Quote:
Originally Posted by deadbeater
Nonsense? I tell you what is nonsense: not only starting a war based on a pack of lies, then having your cheerleaders calling those who dissent, those who say that the invasion will cause more problems than it is worth, 'Traitors'. Well, I guess that the truth is traitorous, isn't it, urbane?
|
Constitution, Art. III, Section 3.1.:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." [emph. mine]
Section 3.2 goes on to limit the punishment awarded for acts of treason.
While the difference between hard-blown words and overt actions needs no mention, the adjective "treasonable" can certainly be applied not only to the kind of thing you've said, but likewise to the utterances of the bulk of the leadership of the Democratic Party, and this is exacerbated by their utter lack of any strategy put forward to win the war better than the Republicans can. You Democrat dullards can't even get that much right, but you're going to have to if you want ever to grow a moral leg to stand on. You haven't. You don't even have it on the same horizon you occupy. As being too much an American for it to make any difference to our foes whether they sever your American head or mine, you're under an obligation to do that. You have signally failed at this.
Now the "you" goes back from the antiwar people in general to deadbeater in particular: you can search every single post I've ever written. You won't find one solitary syllable of "giving them aid and comfort." Nothing I've said adheres to our nation's enemies, which Republicans simply are not -- and note the Republicans utter no outraged shrieks about having their patriotism impugned -- nary a shriek nor a scream, but listen to the Democrats on the same topic! It's guilt, son, that utters outraged shrieks of innocence.
The only one of your posts that isn't displaying this adherence is number 30 in this thread, which instead shows you being pretty smart and doing some thinking. The difference between thee and me is I know who the good guys are, while you are being purblind. I'd caution you that Bush-hatred is the refuge of the stupid. I don't need a refuge.
What you will find in my posts (aside from some tasty recipes and some pretty fair quips) is some notion of why I think it is worth the problems to have invaded Iraq -- chiefly moral, but from the moral comes the economic also, for the best economics are the moral. No one here has cogently disputed these points -- mostly I just get yelled at for making them and upsetting their comfy little shortsighted assumptions. The eagle sees a lot more than the cow.
Abe Lincoln also caught an awful lot of intemperate shit, mainly for trying to do things that would win the Civil War. Some of it was letters, much of it was editorials.