's not worth it, because I'm obviously an unitelligent and immoral buffoon."

Hmm, I missed it on the first read. Maybe you are "uni-telligent". You seem to be the sole poster here that questions a premise the rest of us seem to subscribe to.

But take heart, I could've interpreted the word to mean "possessing one brain cell".

Jeff, I read your comment to people at our pool party in the backyard. One of our token Republicans feels your pain. The question he just asked --and sincerely -- so take this in a kind way:

If 9/11 and the war on terror have indeed been the legitimate reasons for us to "table" our questions so far, patriotically -- and in the name of national security -- clear and present danger,etc -- why wasn't the border totally militarily secured on September 12th, 2001?

Folks, it wasn't always this way. Here's a quote from Theodore Roosevelt.(I got it off bobgeiger.blogspot.com, a site I found out about from Mr Clemons-POA you'd love that blog!)
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. 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."

Ah Jeff...

Come on fellow...I said before this is a silly excerise for all of us.

But the "implications" in comparing critics of this ADMINISTRATION to "those who are anti american" is self evident.

THEY are implying that anyone who doesn't agree with THEIR POLICIES is a traitor. The AMERICAN part is just a fig leaf for THEIR POLICIES.

Like I said before we need to define what is and is not "American"...so far 90% of the universe is saying America is acting very un-like it's former American self under this adm.

Excellent quote karenk!

Because Bush is willing to let political and other interests get in the way of his desire to protect the country? It's been pretty clear for a while that Bush isn't willing to take the necessary steps to truly safeguard our country. He's been unwilling to raise taxes to pay for necessary security spending. He's done a miserable job securing our ports. He's let nuclear proliferation run rampant. In fact one could reasonably say that Bush seems to value his political and other agendas over the security over the American people.

However, this is not to say that Bush doesn't care about the security of the American people, and would not want an action being taken that would jeapordize it, as long as it didn't clash with his own agenda. Too often I see in political discourse a mistake being made that when political figure chooses "x" over "y" it's assumed that the figure didn't care about y. But of course that's not necessarily true, as thinking about how we make our own decisions in life would point out. And so pointing out that Bush didn't safeguard our border on 9/12 isn't a good basis for believing that Bush doesn't care enough about national security to be worried how criticism might undermine it.

Finally, do people think that because I said that Bush puts other interests ahead of securing the country that I'm saying he's not patriotic?

Again, it must be pointed out that only a idiot can fail to see that such defamations are used to discredit those that question the policies of this administration. Who can deny that Kerry's bravery and patriotism was attacked? To refute that fact is sheer idiocy. Are we to believe the "Swiftboaters" were anything other than a construct of the Bush Administration? Such a conclusion is impossible to reach, intellectually or morally.

And, to take this conversation a step further towards the all too neglected realm of REALITY, who can deny that the term "anti-semite" is not being used in the the exact same manner? The tactics of the Israeli propaganda machine, and that of the Bush Administration, share the technique of unfounded character assasination designed to malign the character of any that question the policies of either the Bush Regime or Israel. And it is by no coincidence that these two entities employ divergent strategies, as seperating the neocon agenda from the zionist agenda is nigh on impossible. I tend to foolishly separate the two entities, when a more realistic outlook would be to meld the two as a single entity, and recognize an over-riding zionist/neocon agenda that supercedes the interests of our nation to pursue a grand design for a "final solution" to the "muslim problem".

To really digest the grim reality of our situation on a gut level, it is imperative to question WHY the Bush Administration, and Israel, cannot defend their policies just by the weight of their alleged merits, instead of having to constantly invoke an argument that is solely designed for character assasination and diversion. When one argues their position with lies and character assasination it is an admission that they realize their position is indefensible.

You can call such actions "politics" if you choose to. But I was raised to see deception as sin. Evil, if you will. And when these kinds of deceptions become the stated rationals for causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, (soon to be millions), than the sheer evil of those launching the deceptions can no longer be denied.

Call them what you will, left, right, Republican, Democrat. But the true conflict here is good versus evil. And the "good" is not represented by the left, and the "evil" is not represented by the right. That battle is being waged daily INSIDE OURSELVES, as indiviuduals, and it is only as individuals that we can choose our allies and pick our battles. It is obvious that those such as Feaver have chosen. And I sincerely hope they recieve their just reward. In this life, OR the next.

And Den's words were by far the most astute I have seen here. "Monsters", he called them. And until one realizes that that is EXACTLY what we are dealing with, than it will be impossible to defeat them. Why are we so self-righteous that we believe the "monsters" are only born into societies outside our own? Is it only Germany that can spawn the likes of Adolph Hitler??? Are our own genes incapable of producing an Amin?

Hang onto your asses, folks, because THESE monsters, OUR monsters, are about to take us for a ride that will make Hitler's show seem like little more than a matinee.

Finally, do people think that because I said that Bush puts other interests ahead of securing the country that I'm saying he's not patriotic?

