And the more likely.that the Iraqi people will be freed and the citizens of New York will be rescued from the threat of an Iraqi-aided terrorist attack." The editorial went on to suggest that dissent in the face of the Bush administration's war plans was tantamount to treason:

[T]here is no reason to doubt that the "anti-war" protesters--we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq--are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.. So the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution.

In the months surrounding the war in Iraq, the Sun's views--from its expansive definition of treason to its contempt for the First Amendment--have been common in right-wing circles. While most people see President Bush's post-9/11 assertion--"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"--as a call for the world community to join America in defeating terrorism, right-wing activists have taken a narrower view. To them, what the President is really saying is "Either you toe the administration's line, or you're in league with terrorists." They see Bush's policies toward Iraq as indistinguishable from America's interests. In this "Freedom Fries" age, when the Right views all things French with suspicion, ultraconservatives still give King Louis XIV's declaration, "I am the state" surprising currency. To them, President Bush is the state and, therefore, dissent is treason.

With this in mind, the Right's commentators, preachers, and media outlets work to demonize dissent, presenting straw men protesters-Marxists who love Saddam Hussein and hate America-to be burned in effigy.

Protesters Are Communists

From the beginning, the Right has sought to portray anti-war protesters as radicals. This does not gibe with the facts. A New York Times piece on dissenters emphasizes the diversity of the peace movement. While it is true that one group involved in the peace protests, International ANSWER, has socialist ties, most major anti-war organizations have mainstream connections to groups like the NAACP and the National Council of Churches. These mainstream peace coalitions have gone out of their way to distance themselves from more radical elements and to disavow their tactics. However, the Times' nuanced description of dissenters does not lend itself to easy caricature. Thus, right-wing groups spend most of their time talking about ANSWER. When they discuss other organizations at all, they paint them with the same red-baiting brush, indicating that any variation from ANSWER is merely a Marxist marketing ploy. This piece from NewsMax is typical, with its emphasis on far-left protesters, and its suggestion that dissent is somehow criminal:

NewsMax.com has learned that preliminary inquiries are or soon will be under way on Capitol Hill exploring the possibility of investigating the link between communists and radical Islamic terrorists. Evidence mounts that this coalition orchestrated the recent appeasement demonstrations against President Bush's policy in Iraq..Workers World Party, a tiny Marxist organization that admires North Korea's repressive dictatorship, has coordinated much of the anti-war activity, partly through such fronts as A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)..

Former Reagan administration official and self-appointed moral arbiter Bill Bennett takes a similar tack: "Communists are certainly glad to...sponsor and organize [the anti-war rallies]. I don't think everybody who participates is a communist, but communists are certainly behind it--and that should give people who participate in these protests some pause, I would think." Not one to miss a trick, Bennett has added two new chapters on the "propaganda of the anti-war brigade" in the recently-released paperback edition of his book, Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism.

A piece by WorldNetDaily commentator Craige McMillian goes further, suggesting a leftist conspiracy theory:

Tolerance was never the goal, was it? It was merely a convenient stepping stone in the leftist agenda to Saddamize America--to gain control of our institutions, our government, our workplaces, our families and our children. From this position of power, the left can silence its critics. Silent critics are necessary to make America into the communist paradise that leftists have never given up on, despite Stalin and Mao's murdered millions, or Saddam's murdered and brutalized tens or hundreds of thousands.

Note McMillan's use of the made-up verb "to Saddamize." Apparently, he cannot resist an opportunity to link the anti-war movement with another great bugbear of the Right, homosexuality.

Meanwhile, the Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich calls on Congress to investigate groups in the peace movement:

If Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge wants to do something useful with all his new powers, he ought to find out how these neo-Communists are being financed. If Ridge won't act, then Congress should. Congress should hold hearings and compel the organizers to testify.

Protesters Love Saddam

Simply painting protesters red is not enough. Why not suggest that they secretly carry a torch for Saddam Hussein? Daniel Pipes, of the Middle East Forum doesn't simply suggest this; he comes right out and says it in a piece entitled "Why the Left Loves Osama (and Saddam)":

[Saddam Hussein's] gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can't be too bad--never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer.

Remarkably, Pipes, well known for his anti-Muslim rhetoric, was recently appointed by President Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace. Understandably, Muslim groups oppose his nomination.

