Democrats Are Traitors: Part Deux

PoliBlog responds to my post in which I point out that Democrats are traitors. It's a reasonable, though off the mark post and deserves being addressed.

In the first place, he states that the penalty for treason is death. That's not true and serves only as hyperbole to mask the truth. I'm not charging someone in court, I am simply accurately characterizing their statements.

Treason:

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."

Here are some important items from Steven's response, though I'd encourage you to read it all.

If Dan is really as concerned about this situation as he makes out, then surely he would prefer that we, as a country, work this situation out–something that is going to be impossible if we are going to basically tell each other to shut up (which is what this kind of talk accomplishes).

Could I also point out that many of our friends, family and co-workers vote for the Democratic Party. Are we going to send out the National Guard to round them up?

I mean, really: this treason business is ridiculous. The bottom line is that there are different views on these issues (i.e., Iraq, the War on Terror, etc.) and it is simply wrong to label someone a traitor because they don’t agree with your position.

Very well, in incidents so noteworthy as to not even require a link in all cases, former Democrat Presidential candidate Al Gore took to the stage and said of our Commander In Chief during a time of war:

"He betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

The speech had several hundred Democrats roaring their approval for Mr. Gore, the party's 2000 standard-bearer.

Another Democrat Presidential Candidate, John Kerry, went on a major network show, Face The Nation at CBS, and announced:

And 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. Whether you like it or not...

Leading Democrat John Murtha went on television and pronounced several Marines guilty of cold-blooded murder in Iraq. And we now know he did that prior to having any depth of knowledge of the case.

There aren't enough web pages on this blog to archive the treasonous statements of former Democrat President Jimmy Carter when it comes to current events - and often overseas, at that. Frankly, I could go through the entire Democrat leadership and come up with many more examples.

So, now, what? I've provided a link to the definition of the word treason. I have characterized the statements of leading Democrats precisely as they are. Am I supposed to buy into the notion that they, as leaders, are welcome to engage in such destructive discourse, yet, me a humble blogger, is somehow hurting the debate for calling said statements precisely what they are? Sorry, I think not.

Let the individuals who would seek to defend the Democrat's honor in this regard answer me this - how is it that such statements as displayed above can be seen as anything other than injurious to our nation during a time of war? And as that phrase itself is included in the very definition of treason, why is it so wrong, or dangerous to simply call them what they are?

Steven suggests he could be marginalized from this debate as someone, potentially me, would now call him a traitor. Certainly not, his response was reasoned and somewhat thought out. But, allow me to ask this: as all I have done is call a spade a spade, why is it that my rhetoric should result in me being marginalized from our political debate? That is precisely what Steven is advocating, after all.

If one is worried about friends and family who vote for Democrats being made out as traitors, I never said anything of the sort. But if they are family or good friends, perhaps one should ask them how they can defend such treasonous discourse from the leaders of their beloved party. That might be a more productive conversation than attempting to marginalize another point of view which does nothing more than point out said statements and individuals for what they, by definition, really are.

I played no role in telling Democrats how to carry on as they have. But I'll be damned if the offensive nature of thier own words and deeds is going to prevent me from carrying on about it, however I would.

Comments

[RightWinged]

Dan, you forgot about Rockefeller saying:

"No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."

What treason?

[DC]

Dan,

The point you make here shows the way this election season: The Republicans' problems are never a question of whose side they are on. With a number of Demos (including the Kos-base), it now is. It's a choice, not a referendum. In these times, the responsible should vote Republican.

[Hopeful]

I just got here : is this forum a masturbatory sauna for fascists? Traitors are those who kill their own soldiers for personal financial gains, like the current Vice-President of the US who happens to be CEO of the company rebuilding the mess they did in iraq. Traitors are the idiots devoting time to a biased, dumb blog of fascist opinions. Sorry to be blunt, the kind of people you are deserve nothing better.

[Phoenix]

"that we, as a country, work this situation out–something that is going to be impossible if we are going to basically tell each other to shut up (which is what this kind of talk accomplishes)."

This is one of the statements that stuck in my craw. I would have quoted it, but don't know how to link. What in the hell does he mean here? So, get started on some sane solutions to working it out instead of bringing up the past and blaming Bush for everything. Griping, pointing the finger of blame is not reasonable discourse to solving anything. How tiresome they are.

