Posted on 12/08/2005 7:56:07 PM PST by smoothsailing
Is It Treason Yet?
By Joe Mariani
December 9, 2005
Treason is defined, in part, as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States, according to the Constitution (Article III, Section 3) (web site) and the United States Code (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2381). (web site) Yet the Constitution also states, in the First Amendment, (web site) that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." How do we distinguish between free speech and treason? Where do we draw the line? The answer may be found using that least-used resource: common sense.
I would submit that the elected leaders of this country have more responsibility than the rest of us to ensure that they give no aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. With American troops risking their lives in daily battle on behalf of the nation, critical words from those in leadership positions carry greater weight than in peacetime, both with the enemy and with our own troops.
Yet the leaders of the Democratic Party consistently attack the war in Iraq with lies, from distorting the history of our confrontation with Saddam Hussein, (web site) to prevaricating about their own statements which led us to war, (web site) to defaming the character of every member of the Bush administration in turn. Worst of all, however, is the slander they spread about our troops.
The Chairman of the Democratic party, Howard Dean, said during a radio interview on 6 December (web site) that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." Does this statement not give "aid and comfort" to the enemy? The leader of a major political party, to which nearly half of all Americans belong, is telling the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq that they will win; that they will beat the United States.
Dean also said that, "this is the same situation we had in Vietnam," and in a certain sense, he's right. The beaten, demoralized North Vietnamese leadership was given new hope by certain American politicians and the press, to the point where they struggled on until America's liberals turned public opinion against the war. America was forced to withdraw from Vietnam in disgrace, having never lost a battle, by people just like Howard Dean. With his defeatist statements, Dean is giving our enemies the aid and comfort they need to keep fighting. How many Americans will die because of Dean's irresponsible remarks, made only to seek political advantage? Tell me why that's not treason.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the Democratic Party's most recent Presidential candidate, appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" on 4 December (web site) to deface the American military. Speaking to interviewer Bob Schieffer, Kerry said that "there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- the historical customs, religious customs." (And some people accuse GW Bush of being incoherent?) .
Does a United States Senator and former Presidential candidate accusing American soldiers of terrorizing women and children in the dead of night not give aid and comfort to the enemy? Just as he did during Vietnam, (web site) John Kerry is falsely accusing American troops of committing atrocities as a matter of normal course in an attempt to undermine support for the war among Americans. As a consequence -- intended or not -- he is yet again handing America's enemies an immense propaganda victory. How many potential terrorists will have their hatred of Americans fueled by Kerry's matter-of-fact statement that American soldiers are terrorising women and children in their homes at night, breaking cultural and religious taboos? Tell me why that's not treason.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fully supports and endorses the recent statements of Representative John Murtha (D-PA), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Murtha has made a big splash among the anti-war faction by calling for an immediate -- within six months -- pullout from Iraq. On 1 December, Murtha told a group of leading Pennsylvania citizens (web site) that America would be forced to abandon Iraq within a year because the troops are "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth." Murtha is hailed as a hero in the media for suddenly changing his mind about the war in Iraq, but called it "unwinnable" and stated that "we cannot prevail... with the policy we have today," while urging President Bush to send even more troops in May 2004. (web site)
What a burst of enthusiasm Murtha's words must have engendered among our enemies! How much hope will they take from his proclamation that they are, in fact, winning the war? Despite fantastic losses, and despite earning the enmity of the Iraqi people, the terrorists and Saddam supporters in Iraq can now believe that if they just find the strength to hold on a little longer, they can push the hated United States out of Iraq. How many of the enemy will fight rather than surrender, because Pelosi and Murtha have told them they're winning? How does that not give the enemy aid and comfort? Is that not treason?
Not all Democrats follow the defeatist, destructive path of their leaders. But those ARE their leaders -- the Chairman of their party, their most recent Presidential candidate, their party leader in the House of Representatives. Some Democrat politicians have repudiated the statements of Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha and the rest... not because those remarks were vile, untrue and treasonous, but because the Democrats are afraid such openly anti-American statements might "harm efforts to win control of Congress next year," according to the Washington Post. (web site) The only way they can regain power is to hide their true feelings, and they know it. Treason, it seems, is still considered malapropos by some Democrats.
But not all.
-------------
Joe Mariani is a computer consultant born and raised in New Jersey. He now lives in Pennsylvania, where the gun laws are less restrictive and taxes are lower. Joe always thought of himself as politically neutral until he saw how far left the left had really gone after 9/11. His essays and links to articles are available at http://www.guardianwatchblog.com/
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
NOTE: All (website) notations can be accessed by going to the GOP USA link at the top of this article-smoothsailing
I love the 'white flag' commerical. I have sent the link to all the dems I know. I can just see all the flames in my email tomorrow.
