COMMENTS:
"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. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. 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. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Teddy Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918
The scary bit about what AM just said- Zell Miller decried the Democratic Party for getting away from its core values and losing its identity, when it's just been made clear that the Republican Party has done the same by failing to heed the words of one of its greatest leaders.
It is unpatriotic to not tell the truth, even it is dissent.
No, as an elected official he is open to critisism no matter when.
by ABC on Wed Jan 26, 05 5:03pm
[+]
I don't think it is either, but I think there is a fine line to what you say about the war itself, if the enemy thanks all he has to do is kill enough americans and american people will demand the troops to come home, they may not surrender . The Iraq war is so different though, I really don't know.
thinks I meant to say
Had the war been legal, then would there be so much dissent?
no steelmaster, would still have pretty much the same people against it, I think
Not when it's a bogus war created out of whole cloth by the 'commander-in-chief', IMO.
by mojo on Wed Jan 26, 05 8:50pm
[+]
"no steelmaster, would still have pretty much the same people against it, I think "
I would have supported it if it were legit and had a valid reason. But it doesn't. And the reasons keep changing. It's a joke.
As long as it keeps to constructive criticism, and isn't an outright backing of the enemy.
Not in a free society. Frankly, though, my patriotism is at an all-time low.
Not unpatriotic at all -- especially if you disagree with the reasons which we're in war for.
How many times is everyone going to have to answer this?
jigsaw,if the un had supported the war, I think I would still be against it, if things were as they are now.
It is not unpatriotic to criticize a leader, at any time.
It is unpatriotic to place a leader above a country's basic principles and ethics; they have transferred their loyalty from country to an individual or party.
soooooo..... should hitler have been critisized?
You were either with Hitler or against him.
Republichimps are just howling because their little boy leader can't stand a little heat, or a little truth. And, apparently, neither can they.
Cretin Slap - I'm sure I've heard that somewhere else in the past couple of years...... oh yeah, I remember
Or is it that Americans don't want leftist twats running our country?
Much better to have Right Wing twats instead huh.
This is a strawman argument. Nobody has made this claim.
"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," said Bush. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
I am against the war in Iraq, which fucked up psychopath Bush pretends is part of the War on Terror. Therefore Bush sees me as against him. Does that mean he thinks I am some sort of terrorist? How can inactivity make me an enemy of anyone? The man is clearly insane. Which makes it all the more delicious when the weird people start defending him (by moaning about Clinton or something).
herz: I disagree. I hear that all the time. I wish you'd tell these people it is a "strawman argument" ... it would save me time.
It doesn't have to come from a public figure to be a valid question.
No, but it is unpatriotic to criticize people for doing so because THAT is anti-free-speech.
It is not unpatriotic to criticize the Commander-in-Chief just so long as you criticize just his mistakes and/or his inactions which could lead to a defeat.
No America is supposed to be a democracy your founding fathers would have wanted you to have the right to criticize your president instead of being called anti American just because you disagree with him.
by seon on Mon Jan 31, 05 12:25am
[+]
We are not at war for the last time. It is already over we won. Saddam is out, Iraq is being rebuilt. We are trying to keep the peace.
Yes it is absolutely unpatriotic to crticize the President during wartime.In fact we should all get down on our knees and pray five times a day towards D.C to ensure that Jesus guildes our leader's hand.
|