How utterly callow are their semantic forays into the media cameras. Someone needs to Dixie-Chick them because, like the Chicks, they will never be able to make it right unless they shut up and sing something that smacks of reason and not treason. Christ, I thought the Brits were fools in their Parliament. I'm embarrassed.

[Phoenix]

Hopeful,

I guess all you have left is hope considering those warts have spread to your brain.

[Luker]

Democraps are a "plaque" of sorts. Totally disgusting LOSERS !

[larwyn]

They don't want to know what words actually mean. Just as Orwell warned the misuse of the language was the most successful tactic of the Socialist.
Bet that the NEA taught Hopeful everything she/he knows.

[Steven Charles]

I'm new to this whole blogging thing. In fact I just found your comments by happenstance. Yes, Demoncrats can,IMHO, be correctly classified as traitors; but no more so than so-called Republicans. They all took the oath under the Constitution, which says in pertinent part that the United States will guarantee a republican form of government to all the states. In fact what they have done is to force upon us, by numerous, well choreographed methods and events, a DEMOCRACY. When was the last time you heard any politician speak of preserving the republic? The United States (a government corporation) was limited to 100 square miles ("...not to exceed ten miles square..."); so, what's it doing in all our lives? Simple answer: promoting their legislative democracy headquartered in the "district" which now encompasses what used to be called Washington city. You can yammer on and on about the demoncrats vs. the gop republicans. Right or wrong in the specifics means nothing. Whether you yammer with style or gusto is of no consequence. Like the pharisees and the saducees, they are just opposite sides of the same coin. The Hegelian principle is truly an ancient reality. Thesis has long been presented for no other purpose but to provide a stage for antithesis to appear and mollify, excite, confuse or just entertain the crowds. In the end, though the puppeteers have drawn the crowd's attention from the real issues of the day, and the performes, of course, are well paid. Have you ever noticed how well these perverts get along when not onstage? Get a clue. Better yet, get back to the foundational tenets upon which this country was founded. Your local banker is a bigger threat to you and this country than that herd of ragheads could ever be. It's not too late to turn the tide.

[Steven Taylor]

Phoenix:

What I meant in that sentence is that if you go around telling roughly half of the nation that they (or, at a minimum the leaders of their Party) are traitors, then you have shut down debate. You might as well just tell them to "shut up."

S

[Bilby]

In other words, because people don't want to be called traitors they might refrain from any speech that someone would call traitorous. So the reasonable approach is for nobody to call what anybody says traitorous, even if it is, because to do so would "chill" their speech. Do I have that right?

[pennywit]

I find it interesting that Riehl appears to level the most incendiary of charges, yet demands the most reasonable of responses.

--|PW|--

[Phoenix]

Steven T,

Shut down debate? I don't think so. It opens debate.......... IF the so-called 'traitors' can reason their way into a good debate and support their views with something more than unctuous talking points that bore people senseless and offer exactly no solutions that have a scintilla of reality in them. <---- That shuts down debate. Name-calling opens it.

If someone calls me a 'bitch' is that going to shut me down? Hardly.

[marv]

Hopeful,
If you really wanted to be accurate, you would have said that Cheney USED to be CEO, but then accuracy doesn't mean much to you lefties. The CEO of Halliburton is David Lesar.
Get your facts straight.

[Dan Riehl]

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN."

As you seem to be such a great researcher and Lincoln fan, now go back and fetch Lincoln's well-known quotes where he said Blacks are inferior to whites, interracial marriage is unacceptable. And black people will never be able to live equally among whites due to who they are as a race. Then start your lobbying effort to repeal all civil rights legislation, as you firmly buy into everything Lincoln said. Fool. And, final warning, keep your language free of expletives when commenting, or I will be forced to ban you for THAT, and not opposing my views.

[Robert]

Thanks for showing Lincoln was a true Republican Dan.
It must have been the South's hatred for the North/ Lincoln that kept them from joining their racist brethren in the GOP until the 1960s.

BTW, that quote from Gore shows how right he was about Bush. Just as he called the Iraq War (he correctly thought it was a mistake) and, of course, his leadership in the fight against global warming.

Just goes to show that being intellectually curious might not be a bad thing after all.