It's a great commercial!
I've got a thread going on it now, I'll ping you to it!
:)
If the support of Saddam was done officially, then voting was done and plans and decisions were known.
We are talking the difference here being a few politicians acting on their own and sneaking monies without approval. And I contented that the monies were taken to support a known enemy of the States since militant Islam had already attack US interests up to this point (students taking embassey, M.E. Bureau for our CIA, 241 US Marines were killed by a homicide boomer in Beirut, etc.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489385/posts
My Enemy's Enemy by George Crile
He's got that wizard cap on at all times, calling upon the "elements"..
Yes. Si. Oui. Da. Hai. Yavole.
YES!
The Mujahadeen had been our friends and they were figthing the soviet puppet Najibullah. The money had to be hidden because mostly - The Bush I Admnistration had said to turn off the spigot. (Congress' ignoring this sounds like a reverse Iran-Contra!! Amazing this wasn't used to bash the Democrats, but typical Bush I collaboration. Also, did Bush I really not know about this, with him being X-CiA?) Another reason, to a lesser extent, is I remember us being worried the Soviets were going to take Sadddam's side during the Gulf War, and that 92 defense bill where the money would have shown up as us fighting the soviet puppets in Afgahanistan, would have probably been funded, publicly, in early 91 when the war with Saddam was still going on. Murtha was reluctant in 91 but Wilson was such a hero that he couldn't turn him down. This was right at the time Murtha and the rest of the crowd and the CIA was waking up to what they were doing. I can't call him a traitor - just stupid, and fat with "inertia".
Considering the statements made by Kerry, Dean, Boxer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha - it's getting pretty darn close!
Mujahadeen is an islamic militant. It was islamic militants that murdered our CIA M.E. Bureau Chief, 241 US Marines and took our US Embassey in Iran before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In other words, they waged war on US interests and this made them our friends???
Can you show me something that says 'The Bush I Admnistration had said to turn off the spigot'?
When did the Mujahadeen wage war on US interests?
Sure they were islamic militants.
The Chinese are also communists, and the North Koreans are communists, and the North Vietnamese were communists who killed many Americans, just as Hamas, Al Qaeda, and the Mujahadeen are islamic militants, but we don't treat them all the same way. Some of them can offer us things that are useful against the worse of them. China can put pressure on N.Korea. In the 80s, The Afgahni Mujahadeen tribe of the islamic militant death-worshhipping cult, was the enemy of our enemy - just like Stalin was the enemy of our enemy during WWII. In these games, timing is everything. This Mujahadeen "insurgent" aid thing was just another deal with a particular devil that that the Murtha/Wilson clan stupidly and disgracefully, and fatally, as we & Wilson have seen, but not traitorously, IMO prolonged. Churchill cut the ties with Stalin post-war with his iron curtain speech, like the Bush I administration tried to turn off the spigot to the Mujahadeen, after the Soviets pulled out of Afg. - according to your article in this paragraph:
"Wilson was surprised that spring to hear that the administration was not putting in a request for more money. There had been meetings in Wilson's office and talks with Judge William Webster, the new director of Central Intelligence, about the coming year's budget, but the Agency was no longer of a single mind. The Bush administration, however, wanted out of this game -- so the CIA's seventh floor had no choice but to reflect the opinion of their masters in the White House. "
Bush should have delivered an "iron curtain" speech about islamic radicalism in general right after the Soviet defeat in Afg. Did he really not know that the congress was end-running around him on the Mujahadeen?
If he had not been so eager to lose the 92 election he could have used his second term to ally US with Russia and the Stans, to keep a heavy heel on the mohamMadmen.
>>>>When did the Mujahadeen wage war on US interests?
- 1979 Mujahadeen took the U.S. Embassy in Tehran with 62 US Hostages
- 1983 Mujahadeen bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut
- 1983 Mujahadeen killed the M.E. CIA Chief
- 1983 Mujahadeen drove a truck of explosives into a US Marine barrack killing 241 of our soldiers
- 1983 Mujahadeen attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
- 1983 Mujahadeen attacked Raytheon employees, an American company
- 1984 Mujahadeen kidnapped our CIA Chief, Bill Buckley
- 1984 thru 1985, airlines and cruiselines were hijacked with American passengers singled out for execution
That shows me that the Mujahadeen were enemies of the States.
I'm still waiting for you show me something that says 'The Bush I Admnistration had said to turn off the spigot'?
