Whenever our elected leaders fail to speak with one voice on matters of national security, we appear weaker and our enemies are more likely to strike.
Therefore, leaders who fail to support our overseas efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are making future wars more likely. Opposition leaders, like Joe Lieberman, who support our efforts make future wars less likely.
Labeling such talk treason, while accurate, is a difficult charge to prove. It looks like overreaching and actually helps scum like Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, & Murtha. Perhaps we should describe it as a "bad idea" for the reasons outlined above.
No, we're not saying they don't have the "right" to say it. We just believe, for the reasons listed above, that showing a divided front to potential enemies makes war more likely and will result in thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths. This show bad judgement on their part and makes the current crop of Democrat leaders poor potential stewards of our nation's safety.
Yes, well stated.
The principle has been lost - on one side - that the opposition party supports the foreign policy of the president. Demanding cooperation from the president and then denouncing him and telling every possible lie to benefit the jihad is beyond treason. It is treason dressed up in the costume of free speech.
I agree with your technical definition. I wonder how long our country can survive with these suicidal tendencies and the spineless, get-along-go-along tactics of the GOP.
"On a larger scale, such talk kills more than the troops in Iraq.
Our defense is based on deterrence, the notion that you don't want to start a fight with the U.S.
That defense has been substantially weakened by our betrayal of South Vietnam and, over the last 25 years, by our non-responses to multiple terrorist provocations.
Osama Bin Laden viewed Blackhawk Down as proof that we were a paper tiger. He overruled his more sanguine subordinates who wanted to keep the conflict with us low-intensity. Our weak responses invited his attack. Appeasement does not work.
Saddam also believed this. The Iraqi Perspectives Project showed he thought the US would invade southern Iraq and stop once we took a couple dozen casualties because that was all we could stomach.
Even in WWII, Japan attacked us because they believed we were weak and decadent. Yammomoto knew better but was overruled.
Whenever our elected leaders fail to speak with one voice on matters of national security, we appear weaker and our enemies are more likely to strike.
Therefore, leaders who fail to support our overseas efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are making future wars more likely. Opposition leaders, like Joe Lieberman, who support our efforts make future wars less likely.
Labeling such talk treason, while accurate, is a difficult charge to prove. It looks like overreaching and actually helps scum like Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, & Murtha. Perhaps we should describe it as a "bad idea" for the reasons outlined above.
No, we're not saying they don't have the "right" to say it. We just believe, for the reasons listed above, that showing a divided front to potential enemies makes war more likely and will result in thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths. This show bad judgement on their part and makes the current crop of Democrat leaders poor potential stewards of our nation's safety."
===
Nothing new in any of this. The U.S. cooperated in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, allowing the Mullahs to seize power. Along with political power, they seized our Embassy in Tehran and a lot of hostages.
The Mullah's released the hostages on..the.. DAY..that..Republican..Reagan..assumed power from Dildo Democrat Jammah Cahtah! Similar signs of adult behavior showed up when GWB replaced BJ.
They're traitors.
Throw them in jail and let them rot.