Do you think a guy like Gore, who bats 1.000 on these 3 could ever be President?

[mylena]

well dan are you trying to tell that 48% of the american peopla are TRAITORS? what do you want to do whith them?

[Phoenix]

Wow, another perfect example of boring, stupid, useless references to the past. That solves a lot. Seems to me if someone cannot address with sense and reason the current event, situation, crisis and come up with viable solutions, then... hey, shut up.

"Keep one foot in the past, one foot in the future, and your head in the present." Dizzy Gillespie.

oooh yeah.... That made my head dizzy with its logic.

[theAmericanist]

LOL -- Dan has either banned me, or cut a post because it made him look like the fool he is.

In case it's the latter, the last word: this is how logic works, Dan --

Your 'argument', such as it is, says that folks who talk like (this), are committing "treason".

So I quoted Abraham Lincoln's 1848 letter to Herndon about the war with Mexico.

You responded by objecting to my precise use of English, which you confused with an expletive. (I noted a proper use of an expletive in the post you deleted.)

You also wondered if I endorsed everything else Lincoln said in a long public career.

What a coward.

The proof of your cowardice doesn't depend on whether I endorse everything Lincoln said, or for that matter, anything he said.

You said people who talk like (this) are traitors. I noted, without comment, that LINCOLN talked like that.

Either you have principles, and thus believe that Abraham Lincoln committed treason in 1848, or you have no principles, because you don't.

(shrug)

No guts, no glory. We've already established you're illiterate, and brainless to boot -- and I got news for you: what you're covering yourself with, ain't glory.

Which explains why you stink.

[Dan Riehl]

Which explains

I warned you about the language and deleted posts when you didn't comply. If you don't abide by those conventions in the future, you will find all your comments gone. I'm not a Liberal, I don't issue warnings, or say things I don't mean. Get it, or get out.

[jpe]

The above definition of treason is simply ridiculous in the context of a democracy, in which disagreement is the engine of the polity. If mere disagreement is treason, the party in power would forever remain in power. That ceases to be a democracy, and becomes something more pernicious. By attacking the very foundations of democracy, the author of the post reveals either his glaring stupidity or totalitarian impulses.

[Phoenix]

Since when is slander of the polity and giving aid and comfort and support and secrets and regards to the enemy considered disagreement? When you make up your own interpretation of truth. That degrades democracy as surely as totalitarianism suspends truth for a solipsistic group-think.

[mylena]

well i quess the right wording you would say then is stupid in stead of traitor...

[rwilymz]

"as surely as totalitarianism suspends truth for a solipsistic group-think"

I like that.

World War II saw a whole cadre of people quibbling about whether we should involve ourselves in **yet another** European war -- months after we were already involved. Which made it, frankly, pointless to quibble. And they were wasting time and effort doing so; and they were squandering America's time and resources by doing so. And the American people of "The Greatest Generation" generation, not being too terribly invested with political correctness, called those who demanded incessant "democratic debate" after the fact exactly what they were: nazi sympathizers.

Being a nazi sympathizer was one step shy of being the outright traitorious nazi collaborator, but Charles Lindbergh's reputation was shot, even though he himself wasn't. Joe Kennedy Sr lived on through his sons.

There are many people today who are pan-islamist sympathizers, insisting on holding public hearings after the fact. The time for public hearings is after the war, not after the first battle with imperfect results; not after the war execution shows the first deviation from the war plan.

Being a traitor requires some form of measurable assistance, more or less deliberate, to the nation's enemies. There would be a necessary distinction between those who, f'rinstance, argue that the NSA should get warrants before wiretaps and those who would inform the enemy, "Pssst! Hey! Guys! Dummy up! The US has spies listening to your phone calls!" ...no matter the rationalization for saying so.

[theAmericanist]

Dan proves yet again what a fool he is: "I warned you about the language and deleted posts when you didn't comply. If you don't abide by those conventions in the future, you will find all your comments gone. I'm not a Liberal, I don't issue warnings..."

What you're not, dude, is LITERATE. For one thing, in the Lincoln post... I quoted Lincoln. It speaks volumes about your knucklehead-itude that quoting the President who saved the Union is unacceptable to you.

But this is just priceless -- and typical:

Note "I warned you..." followed by "I don't issue warnings."

