Cliff LyonJohn’s Dilemma: Dissent and Be Censored, or Deny?
One of our more softspoken readers, “ldsnomore” started a small fire with her question, “when did dissent become heresy in our country?”
John of Argghhh! responded, “Good question - as long as we recognize that it didn’t just suddenly materialize when Rove moved into the White House.”
To be satisfied with “it didn’t just suddenly materialize” is, well…you decide.
I remind John there have been a number of books written and documentaries made on the subject of the Bush admin’s squashing of dissent from blocking of news stories, and gov’t reports (NASA, global warming) to straight up over-zealous classification of anything marginally out of line with the “ideology”. From Valerie Plame, firings, threats thereof, and embedded reporters, to the attempt to censor the CPB with Kenneth Tomlinson, the Bush administration’s use of every tactic available to prevent any dissent from within and without is simply without precedent.
Let just address the defense that “it didn’t start with Rove.” I believe it did.
If my gentle friend John of Argghhh can refute the statement below (in bold), I will post a public apology.
From here …and please don’t attack the messenger. Please address the facts.
[A]t least seven U.S. Attorneys forced to resign without cause, without any allegations of misconduct…The public response has been shock. Peter Nunez, who served as the San Diego U.S. Attorney from 1982 to 1988, has said, ‘This is like nothing I’ve ever seen in my 35-plus years.’
He went on to say that while the President has the authority to fire a U.S. Attorney for any reason, it is ‘extremely rare’ unless there is an allegation of misconduct.
As a matter of fact, the rumor has it — and this is only rumor — that U.S. Attorney Lam, who carried out the prosecution of the Duke Cunningham case, has other cases pending whereby, rumor has it, Members of Congress have been subpoenaed.
I encourage other concerned OneUtah readers to point us to other cases of dissent-squishing which are unprecedented since Hoover. I’ll post them below.
Bush Squashes Dissent in Military
Doesn’t it tell us something about the administration’s awareness of the depth and breadth of its failures that it feels compelled to mobilize so many of its resources against six retired veterans exercising their First Amendment rights?
Americans who care about our country should be very skeptical of the administration’s line that no military dissent–not even from retirees–is ever permissible. As a nation, we need to ask ourselves some very uncomfortable questions about the rise of hyper-political defense secretaries, the politicization of military affairs by both Republicans and Democrats, the isolation of the president from frank military advice and civilian interference in the smallest details of combat operations.
When a presidential administration will not tolerate honorable, legal criticism from those who dedicated their lives to uniformed service, we should be far more worried about ideologues in power than about a few retired infantrymen on pensions.
USA Today: Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship
CNN’s top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN “was intimidated” by the Bush administration and Fox News, which “put a climate of fear and self-censorship.”
Perhaps John can point us to an example of Congress addressing censorship under Clinton.
“Bush administration censorship key issue in next Congress”
Nearly a year after NASA climatologist James Hansen accused federal officials of censoring his views on global warming, scientific freedom is shaping up as a key issue for the next Congress, Environment & Energy Daily reported in its #1 story on November 17. We said to E&E Daily: “Mr. Waxman and Mr. Gordon [incoming chairs of the House Government Reform and Science committees] have both been on the case, even as ranking members in the current Congress. I don’t think they’re going to be stonewalled without some kind of response.†We also expect legislation that would offer federal scientists improved whistleblower protections.
This one confirms “[censorship] it didn’t just suddenly materialize when Rove moved into the White House.” - Bush senior did this too.
Bush Afraid to let American People See Deadly Reality of Needless War
Clinton NEVER did this.
How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech
…or this
Distruction of property, that’s censorship and that’s what happened.
…or this
Bush Team Squeezes Farmers, Stifles Dissent
Organic farmers were as surprised as other members of the organic community when the USDA appointed five new members to the National Organic Standards Board without any public comment. This break with traditional consensus and public input undermines federal law, which indicates that the organic standards board should be balanced and represent the organic community as a whole, not agribusiness.