Posted by Jeff

Uh oh. Now you are going to cast the lying treasonous AWOL monkey as a patriot? Who sends our kids off to die on the basis of unmitigated lies??? Who wipes his ass with our constitution? Who abides the outing of intelligence agents as an act of revenge? Who appoints inexperienced inept cronies to head the agencies designed to protect our lives and our interests?

Please, spare me.

Sorry if my last post was confusing. I meant to address it to elementary school teacher.

Pissed Off American - I understand your anger. I really do. I do not mean to imply in any way that I support the attacks this administration makes on others. They often make unfair accusations that misrepresent the people they are attacking, and it infuriates me when I see people I know having assumnptions about people the administration has attacked that are not true, but they believe it because of what the administration said.

But it is because of my passion to make sure that people are not unfairly accused, that I also am very uncomfortable with the claim that Bush is calling people traitors or unpatriotic.

Let us not forget the Karl Rove-blessed Republican efforts - Feaver can do his own Lexis-Nexis research at his own expense to confirm facts - in 2004 to smear George Soros' PATRIOTIC civic actions (previously analyzed) in connection with the presidential election of that year. George's patriotic involvement in the work to select a new American president was confronted by countless Republican elected officials, affiliated Republican sycophants and Republican polemicists operating in the vast ambit of carefully targeted RNC public opinion formation efforts. These diverse actors attacked George Soros as a foreign-born American (i.e. a "forenurr") unauthorized to act in domestic public debate, as someone unauthorized to help in choosing an American president, as a "liberal elite", as a billionaire who made his fortune through corruption and sought to purchase influence in public debate and as someone who - they said - sought to undermine the "war on terrah" and "the troops". Without saying George Soros was "unpatriotic" per se, none of the implications listed above - all made - are traits associated with a patriot, and foreignness in particular is easily elided into the interests of The Enemy in The South, Texas and the Heartland, all places of furious Republican public opinion efforts, until very recently systematically unanswered by progressives. All of these many comments against George Soros were made to intimidate him and silence him. The solution? Go on the offense: Make a donation. Call her office. Tell your friends and contacts about her existence. Support her efforts to put Texas in play in November.
http://www.radnofsky.com/

Alas, I see Godwin's Law has been demonstrated again...

But I'd still like an answer to my question regarding modus tollens. Tom DeLay stated, during the tax cut debate, that "nothing is as important in a time of war than cutting taxes". It's not hard to see this as being a premise such as: "If you are patriotic then you won't fail to do something to cut taxes in a time of war." The next thing to say is "Democrats don't WANT to cut taxes in a time of war." (Note that this is not an outcome or tactic, but motivation: Dems DO NOT WANT to cut taxes during a time of war.) It follows from logical construction that Democrats are not patriotic because the didn't WANT to cut taxes. (That's just a random example and I definitely put more into it than was meant but I think that was one of the most absurd comments I've heard a poltician ever utter and people should remember it.)

The GOP spends a lot of time, IMO, constructing such "P --> Q" premises and conveniently noting that Dems are for "-Q" and hence "-P" (e.g. patriotism). Does that not count? That's how the debate is being "framed" if you will. If you care about the country, you won't try to prevent X (NSA wiretapping, torturing prisoners, etc.). Dems and the elites at the NYT are trying to prevent X, hence they don't care about our country. I say that intentional development of "P-->Q" premises is the same, but provides cover since they don't have to say "-P" explicitly, even though there is no other logical outcome. The beauty of this construction is that you can construct other premises "X-->-Q" for many actions or views. It doesn't matter if you state "-P" explicitly if you construct premises that logically lead to it.

So I'll ask again, does "intentially" constructing premises such that the only logical outcome is that a critic is unpatriotic count or not? I'm not saying that such intentional construction exists, but is it fair game or not? To me, it seems that such a scenario is equivalent to stating someone is unpatriotic. There may be some cover, but it is ultimately the same.

Analyze in detail:

http://www.rightnation.us/

This is a source of news frequented by public servants working in the Executive branch of government. You will find lots of commentary on the meaning of patriotism.

GQ is right to draw our attention to this device of logic. A concise description of modus tollens presentation is offered here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

It's worth understanding. Feaver ought to examine it himself.

If I understand your question, GQ, of course such techniques "count" in public opinion formation efforts. They're extremely effective when used with concerted repetition.

"The Democrats don't support the troops." How many times have you heard that, either said outright or implied.

Am I to get the idea that Democrats are patriotic Americans, or unpatriotic?

Maybe Democrats are just mis-guided, or morally confused, since the Republicans would never accuse anyone of being unpatriotic. Let's just say Democrats are an inferior class of American citizen. Every country has these ignorant disaffected types that are best ridiculed, talked down to, better yet, ignored.

Support the Troops!

Publius,

In my view there has been a concerted effort to do the following:

1. It's pretty common knowledge that if you are patriotic (P), then you will not want to help the terrorists or undermine the war on terror (-HT). In formal terms: "P --> -HT".

