Posted on 04/24/2006 4:54:59 AM PDT by SuzyQ2
The vitriol leveled against Clinton during his administration was tasteless, to be sure. But the attacks against Bush (a commander-in-chief in time of war) and his chief lieutenants, have not only soiled the grounds of common decency; they may well have crossed over from general dissent into the realm of sedition.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Clearly sedition, not a doubt in my mind.
It wasnt the vitriol that was leveled at Clinton that was tasteless. What was tasteless was the man himself and the scumbag he is married too.
Its hard to speak of a man beating his johnson in a sink while sticking a cigar in his intern and do it in good taste.
Its hard to speak of a First lady who put rubbers on the White House Christmas tree and say she has taste.
Yes...sedition. It's a time of war, and the War is on until it's over. Our enemy uses armies of assassins and is very experienced at disseminating conspiracy story propaganda. The War will be a long one, like it or not.
The President should make these points clearly and forcefully. "They have the right to dissent but it shows terrible judgement. It encourages our enemies. It costs the lives of our soldiers fighting around the world today and will encourage others to attack us in the future. They have not learned the lessons of history and do not deserve to remain in positions of responsibility."
These traitors hate American and everything she stands for. It is sedition and it is also deliberate treason.
Then declare war.
Sedition is not contrary to the Bill of Rights. Sedition stopped our invasion of canada in the war of 1812, as it rightly should have, and as was intended by the 1st amendment. An honest war engaged in for the genuine defense of the Republic has nothing to fear from sedition, that the laws against slander and libel aren't an adequate defense of. Sedition laws are the miner's canaries of a government run by greedy, lying sociopaths, as most governments are most of the time. That's why we have a 1st Amendment. Getting whipped into a war-frenzy over a bunch of stone-age ragheads without a country to plant a flag on is balderdash. 911 was a criminal act, requiring a law-enforcement response, with maybe a little extraction help from Delta. Not an adequate excuse to go to war. We used to have balls and common sense in this country, and we couldn't be spooked into panic by symbolic gestures and mush-brained hysterics. now we have television sets and RV's, and we let a chickenhawk president and congress drive us into wars over anything they choose, because we'd rather play with our remote controls than act like citizens with brains and a desire for independence. Tom Paine and James Madison would roll in their graves in shame over what we've let this Republic become, in our fat, indolent, well-fed indifference.
Clearly sedition, not a doubt in my mind.
proven by the fact that the actions of the left in no way strenghtens our republic.
The "leak" (not clear if it was a sting,yet) about secret prisons in the EU only weakened OUR standing in the world. If we continue to allow the village idiots to roam the streets with torches, burning down our houses with the sole purpose to grasp power, what will be built on the ashes? It is time to send the Democrat Party to the "ash heap of history". They bear no allegience to this countries purpose of individual freedoms and economic liberties.
By the way whats the problem then with me calling it sedition if it is "not contrary" to the Bill of Rights. To me it is clearly sedition when to the detriment of the US during a time of war, a political party or persons attempt either appeal to or conspire with global anti-American factions that run contrary to our National security.
No offense but this is not 1812 and a continent surrounded by oceans is no longer an obstacle, especially with Liberalism opening the door's of "social justice" to invite the destructor's of Western Civilization.
They did
Conspiring is treason, not sedition. Sedition is voicing an opinion.
No offense but this is not 1812 and a continent surrounded by oceans is no longer an obstacle, especially with Liberalism opening the door's of "social justice" to invite the destructor's of Western Civilization.
And this is still a bunch of cowardly prattle designed to overcome the obvious fact that unilateral open warfare with another country whose capacity for war is barely above the stone age is heinous criminal behavior. 25% of the world is muslim, and John Quincy Adams racist opinions about all of them are not adequate justification for making war on any of them. What's your plan--wipe out all 2 1/2 billion of them? Do you think the war in Iraq has made more, or fewer terrorists willing to smuggle an abomb into a US port? How would you feel about smuggling an abomb into Mecca if arab occupiers of New York dropped a bomb that happened to wipe out your family?
Yours was Clinton's approach. Dead Americans at the hands of Arab terrorists means that you call the cops.
Sorry. It didn't work. The Taliban fostered al-Qaeda, and they were taken down.
You and Ron Paul ought to get a room, what with your letters of marque and reprisal approach to a 20th century problem.
More like the other way around, given how much money the CIA handed to Ben Laden to pass out in Afganistan, and the Taliban is still operating, and heroin flows out of Afganistan, a country we conquered and occupy, like it was water. And Ben Laden still runs loose. I wouldn't waste a lot of effort preening my feathers over this clever coup.
You and Ron Paul ought to get a room, what with your letters of marque and reprisal approach to a 20th century problem.
You and the marquis de sade ought to get a room, with your non-compos-mentos approach to whipping Iraq for something Afganistan supposedly did.
Where did I do that? You brought up Iraq, not me.
If you're going to trot out your verbal acumen, it's always helpful if the Latin phrase is spelled correctly: it's mentis, not mentos. Oh, and no dashes.
That's exactly what it means. Clinton's general incompetence doesn't change that equation. You don't need to declare a full-scale war on a country that can barely be supervised by it's own government, and which none of the attackers, planners, and virtually none of the money was native to. That's just ham-fisted incompetence, which, all by itself, you ought to be fired for.
No, it's mentos! MENTOS I TELL YA!
http://us.mentos.com/
store = stop
How many al-Qaeda have we killed in Afghanistan? Hundreds? How many have we captured, which captures have led to almost total disruption of al-Qaeda planning through the information supplied?
Plus, it let these cretins know that we're serious about stopping them where they live. No more playing around, as Clinton did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.