In the immortal words of that great political philosopher Bugs Bunny: What a maroon.

[rwilymz]

"...quoting the President who saved the Union is unacceptable..."

Wait. Lincoln. I vaguely recall that name from somewhere ...

Ah, yes, right.

Suspended habeas corpus. Waged riotously unpopular war on behalf of the meddlesome busybody minority of self-righteous [and idly wealthy] New Englanders.

Saved the union? For whom? The legacy of his failed administration was in gladhanding the US economy to corporate entities, railroad barons, child labor exploiters, westward expansionists and carpetbaggery of all shapes and sizes.

[theAmericanist]

"[The US Constitution] rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice President, Confederate States of America; speech given at Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861

"US Constitution
Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction...."

"Can a Negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?... no black man has any rights a white man need respect."

- Chief Justice Taney, Scott vs. Sandford, majority opinion, 1857

US Constitution

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside ..."

[OR]

The 13th & 14th Amendments came about eight months after the ACW ended during Johnson's administration.

[Buckwheat]

Otay! Tank yew, Mr. Americanist. Yew mayde me hares stand on end.

[rwilymz]

"US Constitution//Amendment XIII"

I like it.

Mentions "involuntary servitude" in the same negative breath as it mentions slavery. Both are prohibited.

Making someone work for wage to pay a non-dischargeable debt. Verbotten. Marvelous.

Can you tell me what that forced labor sounds like?

No... it's not "income taxes" either.

Think on it.

[theAmericanist]

I suppose it says something about rwilymz here that he's never read the 13th amendment before -- quite possibly had never even heard of it. Typical.

Not clear what OR thinks is significant about the 13th, 14th (not to mention the 15th) amendments being written and ratified after Appomattox, as well as Lincoln's assassination. (He didn't get to serve out his term, yanno: it wasn't like he left a mess to some successor to solve, the way Bush intends to leave Iraq.)

But the implication that these three transforming amendments to the Constitution that collectively make up the "new birth of freedom" are somehow distinct from Lincoln's legacy is too stupid to let stand, even in a bigot's blogthreads.

It is a common mistake about the Civil War and secession: as a legal fact, secession never happened. The mistake is so common and started so early that Grant and Sherman, to pick two, routinely blundered into talking about states 'leaving' the Union, and 'coming back' into it; but it was a mistake Lincoln himself never made, precisely because as early as 1861, he was demonstrably thinking about what the war would do to the country and how to restore it.

Because secession was not legally possible, the success of the Confederacy was ONLY possible on the battlefield. When it lost, that meant it never had any legal force at all, so far as the legitimate Federal government was concerned.

BUT -- this also meant that all of the legal contradictions (including slavery) that had caused the war in the first place, still existed. Dred Scott was still the law of the land.

It is pretty much impossible to find a time in Lincoln's thinking BEFORE evidence showing he was considering the problem -- it's in the Cooper Union speech, and even in his House votes on the District of Columbia.

Apologists for white supremacy like to stupidly cite stuff they don't understand, like Lincoln's "abuse" of habeus corpus, as if that proves he was a tyrant or a dictator.

You can argue that arresting secessionists in the Maryland legislature was some outrageous abuse of power, but it was also a highly focused, limited operation that succeeded and was not repeated. The stakes if it had NOT been done -- a capitol surrounded by hostile territory -- is a pretty good indication that Lincoln did the right thing.

If he was either a tyrant or a dictator, he would certainly have had Vallandingham shot -- or at least, supported General Butler having him arrested. He didn't. Even though he was openly advocating the surrender of the Union AND urging soldiers to desert, Lincoln didn't charge the guy with treason. he had Vallandingham released -- to the Confederacy, which effectively ended his political career, and serves him right.

Lincoln knew better than anybody else that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves, by definition ((he said so at the time) but of course this proves that he DID know what he was doing: he made the war unequivocally and irrevocably about slavery.

He took a huge political risk when he did that -- he could easily have lost his majority in Congress in 1862, or the Presidency itself in 1864: but the Union Army itself, the farmers and city guys, the immigrants from all over, the ones doing the fighting and dying -- THEY voted for Lincoln over McClellan, and it's not like they didn't know McLellan.