I’m sure that the USDA realizes that it is much easier to eliminate dissent at the outset and fill the board with friendly faces — no sense inviting opposition to your intended goals of making organic farming another source of profit for corporate agriculture.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Cliff, did you miss the story about how the Bush administration won’t let the National Park Service tell anyone the age of the Grand Canyon?
“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,†stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’â€
January 17th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Ok, I’m going to hit reverse gear here. When I read the PEER press release, it seemed a little too snarky to be true. After all, they have permanent displays in the Grand Canyon visitor centers that do give the geologic age of the canyon. The debunk by Michael Shermer appeared on HuffPo today.
January 17th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
How bizarre! For the record, the age of the Grand Canyon is not an affront to Mormonism! But there are probably Mormons who don’t understand their religion who would be offended, sadly to say.
In reading the story, however, I wasn’t sure that the national park people can’t still give their opinion that Grand Canyon is much older than a Biblical Fundamentalist claims. They were just miffed that a creationist book would sell alongside other more scientific books.
It’s a silly book, but I support its sale at National Parks as an alternate point of view. Discerning people will be able to discern the falsehood.
BTW, I think it was Genesis chapter 52 that says “And when the waters receded from the earth there appeared a Grand Canyon. And Noah said, “Holy crap! That wasn’t there before!!!”
January 17th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Frank,
I’m going to give you a pass on “It’s a silly book, but I support its sale at National Parks as an alternate point of view. Discerning people will be able to discern the falsehood.”
But only remind you, by the same logic we should put Holocaust denial books next to history books. I could go on and on.
A more important point (and I know well Mormons are not literalistic on this), if God created the sun on the 4th day (I believe) how do we know the first three weren’t 4.5 billions years?
January 17th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Michael Shermer pointed out that the creationist book is sold in the same section where they have books on Native American creation myths. Nothing inappropriate, and PEER should be ashamed of inflating a very, very minor book controversy into a claim that the National Park Service was being censored by the Bush administration.
January 17th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Indeed PEER should be ashamed.
But if the Bush Administration weren’t so infamous for these kinds of things, it probably would never have occurred to them or at least wouldn’t have gotten the legs it did.
January 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Cliff,
You said:
I agree exactly. I think that time as we know it could not have existed until he divided the light from the darkness.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if the previous admins didn’t censor. If you can, you often will. That’s only human.
I’d like to turn this issue inside out for a second and mention that censoring of photos of dead U.S. soldiers or children bombed to bits, is only one form of censorship, meant to keep us distant from the horror that is war. The other, and I believe every bit as ominous, is the lid being placed on the records that ‘our’ government keeps, making them either not available, or the path to them, so hoop ridden that you only get your hands on documents you seek long after the issue you’re exploring is down listed by two or three years worth of new scandal / horror, or simply ceasing documentation altogether. Again, no doubt previous admins. screened and censored these requests, but, I don’t think anywhere near the extent that the Bush group does. Further, in the case of job development numbers, they always seem to be reported at one level (good news for the admin), then a week or so later, restated to reflect the really not-so-good reality.
Censorship takes many forms, not all of which are we familiar with.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
He, he, he, he,he,…..hooohaaa.
January 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Similar to the statement made by Fred Marsch during his portrayal of William Jennings Bryan n the movie classic “Inherit the Wind,” the Bush administration is more concerned with the Rock of Ages than the age of rocks.
For bringing trouble to our house, Bush will, someday, inherit the wind.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Caveat - I disagree that “photos of dead US soldiers” are censored to “keep us distant from the horrors of war” They are censored out of respect. No mother should have to see her dead son on the TV, period. Publishing those photos is ghoulish. If the Bush Administration wanted to “keep us distant from the horrors of war” they would simply seal up the country and keep the reporters out. Anything that reached the outside world via Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya could just be dismissed as propaganda. To be honest, I would mind a little more censorship on this subject. Can you imagine the outcry if images of the landing on Omaha beach were beamed into American living rooms on June 7, 1944? Not everybody seems to grasp it, but people die in war and those soldiers in Iraq today are volunteers. I don’t think the majority appreciate being used as pawns by those who would hammer the administration over the head with the dangers they face.
Back to the topic of the post - The most glaring example I can give from the Clinton Adminsitration is the FBI file business.