Protesters Hate America

Then there is the other side of that rhetorical coin. Not only do dissenters love Saddam, they also hate America, or so the Right would have us believe.

On the March 30th edition of Fox News Sunday, panelists discussed a statement made by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) in which he voiced concerns about civilian casualties in Iraq: "I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce something against a lying cheat [i.e. Saddam], that's all." Rangel's comments prompted Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol to say:

I really honestly now believe that a certain chunk of the Democratic Party, a higher chunk of liberal commentators, take a certain relish in the fact when something goes badly in the war..[T]hey hate the Bush administration more than they love America."

During this exchange, Fox's moderator, Brit Hume agreed with Kristol regarding the Democrats, saying, "It's the anti-American stuff." Only when NPR's Mara Liasson challenged Hume on this point, did he correct himself: "I mean, anti-war stuff. I won't say anti-American."

Meanwhile, WorldNetDaily CEO Joseph Farah compares supposedly anti-American dissenters with terrorists:

Many dangerous, violent and profoundly anti-American organizations are using the current war as cover to try to bring America to its knees. They hate this country and openly advocate destroying it. Their cause has nothing to do with opposing war, but everything to do with opposing America. In some cases, both their tactics and their goals are not far from those of the very terrorists we are fighting.

Gary Bauer, American Values president and former GOP presidential candidate, does Farah one better. In an email to supporters, Bauer argues that anti-war protesters are more damaging to America than terrorists:

In the long run, who most harms the United States? Is it clueless U.N. bureaucrats like [weapons inspector] Hans Blix, feckless French Leaders like Jacques Chirac, or radical Islamic terrorists? They all make a contribution, but at the end of the day I believe we have more to fear from the anti-American crowd right here at home.

Protest Is Treason

Once the Right has created a mythology in which peace protesters are actually Communists who hate America and love Saddam, it isn't much of a stretch to claim that dissent is in fact treasonous. To do so, they frequently reference Article III of the Constitution, which defines treason as giving "aid and comfort" to America's enemies. By the Right's reasoning, voicing opposition to the war, or even expressing doubts about American tactics, constitutes treason. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) found this out the hard way on March 18th, when he argued that President Bush had squandered diplomatic alternatives to war. Daschle said, "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war."

According to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), "Those comments may not undermine the president as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) took a swipe at both Daschle and the French by saying, "Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle," which translates as "Shut your mouth, Mr. Daschle." Columnist Diana West described Daschle's comments as "hateful, shameful words." And, televangelist Pat Robertson argued that this proved that Daschle and his ilk hate America:

Now, when people like Sen. Daschle stand up in the Senate and attack the president one day before the war starts, then that, to me, borders on lack of patriotism and I think it is wrong..there are people.who have got so much money they feel ashamed of it and they hate America..They hate America. It isn't just a war; they hate everything. They also hate the idea of standing up for freedom.

David Horowitz of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture is perhaps the most rabid advocate of the view that dissent equals treason. Each weekday Horowitz and his colleagues at FrontPage Magazine offer new articles on the evils of dissent, liberally sprinkled with such key phrases as "aid and comfort," "clear and present danger", "blame America first," "hate America Left," and "fifth column." In fact, FrontPage has an entire "Fifth Column" section containing 380 articles to date.

A January 21st piece entitled "The 'Peace' Movement Isn't about Peace," demonstrates Horowitz's standard modus operandi: link dissenters with Communists and dissent with treason.

When your country is attacked, when the enemy has targeted every American regardless of race, gender or age for death, there can be no "peace" movement. There can only be a movement that divides Americans and gives aid and comfort to our enemies..The so-called "peace movement" today is led by the same radicals who supported America's totalitarian enemies during the Cold War. They marched in support of the Vietcong, the Sandinista Marxists and the Communist guerrillas in El Salvador. Before that they marched in behalf of Stalin and Mao.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Horowitz isn't capable of varying his formula from time to time. For example, in a February 28 exchange with NewsMax, Horowitz compares protesters not with Communists, but with Nazis instead:

If you read Hitler's "Mein Kampf," Horowitz warns, you see "how kooky views can result in the deaths of seventy million people." Just because the leaders of the appeasement demonstrations don't make sense "doesn't mean they are not [dangerous or that they will not] get hundreds of thousands and millions of followers."

Preaching to the Choir

There has been widespread dissent against the war from religious groups, ranging from the Catholic Church to the World Council of Churches. This poses a particular problem for the Right, as they find religious groups less easy to demonize than all of those atheistic, Communist, America haters. That's not to say that they haven't tried. For example right-wing talk show host Tom Marsland wonders, "Is 'mainstream Christianity' morally relevant right now?" The answer, of course, is no:

In condemning free nations for desiring to liberate oppressed peoples from despotic regimes, virtually all World Council of Churches member congregations have sided against the war.therefore against freedom for the Iraqi people, and thereby with Saddam, and with the U.N. too.

He goes on to argue that Jesus himself would have supported the war.

D. James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, suggests a more political motivation for church opposition to the war:

Why any churchman would choose to support [Saddam] rather than to support our own president, I don't know. I think that some of them are doing it for purely political reasons, and [because] they have a very strong liberal bias..

Nor is the pope, a vocal opponent of war with Iraq, spared criticism. Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor calls the pope "naïve" for his opposition to the war in Iraq. He even suggests that John Paul was complicit in 40 years of Soviet domination of Poland when he served as a bishop in Krakow:

Let's look at Poland, where the pope came from. For 40 years...that country was enslaved by the Soviet Union and the pope didn't call for armed insurrection against the Soviets. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to live under somebody's boot heel for 40 years.

Shut Up

O'Reilly frequently pats himself on the back for what he terms "the most honest and accurate coverage of the war with Iraq." However, when someone has honest differences with his pro-war views, he oftentimes shouts them down. Not that he hasn't warned them. On the February 26th edition of his show, he says:

Once the war against Saddam [Hussein] begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if they can't do that, to shut up. Americans and, indeed, our allies who actively work against our military once the war is under way will be considered enemies of the state by me.

Still he can't resist inviting occasional dissenters on The Factor to serve as punching bags. His assault on peace activist Jeremy Glick, whose father died in the 9/11 attacks, was especially vicious. During the interview (more accurately described as an O'Reilly monologue with brief interruptions) he talked over Glick's criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, suggested that Glick's father would be ashamed of him, claimed that Glick is "exploiting" the victims of 9/11, and finally, yelled at Glick to shut up before cutting his microphone.

Celebrity Talk Show

While disapproving of all dissenters, the Right attacks anti-war celebrities with particular relish. In the Right's view, singer Bonnie Raitt is a "longtime radical activist", comedian Janeane Garofalo a "short fat idiot", and actor Martin Sheen a purveyor of "hate-filled, militant, purpose-filled, bourgeois-baiting language." Web sites, such as hollywoodhalfwits.com, have sprung up to echo these sentiments.

Still, none of this quite compares with the Right's reception for country group the Dixie Chicks after lead singer and Texas native Natalie Maines told a London audience, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." The response from the Right has been deafening. Right-wing pundits have fallen over themselves to come up with clever plays on the group's name: Ditzy Chicks, Blixie Chicks (after the Right's unlikely villain, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix), etc. Paul Weyrich accused the group of treason:

The Dixie Chicks may be entitled to their opinion, but for them to give aid and comfort to the enemy when we are on the edge of war is just outrageous..With more than 250,000 troops deployed in and around Iraq did it occur to these brazen performers that they might be doing harm to our brave men and women in uniform?

Frontiers of Freedom's Karen Pittman praised "a defiant mob, some 200-strong, [that] brazenly took to the streets--faces red with anger, not humiliation--to riot, tractordozing the trio's CDs." Meanwhile, Clear Channel Communications, the nation's largest radio broadcaster, has been accused of boycotting Dixie Chicks music in an attempt to curry favor with the Bush administration.

The First Amendment as a Model

The irony of the Right's anti-dissent stance is that it claims to support the war so as to provide Iraqis with the same freedoms that they would deny peace protesters. Oftentimes, as in this National Review piece, visions of Iraqi freedom are printed right next to rebukes of peace protesters:

[I]n years to come Iraqis will enjoy peace and freedom in their homeland, will build civil society, [and] will have the right to speak and worship freely without fear of reprisal.. And all of these blessings will come about with no thanks whatsoever to the peace movement.

As the United States and its allies work to work with Iraqis to build a new society, we can only hope that America's First Amendment traditions will be viewed not as seditious but rather, as a model to follow

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