The US Government is a group of people, sometimes flying in formation and sometimes not. Sometimes one part of the government is not in agreement with another.
At other times, such as when we are at war, or the person involved (like OBL) is a sworn enemy of the US, there really is not much debate about what treason may be. In my view, helping them reach their goals is treason.
In a free society, if a person is acting in what they think are the best interests of the nation, there must be a wide measure of "treason"- certainly bad judgement, bad results, and bad ideas may still not measure up to that strong word.
The cost of freedom is factions with different agendas. If you think those agendas amount to treason, just what qualifies as freedom in your view ?
Who is winking at anything. My sole point, in all of this post, and to the evident disgust of some and perhaps against some FR unspoken rules, is that you cant run around calling ex presidents of the United States traitors and expect any good to come of it.
The great, great majority of Americans will never believe Carter was a traitor and that includes tens of millions of republicans- are they all traitors too, by extension ?
Like I said, save it for the Pollards, Hamdis, and others who earn the filthy word.
Hence, Jimmy Carter and his globe trotting to coddle, applaud and otherwise polish the image of assorted communists, terrorists, et al, certainly fits that definition. If that doesn't, then persuading nations to ignore a UN resolution punishing Saddam Hussein should fit that without question, IMO. (Aren't the Dems the ones crying that we didn't simply let the UN sanctions continue to work so wonderfully? ...yet they are the very ones who were actively undercutting those very sanctions!)
There's a huge difference between voicing your opposition to administration policies, even strenuously, and openly supporting and serving the enemy. In my view, Jimmy Carter is one among many Democrats who have engaged in such activity.