In a speech on April 22, 2006 at Faneuil Hall, John Kerry spoke out against Republican efforts to portray dissent from Bush’s disastrous policies in Iraq as treason. Bush and his allies have mounted this attack over and over since 9/11, attempting to smear and destroy any political opposition to their failed policies.
We’re returning to this speech in light of this weekend’s remarks by Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Gonzales attacking critics of President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program, which a federal judge ruled unconstitutional in August. (More details on their attacks appear after Kerry’s remarks.)
Here are a few excerpts from Kerry’s speech last spring (
the full text and the video are on the website):
“I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.
I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.
Snip...
In the speech, Kerry summarizes the history of attacks on dissent from failed foreign adventures, lays out the pernicious tenants of the “Bush-Cheney Doctrine,” and describes the growing similarities between the failure of the war in Vietnam and the failure of Bush’s war in Iraq. Read it.
Cheney Demonizes Dissent at the Federalist Society, November 17, 2006On Friday, Vice President Cheney spoke to the Federalist Society, the organization than more than any other has nurtured and developed the cadre of law professors and lawyers whom Bush has turned to again and again for his contentious judicial nominations. The following quote comes from the text as posted on the
White House website. The White House-supplied indications of “laughter” and “applause” in this official text give a good sense of what members of the Federalist Society find amusing or inspiring:
“Yet none of these considerations was persuasive to a federal district court in the state of Michigan, which ruled three months ago that the NSA program violated the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The court found, among other factors, that warrantless surveillance of terrorist-related communications would cause irreparable injury to the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs. (Laughter.) ….
--clip--
The district court's opinion -- which The New York Times called "careful and thoroughly grounded" -- (Laughter.) -- did not distinguish any of those prior federal decisions. Nor, indeed, did the district court even cite those decisions.
The district court also held that the Terrorist Surveillance Program violates the doctrine of separation of powers. We, of course, disagree and expect to prevail on that issue as well. But since we're on the subject of separation of powers, one conclusion is hard to escape: the Michigan district court's decision is an indefensible act of judicial overreaching. (Applause.)
As law students and lawyers, of course, all of you understand that a given point of view isn't necessarily correct, or even persuasive, merely because it's been handed down by a judge. There's a reason these things are called opinions. (Laughter.) But the Michigan decision is something altogether different, and it's very troubling: It is a court order tying the hands of the President of the United States in the conduct of a war. And this is a matter entirely outside the competence of the judiciary. (Applause.)
--clip--
And the judicial branch has no business directing national security policy for this country. (Applause.)
Gonzales Says Critics Pose “A Grave Threat”On Saturday, November 18, 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales picked up the cudgels in a talk to 400 cadets from the Air Force Academy’s political science and law classes. Critics of the warrantless surveillance program were taking a “shortsighted” view, Gonzales said:
“Its (the critics') definition of freedom -- one utterly divorced from civic responsibility -- is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