“ALEXANDER et al. v. FBI, et. al.
Civil Action No. 96-2123. Judicial Watch is representing the plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed by White House employees of the Bush and Reagan administrations whose FBI files were wrongly accessed by the Clinton White House. The White House and FBI are being sued under the federal Privacy Act, while the individual defendants B Bernard Nussbaum, Craig Livingstone, Anthony Marceca and Hillary Clinton B are being sued for common-law tort of invasion of privacy.”
900 FBI files? What do you suppose their purpose was? I’d say intimidation.
Hey, why don’t we ask Vince Foster “Where was dissent squashed harder”? Oh, wait, he’s dead.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Diane,
“They are censored out of respect?” We don’t’ censor out of respect. As offensive as that is to our sensibilities, it is well-established constitutional law. I apologize if you did not know that.
Which would explain the statement, “If the Bush Administration wanted to “keep us distant from the horrors of war†they would simply seal up the country and keep the reporters out.”
That would also be against the constitutional law as well, and that is why Bush has done everything within his power to intimidate journalist.
This is not about our sensibilities, its about our fundamental American principles and THE LAW.
If you wanna talk about feelings thats fine. I don’t think you can say for sure how an Iraq mother feels about pictures of her dead or wounded child, but it really doesn’t matter for the purposes of this discussion.
This is about how the president has exceeded his authority to squash dissent and the very ideals for which American soldiers are fighting and dying. (free speech, free press)
Are ya with me?
January 17th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Cliff - The discussion had to do with the reason for the DOD policy regarding photos of war dead. Caveat said it was to shield the public from the horrors of war. I said it was to shield the families. The press censors out of respect all the time. In the case of the photos of war dead, they had to because of DOD policy. No need to apologize, clearly you misunderstood what I was saying.
What law would be violated if the Bush administration kept the press out of a war zone in a foreign country? Do you imagine Jefferson or Madison would have thought twice over keeping the press out of the Tripolitan War theatre? I don’t.
The only journalists who need feel intimidated are those who go with preconcieved notions and a plan to spin the story.
I imagine an Iraqi mother would feel the same as an American mother, or an English mother, or a Chinese mother………you are correct, that has nothing to do with the discussion.
As far as your opinion that the President has exceeded his authority, no…I am decidedly not with you.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
That’s it Diane. Get your ass to the woodshed.
Will someone else please help Diane. I can’t do this without getting crazy.
John? Are you there? help?
January 17th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Diane,
Caveat did said why he thinks Bush censors the casket photos. But I think Caveat did not say it was legal.
I think we are all clear it is unconstitutional.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I didn’t say it was legal. I said it was DOD policy. The photos in question were released after FOIA requests were filed. Caveat ascribed a motive to the DOD policy. I disagreed.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Hello, All, and Diane especially. You have restated the position that not showing the returning coffins is to diminish the burdon on the families of the dead. I respect that. You also stated that in wars, people die. True. My point, (and this may be better described as ‘my feeling’), was not of a legal nature, it was that Americans might not be so hot on war if they had the sense that it were something other than some video game or Hollywood production. That the pain, destruction, etc on all participants is immeasurable, sad, often unwarrented. So far, only slightly more that three thousand local families, moms, dads, sons, daughters, grand parents, friend, etc, you get the picture, have felt this. That is way too many for the specious excuses that the admin. used to foment this travesty. Granted, these guys and gals (all of us, in fact), are volunteers, but none of us should be so abused for such corrupt causes. I respect the volunteer, but not the perpetrators of illegal wars. There should be investigations into the seeds of this mayhem and murder. Posthaste.
January 17th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
These investigations should be ‘live-blogged’ and, on television. Gavel to gavel.
January 17th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
another fine example of censoring the messanger by destroying their weapon… (CAMERA)
http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2006/11/war-on-journalism.html
January 18th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Cliff, yer abusing me.
I simply observed it didn’t start with Rove. Abundantly provable (Rose Law Firm records, anyone?). Going back to time immemorial.
You’re using me mostly out of context to flog me to make your point that you don’t like Rove and you think that Bush stifles more dissent than any administration in history.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it didn’t start with Rove.
