>>”We see the same thing in the United States, information, politics, and rhetoric see those who are not willing to march to the beat of “War on Terror” drummer-boy Bush are roundly criticized for being unpatriotic and for supporting terrorist regimes, and the people themselves have, for the most part, willingly allowed this stifling of debate.”

SL, can we, once and for all, dispense with the ” stifling of debate ” myth? The divide over the WoT is not simply one side taking criticism for being unpatriotic, supporting terrorist regimes, etc, and feeling too intimidated to respond. Those who oppose Bush do respond, and they do so with as much vitriol and venom as their opponents. To suggest otherwise is to be wilfully blind.

Bush’s policy in fighting the WoT has been savagely and frequently attacked, in the mainstream media, the blogosphere, and in the streets. There is no evidence to support your claim that those who oppose Bush have been largely cowed. How can there be, when it simply isn’t happening?

I find it incomprehensible that you can suggest this, when Bush was routinely and maliciously labeled a deserter during the last presidential campaign. You call that “stifling debate?”

>>”Mike, can you provide me with a list of media personnel who were either fired or disciplined for supporting the invasion of Iraq? ”

Balbulican, what does that have to do with the fact that there is a plethora of dissent and debate in the U.S., in relation to Iraq, the broader WoT, and basically everything Bush touches? If there are people holding back out of fear of losing their jobs, you’d never know it by the number of critics, and the level of their invective.

Do you agree that SL’s claim has any validity, given the fact that Bush was labeled a deserter throughout the 2004 presidential campaign? Did any journalists lose their jobs for making that accusation?

Stageleft, the example you used isn’t an American one, it occurred in Britain. Blair and others in the Labour Party have apologized to the man for what happened.

The question of whether it is ” unpatriotic” or “traitorous ” to question the policies of one’s government is entirely separate from the issue of whether debate has been stifled by the making of such allegations. Your original post makes the claim that opponents of the Bush administration have been cowed into silence. This simply isn’t true. I don’t see how you can possibly dispute that.