"This seems to be an intentional supposition that the hatred non-Americans feel for our country, and the American left's distaste for our current right-wing government, are the same thing. They aren't."
But they are:
Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html The above described DEMOCRAT memo outlines treason, and shows a hatred for the country in an effort to harm the President.
Yes, hatred for the President by Dems also is one and the same as their hatred for the country.
"Where the author loses me is when he deliberately equates that attitude with the American left."
----
Granted, it would be more just to say "...equates ...with [some on] the American left [and with some European elites]" since I assume there is as wide a spectrum of political opinion there as exists on the right (and in some cases he uses the term "Marxist left" for clarification).
The author cites the following as an example of America-bashing on the American left:
"It is an America that Noam Chomsky has repeatedly characterized as the world’s major terrorist state."
An earlier poster remarked, the frustration is that the left doesn't appear to call others on the left to account when they cross this line whereas those on the right will.
The bottom line is some on the left label America as imperialistic, they take this the next step in labeling America as equivalent to being a thief and murderer, any behavior therefore is justified in overthrowing the established order including America-bashing. This brings up memories of rhetoric the right has heard before.
Most on the right consider this the height of ingratitude at best and an ill-disguised political power grab and traitorous behavior at worse that would only make everyone equal in their misery and chains. Far from seeing themselves as a source of "immiseration," they see themselves as a source of liberation. Since many have buddies who paid the ultimate sacrifice... well you get the point.
But you're right, it would be unfair - and would violate a Conservative principle - to blame everyone for the actions of a few. But when a Dick Durbin refers to the actions of U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay as that comparable of Soviet gulags and Nazis, and it takes several days to get a retraction, Republicans point to the cost Trent Lott paid in the disciplining coming from his own side and ask, "Where is the bona fides?"
