Is everybody wrong?

[slapout9]

Yep, having been around during Vietnam there was definitely a get Nixon attitude and we are seeing it again with a get Bush attitude. Who suffers America.

[Stu-6]

There are defiantly some people out there who just don’t want to see Bush have any success but I don’t think they are really much of an issue. I assume they were out there 3+ years ago when public support for the war was in the area of 70%, the change since then isn’t more people are out to get Bush it is 3 years of failing policy. The fact of the matter is that had we had any real success in dealing with the Iraqi guerrillas those that wanted to bash Bush would not have much to use against him; but as the insurgency has grown (in spite of administration statements to the contrary) those that opposed Bush have come more to look like visionaries than partisans.

For the original article, it is very interesting but I agree that it doesn’t seem fully developed.

[Bill Moore]

Stu-6 thanks for bringing the conversation back to the real subject, which is the article and our failed policies, not anti-Bushism. Bush is unpopular because his policies have positioned our country on the losing side of the battle in Iraq. His unpopularism doesn't equate to Americans wanting to see us fail in Iraq, it is exactly the opposite, we're a country that doesn't accept defeat easily, and we have an administration leading us in that direction. Is it patriotic to blindly embrace an administration that has led the country astray, or is it patriotic to challenge the administration for the good of the country? The last thing we need is an act that shuts up those whose challenge any administration. That is a slippery slope we don't want to get on as a nation.

I think we need to refocus the conversation back onto the article. It stated in the article that this was an abbreviated version, so it would be worthwhile if we could find the original article in full.

[Steve Blair]

This shouldn't be too hard to find. Just track down the issue of the Journal of the Royal United Service Institution and you'd be set.

[Culpeper]

I think discussing counterinsurgency support at home is relevant to the topic. Woodrow Wilson used the following and was able to fight a world war and have the troops home within about 18 months. When the act was no longer needed it was simply repealed.

Section 3

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service...

[edit] Section 4

When the United States is at war, the Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or concern is using the mails in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, instruct the postmaster at any post office at which mail is received addressed to such person or concern to return to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed all letters or other matter so addressed, with the words "Mail to this address undeliverable under Espionage Act" plainly written or stamped upon the outside thereof, and all such letters or other matter so returned to such postmasters shall be by them returned to the senders thereof under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe.