Calling the reaction to anti-war protestors "squashing dissent" does violence to the language, as well as profanes the memory of those who actually were squashed (or tortured, imprisoned, or killed) for dissenting.
To squash dissent, you squash it. Stop it. Apply force to silence the dissenter, either by killing them or rendering them incapable of speaking to others (by imprisonment, exile, torture (rip out the tongue, chop off hands, etc)).
Calling someone a name does not even come close. Saying (quite plausibly) that protesting against the war made Saddam more defiant and thus likely helped start the war (or at least eliminate even the slight chance that resolution could happen without war) is not "squashing dissent". It's answering it, as part of the blessed and holy concept known as "dialogue and debate".
To say that being refuted on the facts OR called names is equivalent to squashing dissent is basically insisting that your views never be challenged and that people shut up when you're talking- and if people don't, one whines and cries that "I'm bein' repressed!" like some Monty Python peasant.
It is understandable that, given the unpopularity of the anti-war message, they would take this position of "entitlement to having no disagreement or peaceful reaction to my position". However, it most certainly isn't a laudable position.