Comments on: Do Democrats Want to Lose the War on Terror?

By: jukeboxgrad

jukeboxgrad — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:06:41 +0000

spencer: "explain to me how the liberals are responsible for this"

Even though the war was implemented by a GOP White House and Congress, Bush wasn't able to do it properly because he was afraid that Cindy Sheehan and Barbra Streisand were going to say something mean about him.

By: spencer

spencer — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:58:01 +0000

We are losing this war for one reason, and one reason only -- poor decisions by George Bush.

Now, someone explain to me how the liberals are responsible for this.

By: Bandit

Bandit — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:34:42 +0000

I think Anderson was just expressing his sympathy that those who purport to side with you and your party represent you and your party to poorly.

No it's just his usual childish put downs of anyone who has a different opinion.

I agree with the basic premise that what the Dems are doing isn't specifically treasonous but a combination of political expediency, total cowardice, moral relativism and mind boggling stupidity.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:09:00 +0000

James, I think Anderson was just expressing his sympathy that those who purport to side with you and your party represent you and your party to poorly. I personally think this thread should be left open so that non-extremists on both sides see what can happen if they don't keep their sanity intact. For all those who think that any person or group of people actually is committing treason, why haven't you reported it? Not reporting know treasonous acts is a crime in and of itself! If you truly believe what you're saying, and not just showing off your "conservative" credentials, then call up DHS and tell them that Pelosi is aiding the enemy. I'm sure they'll take you seriously. It's seriously troubling that anybody can take "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" to encompass any action or event that the enemy might find favorable. Retreat is not treason. Surrender is not treason. Avoiding a conflict is not treason. Negotiations are not treason. But all of these might give "comfort" to the enemy. If your action benefits you more than it benefits your enemy, it is a good action. To suggest that anything short of cutting of our noses to spite our faces is treason is not only ridiculous, but does more harm than those actions you denounce. Pelosi, Reid, and just about all of those others you call "traitors" believe that their actions benefit us more than it benefits our enemy.

By: jukeboxgrad

jukeboxgrad — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:48:55 +0000

zelsdorf: "The difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that the Congress signed off on Iraq" Your assertion is both factually wrong and irrelevant. It's wrong because Congress also signed off on Clinton's Kosovo policy. It's irrelevant because it doesn't address the issue I raised. The common assertion, made in this thread and elsewhere, is that criticism of the CinC, especially while US forces are in harm's way, is an act of treason. Your comment ducks this question: why did this principle not apply when Americans were POWs in 1999? "the discussion was over once the congress gave the President the authorization to use force" I realize you love to rewrite history, but 100% of the remarks I cited above were made after Congress voted to support Clinton's Kosovo policy. "those with a leftward bias resolve not to answer the question posed here" If there's a legitimate question that hasn't been answered, you should tell us where you're hiding it. The one who's ducking the question is you. davod: "During WWII the Republicans agreed not to be critical for the sake of the war effort." During 1999 we were also engaged in a "war effort." Why did Republicans forget that it's important "not to be critical for the sake of the war effort?"

By: davod

davod — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:30:11 +0000

Tell me; What kind of "Patriotic resistance" existed during world war two, and what would the outcome have been, had we followed their dictates?

Posted by Bithead | June 24, 2007 | 03:02 pm

Bithead:

The difference between then and now is profound and critical to understanding the issue. During WWII the Republicans agreed not to be critical for the sake of the war effort.

Today's Democratic party feels no such obligation to suborn its political desires for the overall safety of the country.

By: Pirate’s Cove » >>Americans Never Quit » Demotivation Monday: Is al Qaeda In Iraq A Lie?

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:10:40 +0000

[...] to win in Iraq and in the war on terror as long as a Republican is in office. James Joyner at Outside the Beltway has an interesting article along those lines, as does Confederate [...]

By: cian

cian — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:07:30 +0000

I suspect, however, that Patterson’s theme is one that we’ll hear more in the future, especially if things go badly in Iraq.

Patterson is just a dumb and harmless extremist not to be taken seriously. But Reynolds? Isn't he supposed to be one of the rights more respected thinkers? 'If'!!!!!

How can you debate with people who have sleep-walked through the last five years?