Lincoln was discussing the 13th and 14th amendments in general terms with abolitionists like Stevens and Douglass, and even Blaine (the author of the 14th amendment, which was originally a statute), as early as December 1862, long before the war was won.

Lincoln's leadership is nowhere more impressive, or subtle, in the way he gathered and aimed the forces that created the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments BEFORE the war was over. He made sure that even in the darkest days of the Union, that the Constitution prevailed, AND he ensured that when the Union was preserved, it would not be as it was.

Slavery would be abolished by Constitutional amendment, the only way it could be; Dred Scott would be overturned AND, for the first time, a meaningful national citizenship created, by the 14th amendment.

LOL -- hell, throw in the creation of the land grant college system and the fact that he was far and away the best writer of all of our Presidents (not to mention the funniest), and it's just... revealing, that anybody would post here "Saved the Union? For whom? The legacy of his failed administration..."

Not to mention Buckwheat's appearance.

Wow. Just... wow.

[OR]

"Not clear what OR thinks is significant about the 13th, 14th (not to mention the 15th) amendments being written and ratified after Appomattox, as well as Lincoln's assassination."

Because, as usual, you left that important fact out thereby allowing poor buckwheat to be confused. I know it is a shock but there are people who don't even know we have a Constitution, much less that it has been "amended" once or twice.

[rwilymz]

"I suppose it says something about rwilymz here that he's never read the 13th amendment before -- quite possibly had never even heard of it. Typical."

I suppose it says something of the Americanist [sic] that he leaps to unsupportible conclusions as a backdrop to his pretentious drivel.

Douglas was an abolitionist? Learn something new every day.

But yay! let's rationalize the historical grasps for power because they were justified. The past is far easier to reconcile, 20/20 hindsight being what it is, than current examples of far less magnitude.

The Alps on the horizon isn't nearly so impressive to an ant as the mole hill right in front of him that he's got to get across. They're about the same size ... right?

"Apologists for white supremacy like to stupidly cite stuff they don't understand, like Lincoln's "abuse" of habeus corpus, as if that proves he was a tyrant or a dictator."

Find an apologist for white supremacy, buffoon.

Then crack a dictionary and find the definition of 'analogy' -- hint: it's not the study of the anal.

People hyper-critical of today's "abuses" would have died of a stroke during any number of America's past abuses [not that it's not a bad idea]. But ... let's continue to disemble, shall we?

Every past example had "reasons", but current examples are reasonless. Go with that, and try to convince people that disagreement with your enlightened navel-gazing constitutes "white supremacism".

Write when you find work.

[theAmericanist]

ROFL -- rwilymz is evidently embarrassed to be caught dissing Lincoln's achievement.

This is a good thing, cuz it shows unlike our host, rwilymz is at least CAPABLE of embarrassment.

Re-read some of your other posts, rwilymz, who knows what heights you can yet achieve.

And um, rwilymz? I wrote Douglass, as in Frederick, not Douglas, as in Stephen. But I suppose a white supremacist like you (what other conclusion could one draw from your ignorant attack on Lincoln's achievements, as noted above?) doesn't consider any black man to have any opinions a white guy need respect.

(For those following at home: Stephen Douglas was dead before the war was over, though he spent the last few months of his life PASSIONATELY defending the Union, and backing Lincoln. Frederick Douglass was indeed an abolitionist -- of course -- but he also gave the lie to every idiot since then in his defense of Lincoln's love of liberty: "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined...He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go....He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by slave-holders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war....infinite wisdom has seldom sent any man into the world better fitted for his mission than Abraham Lincoln." )

Frederick DOUGLASS.

Do try to READ before you speak next time.

[OR]

Anyone know where to find proof that a state may not vote to leave the union?

[OR]

This Frederick Douglass?

"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was pre-eminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country."

[theAmericanist]

Yup, that's the one.

And I would suggest you start with Mrs. Lee's rose garden at Arlington, as fertilized per Montgomery Meigs.

[OR]

Really, it would have been fine to say "I have no idea, look for yourself." But your terse answer is not unlike Lincoln's "Star of the west" response. 'Let's send in reinforcements and supplies to see if we can provoke an attack' rather than an attempt at discorse. Been poking around and once one gets past the neo-confederate BS, a few decent pro/con arguments can be found for the interested.

