Wesley Clark, who’s repeated lambasted the Bush Administration for stifling discouraging dissent — and who, in fact has said:
Democracy demands discussion, disagreement, and dissent. There is nothing more American — nothing more patriotic — than speaking out in defense of freedom, questioning authority, and holding your leaders accountable.
— sides with the Bushies (with whom I also disagree on this point) on stifling at least one form of dissent and protest — burning the US flag. He’s voiced his support for a constitutional amendment to outlaw desecration of the flag.
Matt Bennett, Clark’s communications director, said Clark saw flag-burning as a “very, very, very particularized form of dissent that he simply can’t abide. I guess he is carving out a little bit, but not very much. For the most part he is a very strong proponent of civil liberties.”
Yeah, it’s those “little bits” and “most part” loopholes that usually come back to bite dissenters in the butt.
I hate that Clark said that, and I really hope Dean comes out against this stupid amendment. Damn, we’ve been talking about flag burning for what, 40 years? It’s a standard misdirection issue. I thought it was debunked by the time Aaron Sorkin wrote about it in the “American President” script, but I guess it’s just too good a wedge issue to abandon now.
Sigh.
Yeah, alas, it seems to appeal to too many people, or else sounds too good. I don’t know that I’d be more disappointed that Clark was using it solely to political advantage, or that he didn’t see the contradiction in his words.
I have never burned a flag. The day that flag burning becomes illegal, I will burn a flag in protest.