But you saying 'Did he really not know that the congress was end-running around him on the Mujahadeen?' tells me he never said that statement or anything remotely resembling it.
Can you tell me why Murtha got caught in AbScam as well as being involved with arming militant Islamists?
I submit Bush did know that the congress was end-running around him on the Mujahadeen. That is what created the need for AbScam.
By the way, you seem kind of attuned to insider perfidy. I'm usually surfing the Joe Wilson links.
Do you have any idea why the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger? Does the CIA hate W? Was Tenet a traitor or just wrong about the slam dunk?
Why do you keep changing the subject?
"I'm still waiting for you show me something that says 'The Bush I Admnistration had said to turn off the spigot'?"
See my second to last post - "Wilson was surprised that spring to hear that the [BUSH I] administration was not putting in a request for more money. [was turning off the spigot] There had been meetings in Wilson's office and talks with Judge William Webster, the new director of Central Intelligence, about the coming year's budget, but the Agency was no longer of a single mind. The Bush administration, however, wanted out of this game [Wanted to Turn Off the Spigot] -- so the CIA's seventh floor had no choice but to reflect the opinion of their masters in the White House. "
Are all those "Mujahadeen" that you listed Afgani Mujahadeen that were fighting the Soviets?
If so you are right about Murtha being a tratior. But then so was the Reagan administration since it helped them fight the Soviets too. I can't buy that. The Afgani Mujahadeen that Murtha aided did not capture the US hostages Iran.
How bad was Murtha involved in Abscam? I didn't see him listed as "convicted" on your link, unlike the others.
This Abscam thing really does stink though. Probably Murtha was dirty on it and should have been run out of the House. But that still doesn't make him a traitor.
I saw murtha tonight on Fox being grilled by Kasich.
Kasich laid it right on him - why do you want to help Zarkawi? He just keeps saying the Iraqis are ready to take care of themselves, when it's obvious they're not. He wants our troops off to Kuwait and Okinawa.
What is his motivation?
Keep?
See my second to last post - "Wilson was surprised that spring to hear that the [BUSH I] administration was not putting in a request for more money. [was turning off the spigot] There had been meetings in Wilson's office and talks with Judge William Webster, the new director of Central Intelligence, about the coming year's budget, but the Agency was no longer of a single mind. The Bush administration, however, wanted out of this game [Wanted to Turn Off the Spigot] -- so the CIA's seventh floor had no choice but to reflect the opinion of their masters in the White House."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489385/posts
My Enemy's Enemy by George Crile
Yes. I ignored it the first time because you took that quote after the Soviet/Afghanistan conflict was over. Money was already stolen. You are pulling text and twisting to create an impression that is not there.
>>>Are all those "Mujahadeen" that you listed Afgani Mujahadeen that were fighting the Soviets?
Mujahadeen are not country based. They are cultural cause based. Militant Islam answers to an Arab Nation. Not a country.
>>How bad was Murtha involved in Abscam? I didn't see him listed as "convicted" on your link, unlike the others.
From:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489385/posts?page=2#2
O'Neill put Wilson on the Ethics Committee to save Murtha, which he did. In return, O'Neill assigned Wilson to the defense appropriations subcommittee and made him a life member of the governing board of the John F. Kennedy Performing Arts Center, where he delighted in taking his young dates.
>>>But that still doesn't make him a traitor.
I believe this was our original discussion. Traitor is aiding enemies of the State. I was trying to show he did with assisting in arming Militant Islam.
"Mujahadeen are not country based."
Are all communists equal too? We must have the same relationship with the Chinese that we do with the Cubans?
The Afgani Mujahadeen were helping us throughout the 80s discomfort the Russians. What's the difference then in your mind between Reagan and Murtha?
I don't see how I'm pulling text and twisting it to create an impression that's not there. Maybe you better restate what you mean by:
"I'm still waiting for you show me something that says 'The Bush I Admnistration had said to turn off the spigot'?"
You know what you said. I asked you to show me what you based this on:
'The Bush I Admnistration had said to turn off the spigot'
The text you pulled was after Wilson stole money.
But you know that.
Do you have anything else to support that text?
You are also confusing Afghan citizens with islamic mujahadeen warlords.
But I think you know that too since you keep trying to change the subject.
You and I are not on the same wavelength.
I thought the subject was Murtha. You know it is.
What's the difference in your mind between Reagan who supported the Afgani Mujahadeen against the Soviets (assuming he knew what the CIA was doing), and Murtha who supported the Afgani Mujahadeen against the Soviet puppets?
I agree Kerry and the group you mention should all be in a brig under Marine guard. No argument for me on that
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.