[theAmericanist]

LOL -- really, when you don't get a reference, look it up.

Arlington National Cemetery began when Montgomery Meigs, then quartermaster general of the Army of the Potomac, had to decide what to do with a number of open railroad cars on which about 2,000 dead Americans had been shipped from Chancellorsville.

Of course at that time, the Federal government controlled all the high ground on the southern shore of the Potomac, including Lee's family home at Arlington and the surrounding hills.

Meigs who had been at West Point with Lee and regarded him not only as a traitor to his country, but also as a man who had broken the solemn word of the oath that he had taken with Meigs at West Point, decided the best place to bury these 2,000 bodies was Mrs. Lee's rose garden.

(shaking head) I suppose it is foolish of me to have expected somebody like OR, willing to ask stupid questions and express even dumber opinions would recognize when he'd GOTTEN the answer he sought.

There ARE no 'decent' pro/con arguments about secession. Go walk the cemeteries before you even talk this way.

[OR]

It is quite likely that I have walked and stood honor guard at more cemeteries than you have seen. I've been to Arlington, know the whole story. Of course, this has nothing to do with whether there was justification for secession. I understand of course your need to attack people rather than to simply admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm thankful that you are not an educator as our children are messed up enough.

[theAmericanist]

"I've been to Arlington, know the whole story. Of course, this has nothing to do with whether there was justification for secession..."

QED.

[jamie]

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!

NO MORE DEMAGOGUERY!!!!

There is NO TREASON in any of the remarks you quoted. NONE.

You don't like dissent, Dan? Then you have adopted the values of our enemies. Congratulations for abandoning one of the things that makes America a great nation.

As a Republican, I look forward to the day when all of the Limbaugh parrots finally self-destruct and leave the party. The country will breathe a sigh of relief - and my Republican politician grandfather can stop spinning in his grave. The neocons are FAKE Republicans who have no idea what the party stands for. I hate what they have done to us.

[Phoenix]

Demagoguery? The only place I saw any of that is in the remarks Dan quoted.

Dissent is one thing: It becomes actionable when it counters the efforts of a country in a time of war.

Those 'fake' Republicans have managed to keep you alive. What do you think 'real' Republicans would have done after 9/11 and during this time of a global war on terror? Cut corporate taxes, tell the world terrorism is none of our business, and hire Halliburton to rebuild the Twin Towers with great high-fives because they needed remodeling anyway to cull a higher tax rate on the property?

[theAmericanist]

ROFL -- golly, if you guys didn't take yourselves so seriously, you could open in Vegas.

"Those 'fake'Republicans have managed to keep you alive...."

Did they now? The guys who wouldn't listen to Clinton's national security folks who warned 'em about al Qaeda? The guys who didn't respond to a report titled "Al Qaeda to Strike in the US"? The guys who defended that failure by claiming that 'nobody expected them to hijack aircraft', when in fact that was the PRIMARY warning from the last blue ribbon, bipartisan panel?

LOL -- oh, yeah, I forgot: "bipartisan" means "date-rape".

Let's see, what would 'real Republicans' have done after 9-11? Cut corporate taxes? Check. Cut income taxes? Check. Organized a global coalition to lead our best friends and most powerful allies to fight terrorism? Not so much.

"It becomes actionable when it counters the efforts of a country in a time of war." Golly, if ignorance was worth as much as oil, I'd bid on the drilling rights to your head.

By any objective measure, Bush has failed in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. He set goals that he has not achieved: accountability USED to be a conservative value. 'Course, one can argue (as Bush used to) that we should "stay the course", but even he has figured out that continuing to do what has failed is not exactly the key to success, much less persuading people who notice reality.

Now his objective is quite literally simply getting out of office without being driven out of Iraq: that isn't victory. It's the most craven sort of political cowardice: the "decent interval" that Nixon and Kissinger chose as the best way to sell out our allies in South Vietnam.

There is such a stench of denial about you guys. Personally, I said just two things about Bush's war in Iraq before we gave up on Afghanistan: 1) since our President had said Saddam had to go, he had to go: I want the world's bad guys to BELIEVE American Presidents when they say stuff like that (and I want American voters to remember why we have elections: Nader voters, especially), and 2) wars are easier to start than to finish.