By: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:37:48 +0000

The difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that the Congress signed off on Iraq. Go see the movie, Wag the Dog. I have been reading those with a leftward bias resolve not to answer the question posed here. Is the Democratic leadership in congress as well as others guilty of treason? I don't know if they meet the classic definition of treason, but they certainly oppose, to the exclusive domain of the executive, in the matter of conducting foreign policy and that includes armed conflict authorized by Congress. I wonder why Pelosi has not been charged with violation of the Logan act. She is not authorized by any reading of the Constitution to conduct foreign policy. Bithead had put forth the definitive argument on this issue and has not and probably cannot be answered by "progressives" (toward Communism) or the other lefties posting here as they are only slightly less shrill than the opinions posted on DK.

By: jukeboxgrad

jukeboxgrad — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:14:49 +0000

jem: "the traditional meaning of treason requires direct contact and coordination with the enemy … Peterson's polemic, on the other hand appears to redefine the term to include disagreement on policy and political disputes." Thanks for this helpful point. What I want to emphasize is that Peterson has lots of ideological cohorts who go the extra step; they respond to those who express "disagreement on policy and political disputes" by explicitly accusing those parties of indeed having "direct contact and coordination with the enemy." Example. Another example:

its not about anything other than advancing enemy propaganda. That is all that boy does. I wonder how much the jihadist pay him?

By: soontohavemytyperburned

soontohavemytyperburned — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:07:07 +0000

"Aside from shutting down comments entirely, or allowing access to only pre-screened commenters, I'm not sure what can be done. Even on the most genteel blogs (say, Kevin Drum's place) that sort of thing is routine."
James, just beat the liberal judges and lawmakers to it and stop letting anyone but liberals voice their opinions.

By: John Adams

John Adams — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:56:59 +0000

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:42:12 +0000

When the Democratic leadership is statement for statement conducting the wishes of our enemy into an even greater propaganda against us then they could have ever hoped to accomplish themselves, and taking every small mishap to extraordinary levels to dishonor our military as a whole, and using the fog of war and the tragedy of battle to second guess and cry foul against our military leaders at every step, and all for what seems to me and many others like obvious political strategy, what would you call it?

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:50:11 +0000

Legion......"OK, G.A., I'll throw it right back at you. Undermining the effort to retaliate against the people who actually attacked us (AQ in Afghanistan) by invading a completely different country that was plainly not a direct threat to us (guess). How about enacting a policy on deliberately lying to US citizens, first responders, & emergency workers about the safety of Ground Zero simply to make people more confident that Wall Street would get back up & running quickly, directly resulting in the illness & death of numerous Americans (see EPA + Whitman). How about pulling terror alerts & heightening the threat color solely to divert media attention from embarrassments (see DHS + Tom Ridge)? How about systematically subverting the mission of the Dept of Justice to make it nothing more than a tool marginalize opposition voters, intimidate opposition candidates, and maintain the current political party in power, making a mockery of the Constitution (see any living creature in DOJ-HQ)? How many reasons do yo need to call this administration treasonous?" Daaa.. cough..cough..spit.....what? NO.1: we never stopped being at war with Iraq and should have done something for the 8 years before Bush while they where shooting at our jets and laughing at U.N. resolutions, and if that's not good enough for you you might be a liberal. No.2:I salute every single person that helped there but what effect do you think breathing in 3000 pulverised bodies and countless smoldering tons of the contents of the rest of those buildings was going to have, you might have a bit of a point, but when you say 'Bush administration lied' it raises a lot blue flags in my mind. NO.3: ya your greatest city just had a major hole blown it by terrorists so you come up with an alert system and what a great stroke of luck you can also use it the way Booty Bill Clinton used million dollar missiles to get the Media off your back, come on dude. NO:4 you have just described again almost perfectly what the liberals have done with their judges and being the shoot a spit wad at the teacher then point a finger at someone else type that all liberals are you can't tell the difference, because this is what you where taught, now are, and enjoy being. And if I here one more liberal tell me about making a mockery of the Constitution I'm going to start to cry. And what In the Great Blue hell dose this have to do with treason?

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:44:14 +0000

And on re-reading your comment I see that you did mention intent. Again, thanks.