Andrew Sullivan catches the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes pushing the White House to try to silence dissenters on Iraq:

BARNES ON DISSENT: Fred Barnes is fighting mad that the Dems may be getting tougher in obstructing the president’s agenda. He thinks the tactic will backfire and will prompt the Dems to lose more seats in 2006. But we can’t wait till then! Here’s his recipe for White House response tactics:

Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what’s permissible and what’s out of bounds in dissent on Iraq.

Harrumph. Harrumph. One quibble: the White House will determine what constitutes “permissible” dissent? I assume he means that some dissent will merely be described as treason by the White House. They won’t actually try and stop such expressions, will they? Still, it’s an interesting insight into the mentality of some Bush defenders. It seems to me that if an opposition party wants to mount an obstructionist campaign, it has evey right to do so. And face the consequences. It’s called a democracy. You know: like we’re trying to foster in Iraq.

“Merely be described as treason”? Sullivan, who frequently suggested that dissenters were committing treason before he began to question the war in Iraq, appears to be covering his ass here. Attacks on dissent are hardly a minor matter, particularly coming from the White House (see Chapter 6 of All the President’s Spin for the Bush administration’s first term record of using these tactics).

In any case, when journalists are calling on the government to silence dissent, we’ve truly reached a new low in our political discourse.