Many people are not saying that certain people are giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States. Here is what Ann thinks
The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. In a rash and unconsidered move, they even gave women the right to vote.
Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month. The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24/7 protection by U.S. fighter jets.
Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the Palestinians are holding elections.
(Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)
The American military has accomplished all this with just over 2,000 deaths. These deaths are especially painful because they fall on our greatest Americans. Still, look at what the military has done and compare the cost to 600,000 deaths in the Civil War, 400,000 deaths in World War II and 60,000 deaths in Vietnam (before Walter Cronkite finally threw in the towel and declared victory for North Vietnam).
What is known as a "hawk" in today's Democratic Party looks at what our military has accomplished and — during the war, while our troops are in harm's way — demands that we withdraw our troops.
In an upbeat speech now being aired repeatedly on al-Jazeera, last week Rep. John Murtha said U.S. troops "cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Claiming the war is "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said the "American public is way ahead of us."
By a vote of 403-3, the House of Representatives wasn't willing to bet that "the American people" want to pull out of Iraq. (This vote also marked the first time in recent history that the Democrats did not respond to getting their butts kicked by demanding a recount.)
It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.
Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.
"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
I would really like to have it explained how this is not treason? Listen to what Bui Tin said, the Liberals and media lost vietnam for us. How is this different?
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Is it treason?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Expressing dissent towards government policy is a right in a democracy. Offering policy alternatives to the government's incompetently implemented policies is a right and a duty.
If expressing dissent and offering alternative policies gives the enemy "aid and comfort", that's too damn bad, but it isn't treason.
The policies of the Bush administration have vastly enhanced the recruiting success of Bin Laden and his ilk, creating more terrorists killing more US troops. That is lending aid and comfort to the enemy.
Is it treason?
Ann Coulter is nothing more than a clown. Her indescriminate use of the word "treason" has rendered it meaningless. When she labels half of the country and many great leaders of the past "traitors", she has lost all credibility.
I'm just throwing it out there, it is a great dilema...
When does it change from dissent to treason?
As a veteran, we are taught what treason is. Simply put, its when you plot to or engage in the overthrow of the US government. Where the lawyers come in(shoot em all), is where to draw the lines, since it isnt well described. Selling governmentsecrets tends to make you guilty, but usually doesnt command the death penalty. Even attempting an assassination doesnt guaranty the death penalty, if your concern was the individual and not the gov't, itself. Jim raises a valid point when he says that the administration has done more to raise people against ourselves(at home or abroad) then the devices of the media. Coulter is, and will always be, just a lawyer trying to coerce people into her way of thinking by using forceful and hyperbolic language. Its not treason, simply.
On a side note, I have given a lot of thought to your media stance, game. I gotta agree, with qualification, that the MSM(as you call it)has not done a proper job of reporting the war in Iraq. I am not a big follower of the MSM, because it doesnt report what I feel are important issues. What is really missing from them, and are important to former Marines like me, are the individual stories of accomplishment and gain(or loss, its all the same to us). War is more than territorial gain and political bullying of other nation states, and that is what the media(including the pseudo-news of FOXNews)fail to cover.
I'm glad you agree on the MSM reporting this war as a failure and never mentioning ANY positives....blogs have many good stories to tell, and maybe I'll have to report on some of them from time to time...
and I am honestly looking for opinion on this treason issue...when does it switch from dissent to treason? I want to hear Ron's answer...
OK, to address your question, I would say that to be "treason", there has to be an action or activity, the intended purpose of which is to "aid and comfort" an enemy of the United States.
Coulter and Hannity and their followers would say that liberals and Democrats are "America haters" and so it follows that anything they do is intended to harm the United States and therefore treasonous. This, of course, is absurd on all counts.
Americans who criticize US policies and the leaders who espouse and carry out those policies are not "America haters." Most believe that America could be better, safer, and more prosperous with different policies. That means they want to improve the America they love, not harm it.
"With their lies, half-truths and misrepresentations they have disgraced themselves and deserve the scorn which is heaped upon them. While their actions may not amount to treason, they are certainly reprehensible, disgusting and unforgiveable."
You're talking about the Bush administration here, right? Because it fits.
To claim that this administration hasnt given rise to anti-American sentiment across the world is pure ignorance or delusion. This has more than just OBL in its scope, too. Reagan(not just he, the pres.) created the monster known as Osama bin Laden, as he is today. Bush gives him more fuel to gain converts, not the Dems, sorry. It goes farther, though. Former staunch allies of ours turn away from us because of the bogus nature of the war. Their populations turn against us. I dont know of any good reason given why we shouldnt have gone into Afganistan, but Iraq was a whole different manner.
I agree that saying you disagree with a US policy is one thing, but now we are at war...
some go to far, saying the President lied without any facts is treason, constantly printing pictures of a few military turds abusing inmates is treason..it hurts the country
"Furthermore, blaming the Bush administration for a boom in Islamic Jihad displays plain ignorance or something more sinister. Bin Laden trained ten of thousands in Afghanistan long before Bush ever took office."
I guess they didn't want to really make a push until we had a weak presnit.
Game, I know you are refering to my blog post that talks about Anne Coulter as treasonous. You must understand my "style" of writing. You to rhyno! :-) I often write by throwing ridicilous stuff right back in the rights face. Like my longtime theme..the liberal media doesn't want you to read this. It's scarcasm..you know, that thing rush does so well.
My point is these people are no more treasonous than anne, argueably less. To win the war on terror we must get the rest of the world to join us. Especially the moslems. We will never get all the terrorists. It must be rebuked by all. People want to be on the side of the good guys. To speak out against torture, to speak out against preemtive war ENHANCES our image with the rest of the world. And the rest of the world is far more important to winning the war on terror than worrying about what the relatively few terrorists think. It leads the people to think that there are still civilized people in the country, a few good guys left, that don't want to attack and occupy an entire country under the auspices of getting a few thousand terrorists. It shows America as the true ideal of freedom that we so blithely expound. That is bad for the enemy because they see our "freedom" lives despite their best efforts. Regardless dissent is a cornerstone of our democracy. Is Anne treasonous. Using her own definition probably...legally..thats for better legal minds than mine to figure out. The dictionary says:
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
It could be considered treason when one speaks out against americans who are participating in the democratic values that this country was established on...at least as much as the twisted logic she uses.
by the way game, there is plenty of evidence that this administration at very least mislead. I have told you how you can find it with a google search. I'm not going to sit here and play tennis with it..look it up for yourself if you even really care....ahmad chalibi, white house iraqi group, office of special plans.
Post a Comment