I’m not arguing your point - I’m arguing your portrayal of it as something new under the sun, rather than as a matter of magnitude.
My personal experience is that I got a lot more official command policy letters telling me what I could and could not say as a serving officer under the Clinton Administration than I’ve seen while working for the government under the Bush administration.
That’s one narrow viewpoint. You care more because the views *you* like and think are correct are the ones being suppressed. Were you, will you be as supportive when the views being suppressed are ones you think are wrong, or inimical to your interests? Or will you find nice, neat policy reasons to suppress them. Or simply suppress them because, well, they’re inimical to your policy interests.
It’s a disease of both sides. And you have to understand the context of it if you are *really* going to do anything about it.
But, as you so noted at my place - you’re a progressive, only today and tomorrow matter. The past isn’t of interest.
January 18th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Diane,
Your position re photos of war dead might make sense if it were not for the fact that even flag draped coffins containing dead soldiers are not generally allowed to be shown. No, it is clear that such photos are not shown because of the resulting impact on the American viewer.
January 18th, 2007 at 9:53 am
John,
What the hell does the Rose law firm and its records have to do with dissent, heresy or dividing the nation?
January 18th, 2007 at 10:50 am
clinton was every bit as able a fascist on the left, as bush is for the right. I can’t believe that any one not in coma these last 14 years, is a partisan of any of these people and their politics.
They are all on the same team, one drives the Christians crazy, the other the npr crowd. The Hegelian dialectic at work, and never shall the twain meet, nor will they serve the public, the division is to make the way clear for the corporate barons to rule us easily. Open wide and swallow. There’s a good public…, now jump, now fight, now pay taxes. Decider says,… surge. Those not quick enough to grovel, are out.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Diane. I do not think that the soldiers over there are being used as pawns to beat Bush over the head with, if that is thier belief, they’re in need of a tune-up. Rather, they are being used as pawns BY the Bush admin, and should be way hot to end that abuse. I think many of them are.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Did you see “Meet the Press” last Sunday? National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley implied that our troops in Iraq are not only pawns, they are being held hostage so that Congress will support a policy the majority of Americans are against.
MR. RUSSERT: If Congress decides to cut off funds for the new troops being deployed to Iraq, will the president accept that decision by Congress and abide by it?
MR. HADLEY: Tim, we’re not there yet. We have funds in the ‘07 appropriations bill to deploy these troops. I think once they get in harm’s way, Congress’ tradition is to support those troops.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Nephi - The sight of flag draped coffins elicit different reactions from different people. You feel that people would feel despair. Some would. Some would not. However, the few times this conversation has come up between myself and someone in the military, they state the photos are banned out of respect. I believe them. This is not the first administration to ban such photos. Different administrations have enforced it to different degrees. It was a DOD policy. When the very people who volunteer to risk their lives in my defense say it is out of respect….I believe them.
Caveat - As far as soldier’s being used as pawn’s by the Bush Administration, I have never spoken to one who feels that way. I have read of a few in the mainstream media. NPR can always come up with them (maybe dissenting soldiers register with them), but members of the military and veterans I speak with tell me that is a very small minority. I find that DOD meeting their enlistment and retention goals substaniates that view.
Also, I don’t know what “tune-up” means where you come from, but where I come from it means to beat up someone who is acting like an idiot. Hopefuly it means something different where you are from.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Diane, I am a veteran, and that’s how I feel. Read Smedly Butler’s , ‘War is a Racket’.
Rhetorically, ‘tune-up’ might be better defined as ‘pull your head out’. My apologies for the fuzziness.
Lastly, I will confess that you all are entitled to your war, who are we to keep you from it. Grow it BIG. I’m not playing, I’m headed to my gated community for a breather.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Diane,
I’m starting to feel like my time in Iraq was as a pawn in Bush’s service. He doesn’t really appear to want to win this thing! The reality of insecurity and mutual murder between Sunni and Shia couldn’t have hardly diverged further from the “plan”, which was hastily concocted and then never really carried out. It’s hard to believe Bush (and/or all his people) is really as incompetent as he seems, but maybe he is.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Frank, behind much of the ratiional for this war, was the qualifier that it be enduring. Go on and on, so as to justify the retooling of the war industry and its supporters. Noble, but requiring an extended effort, like toppling 5 or 7 countries in six years. That, the reawakening of the nuke effort, and the reach for supremacy in space, ought to do it.
