"Irresponsible debate" and the role of war-time propaganda

President Bush said the following Tuesday:

"The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people...

I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy — not comfort to our adversaries"

1. Bush Sees 'Irresponsible Debate' Over War in Iraq
2. Bush to Democrats: Don't slam Iraq policy
3. Democrats ignore Bush's advice
4. WH Press Briefing: McClellan Calls Dean's War Critique "Irresponsible"

(Article #4 captures the conflict of opinion fairly well.)

In context, I think this plea is for Democrats to not resort to hyperboles and misinformation regarding the war in Iraq in order to secure votes. It hurts morale and ultimately doesn't work in our favor for the war ahead (elections, public opinion, etc.). I agree with it in that sense.

The one sour note that I'm hearing, however, is in bold:

They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people

In what way is that a necessarily partisan claim? I think it is a completely legitimate argument on the part of the Democrats, it targets the administration's credibility-- and with some reasonable cause. If the other two cases (oil and Israel) grow to claims beyond speculation, I think that they should be considered as well. To not address these concerns in the discourse of the public and media would discredit our democracy- regardless of their implications overseas.


You know what else is probably un-democratic? This.
1. U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press

And arguably this.
1. US Army worried about Blogs
2. U.S. military 'shuts down' soldiers' blogs


prop·a·gan·da: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

The question is whether or not the end justifies the means. I can see the argument go both ways. Freedom of speech or security? The last thing that we want to do is seem inauthentic and oppressive... or to give away information to benefit the insurgents. I personally think that we should draw the line where expression isn't restricted unless it has direct repercussions. So, if a blog reveals classified information or has photos that reveal locations, it could justifiably be censored. But if it is censored because it paints a grim image to people back home who will, in turn, look at the war in a less favorable light, it is wrong.

If someone looks at the war differently after reading a blog, it's not a bad thing. It's simply a renewed evaluation of whether or not what we're doing is really worth it, and if one believes the war is truly worth it, they'll stand by their evaluation . To manipulate (i.e. restrict, supplant) the public view is wrong because it prevents people from making up their minds based on the best available information (since they are only exposed to one side of the story). If the state determines that the war is just and therefore justifies "propaganda" (i.e. manipulated expression, information) under the pretense that it will improve the situations of the war, that is un-democratic; people have the right to decide for themselves whether or not the war is justified in the first place, and then advance those views accordingly.