2. Make a strong concerted effort to say that if you do X (e.g. expose the NSA programs) then you are helping the terrorists or undermining the war on terror. In formal terms "X --> HT".

2*. Assert that Democrats WANT to do X. Or, similarly, the whole Rovian construction is such that if you are a Democrat (D), you want to do X. Formally, "D --> X".

3. Assume people will make the only logical conclusion: "D --> X --> HT" but "HT == --HT". And if you have "--HT" then you obviously have "-P".

I'm asking if Steve and Feaver accept that. Furthermore, you don't even need to have 1. because simply asserting "X --> HT" is bad enough. But 1. is part of the overall strategy so that all you have to say is Democrat and you have to logically accept that they are unpatriotic.

My suggestion for Democrats would be to have another Senate closure and have a detailed discussion of what the Democrats plan for security is and how calling for accountability will not help terrorists (remove 2.) They have to do something spectacular like the Senate closure because Bush will just call a press conference and keep the media away from the Dems. If Bush and the GOP want to play dirty like this, the Democrats have to adapt to this strategy. Hell, I'd close down the Senate in the middle of Bush's latest PR campaign speech. But perhaps that's why I'll never be in the Senate.

George Bush on NSA Spy scandal (need I remind you recently found unconstitutional...)

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first question. There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.

You've got to understand -- and I hope the American people understand -- there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous. And the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. Now, I can understand you asking these questions and if I were you, I'd be asking me these questions, too. But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.

----------------------------

Lt. it's not quite that simple. They won't come out and say Dems don't support the troops. What they will do is have a qualifier: "If you don't vote for dividend tax breaks then you will make the war effort harder. If you make the war effort more difficult, then you don't support the troops. Democrats didn't want to vote for dividend tax breaks." That's the same as saying Democrats don't support the troops without having to say it explicitly. Look at the GOP construction. They are all over the news saying we need to do X to support the war and the troops.

Sorry everyone, this is a pet theory so I'm a little hung up on it. But it fits the data pretty well.

GQ - thanks for the thoughtful posts.

The problem I see is with this

"Tom DeLay stated, during the tax cut debate, that "nothing is as important in a time of war than cutting taxes". It's not hard to see this as being a premise such as: "If you are patriotic then you won't fail to do something to cut taxes in a time of war."

I wish you hadn't used Delay, since he's one of the Republicans I actually do believe questions people's patriotism. However even in the above case I don't think it's as clear cut.

To illustrate this I'll use an example. Here's a sentence:

"Nothing is as important in times of terrorist attacks than securing our border".

Does this sentence imply that someone who doesn't secure the borders isn't patriotic? If not, how is this sentence different than the one you quoted? (besides it being rational). Let's assume Delay actually does believe cutting taxes in very important in times of war. He's loony enough that it's actually plausible to assume he believes it.

Right now, on HNN I am watching that blathering ass Chris Beck, and some gal from "The Hudson Institute" call the UN the "propaganda arm of Hezbollah". Does anyone here actually believe that to be the case? Well, then perhaps you might buy the fact that Chris Beck is part of the "propaganda arm of the Bush Administration".

Carroll. You said - "But the "implications" in comparing critics of this ADMINISTRATION to "those who are anti american" is self evident.

THEY are implying that anyone who doesn't agree with THEIR POLICIES is a traitor. The AMERICAN part is just a fig leaf for THEIR POLICIES."

Could you give me an example? I know this comparison has happened, but I want to see a specific example, because in many of those comparisons I can think of a plausible alternative explanation besides an implication that critics are anti-american.

Paging Mr. Valdron. Will Den Valdron please pick up the pink courtesy phone?

I've got book recommendation for you & I need your thoughts on an idea. I set up one of those free e-mails, so send up a flare whenever you check in.

Jeff, I'm glad you omitted the very important part of the whole DeLay reference where I state explicitly that I was just poking fun at DeLay and that the quote shouldn't be taken as an example. Did you accidently miss that clear statement or are you being intentionally deceptive? I'd really like to know the answer to that question because you don't discuss the logical framework I mention AFTER that *admittedly* facetious example (I state that explicitly only a few sentences later).

Dishonesty cheapens the debate. I'm happy for you to criticize the logical framework I discussed later, but focusing on the DeLay quote is dishonest if done intentionally. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one because I should have used a real example instead of poking fun at DeLay.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

"Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century? Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Remarks from the American Goebbels before the New York Conservative Party, 6/22/06. (And no, the comparison is not over the top. Were the two men switched in time and nation, each would be perfectly comfortable in the role of the other.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400097.html

"Jeff". Are you denying that this administration uses the tactic of questioning the patriotism of its critics, (either outright or through insinuation)?

Yes or no? (without all the convoluted intellectual bullshit)

Again. YES OR NO????

Despiteyour friendship withthe likes of Feaver, he has consistently carried water for the worst aspects of the Bush White House. This is obviously a phonied up game played by a smarmy academic.

"Paging Mr. Valdron. Will Den Valdron please pick up the pink courtesy phone?"

Hmmm. Something t