Political opposition to how a war is being fought does not, in and of itself, constitute treason. On the other hand, I would think that spreading vicious lies about our troops, in such fashion as to give aid and comfort to the enemy, constitutes treason even if it's done in the name of "political opposition".
I actually have some measure of respect for the politicians who have been consistent in their opposition to the war. My complaint is with politicians who realized, after they initially supported the war, that winning the war would damage their political allies, and tried to protect their political allies by putting themselves in a situation where winning the war would damage them.
The Constitution was written centuries ago, probably before the phrase "conflict of interest" entered the lexicon. Nonetheless, I doubt they would approve of Senators who have a strong vested interest in this country's losing a war.
“The Constitution was written centuries ago, probably before the phrase “conflict of interest” entered the lexicon. Nonetheless, I doubt they would approve of Senators who have a strong vested interest in this country’s losing a war.”
The founding fathers had a complete understanding of the concept “conflict of interest”, hence the direct limitations on government articulated in the constitution, and the 10th Amendment.
Absolutely, it is inappropriate for anyone in government to comment negatively on our troops in the field.
I do not believe this action in Iraq rises to the level of “war”, but that doesn’t change a thing in this regard and is a totally different discussion.
I don’t think it’s treason though. It should be dealt with through the political process, and hopefuly will be.
Apparently, nobody has the right to stand up and call the traitors out on this. Apparently, they have the right to act the way they do, but nobody has the right to say anything about it.