I am glad to have been here for your admission, (above). Bless and Keep you. Best, Cav.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Frank - I am terribly sorry you feel this way. It must be very difficult.
(before the rest of you jump on me, there was absolutely no sarcasm in that statement.)
January 19th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
…and there is no sarcasm in this Diane. Your reservation is confirmed. Pack SPF 36.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:03 am
I would suggest that it is in fact, Very Difficult to ultimately conclude, or even admit to the possibility, that there is something amiss with our wonderful democracy. That a president, appointed by the supreme court, a number of whose members were appointed themselves by the candidates own father, a candidate, whom, on the platform of restoring dignity to the whitehouse; a candidate who’s favorite philosopher was the ‘lord and savior’ himself; a man, now president, who then allows all of the intel on a pending terrorist attack to sit on his desk while he clears brush at the ranch; the very same person who then allows, and actively promotes the neocon lie about wmd, unmanned drones, mushroom clouds, and on and on, in the face of weapon inspector and U.N. ‘boots-on-the-ground’, informed naysaying, as though it had been the plan all along, even though he, himself may have been taken somewhat by surprise at the reality of its coming into being. Still he GLOATS, Bring it on!
Given the weight of all the catapulted propaganda, given the weight of the anthrax and plane crashes, given the weight of the latent, inherent ‘rightness’ of all this death and destruction, given all this and lots more, and most importantly, given OUR roll in this…Yes, coming to doubt that our leaders have it right this time is Very Difficult.
I commend, salute, and thank, all who do awaken, and come to the peaceful path.
January 20th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Cliff - I guess I’ll have to use the excuse of being new to your blog. Can I buy a vowel? Are you suggesting I go to Iraq? If I had a skill that was useful there and they would take me…..I would.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Diane,
Please refer to the Dante quote …and loyalty
January 20th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Diane,
It is difficult to have the conflicting feelings that I do, but I’m learning a great deal from them. I’m still glad that I served in Iraq. I made friends and memories that I hope will last a lifetime. I hope I gave them a little bit of what’s good about America. But the more I look at the condescending and plodding way the Bush administration goes about its business in Iraq, I can’t help but be angry.
When I was there, elections and the referendum went off nary a hitch. It appeared that things were going well, but unbeknownst to me, a lot of the damage had already been done. Stupid(?) mistakes at the outset have made the situation in Iraq much more difficult than it should be.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Frank,
I appreciate your wariness of the democratic party. That qualifies you to be a good democrat. Democrats get no slack from democrats. Therein lies the fundamental difference between the parties.
The success of the 100 hours agenda is worth applauding. Notice our cautious skepticism. We are democrats. We are suspicious.
So we will applaud politely while the republicans smirk.
But we must support them in the PR campaign to pressure the Senate to pass and the ‘Decider’ to sign the damn legislation. And we must stay loud.
Its another new day. Only we can fuck it up.
Thank you again for serving. The depth of your seeking soul and your humility are inspiring. Honest answers come out of personal humility and success from the people working together humbly.
When we meet someday, you get a bear hug.
Love Peace,
Cliff
January 20th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Cliff,
Thanks for your kind words. And you’re welcome.
I’ve been a blogomaniac today, probably because the legislature is in session. In my attempt to be an equal-opportunity skeptic, on Simple Utah Mormon Politics I wrote opposing Democrat-sponsored legislation (seat-belt laws), and opposing Republican-sponsored legislation (which would repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students).http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-want-to-wear-my-seat-belt-thank-you.html
January 21st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Cliff - LOL, the last thing you can call me is neutral. Guess you’re not paying attention to your own line of reasoning. Unless of course you are “sending” me there. In that case, I love how you’re handling dissent.
Frank - I am positive you “gave them a little bit of what’s good about America”.