I'm a lot more confident of those in retrospect than anybody I know who wholeheartedly supported the war is of ANYTHING they said to justify it. Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMDs were, "around Tikrit"? Well? We were going to be welcomed with flowers? There would be no civil war, Sunnis and Shi'ites and Kurds would happily unite in a single federated government?

Measure the results against my own two pre-war observations, and you get far more damning criticisms than most, IMNSHO. American credibility, now that Saddam is gone? We've lost far more than we've gained. Wars are easy to end? Don't think so.

The first military principle is the OBJECTIVE. Just as Bush had (foolishly) over-reached in saying we have to take over Iraq after 9-11, he stated our objective in the war on terror plainly: bin Laden, dead or alive.

He has failed. Look at the London plot -- a few dozen British Muslims: good thing we have 150,000 troops 7,000 miles away from THOSE guys to fight that sorta thing, huh?

That's one reason you state an objective, yanno: so you can tell if you've achieved it.

(Try to follow along, Dan. Take notes if necessary.)

A whole lot of sensible people recognized even at the time that the job was way too big for Bush, that he simply wasn't up to it. He has never seemed to know what an objective IS. He defined it as "the war on terror", which a number of people pointed out is an emotion, and thus by definition unwinnable.

And when you look at the specific objectives he HAS set, e.g., capturing bin Laden, toppling Saddam, pacifying Iraq and leaving it stable, you realise he's at best one for three, and the least important one, at that: not to mention (as London proves) the most counterproductive.

Put it this way: if there was a choice, I'd rather we caught bin Laden and left Saddam in power.

Anybody disagree?

[rwilymz]

"rwilymz is evidently embarrassed to be caught dissing Lincoln's achievement"

Right. That's what I was doing.

Academic masturbation becomes you.

"I wrote Douglass, as in Frederick, not Douglas, as in Stephen"

You also wrote "white supremacist" as in me; so who knew? You haven't shown much talent in intellectual veracity, so I was expecting more slipshod lightweightery.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question: what modern phenomenon is virtually inarguably in violation of the "involuntary servitude" portion of the 13thAm?

[Original Rick]

"The guys who wouldn't listen to Clinton's national security folks who warned 'em about al Qaeda? The guys who didn't respond to a report titled "Al Qaeda to Strike in the US"?"

Now those would be the same people who knew exactly where Bin Laden was, could've taken him anytime and bombed an aspirin factory? The same ones who knew that Al Hatah was going to "attack" the US and did so much to prevent it...Those guys, yes?

[theAmericanist]

LOL -- rwilymz asks again. Perhaps you haven't noticed that, not being as stupid as you are, I won't bother to dignify what you consider 'thoughtful' with an answer. Subtle, you ain't.

Orick seems to be confused: the "people who knew exactly where bin Laden was" (which is a bit of a stretch, but arguable) WERE Clinton's national security folks. There was a reasonable argument to be made at the time, which was decisive for Clinton's state department, that the law did not allow us to kill bin Laden (no "clear and present danger", as the phrase goes). It's arguable, but it was not unreasonable. Bear in mind, bin Laden had been our ALLY in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Whatever else we know about the incident, your premise is that Clinton's intelligence was better than Bush's: we KNEW where bin Laden was. Where is he now?

If you reject Clinton's initial decision not to try to kill bin Laden BEFORE 9-11 (which he reversed, btw, also before 9-11), then it is considerably worse that Bush has failed to capture or kill the guy, EVEN THOUGH HE SAID IT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE, after he killed 3,000 Americans in an attack Bush was explicitly warned about -- and did nothing whatsoever to prevent.

The "guys who wouldn't listen to Clinton's national security folks who warned 'em about al Qaeda" were BUSH'S staff.

It is reasonable (but false) to say that Clinton's people did not warn Bush's guys about al Qaeda. The record is very clear -- they DID warn Rice, et al, but the Bush guys essentially took the view that whatever was important to Clinton was not important to them.

It's also worth remembering that at the time when the Clinton administration was changing its mind, recognizing that there bin Laden DID pose "a clear and present danger" and then trying to kill him (and failing), Republicans in Congress were vigorously undermining American troops in combat in Kosovo (I didn't notice Dan talking about treason then), and accusing Clinton of trying to distract from his pending impeachment trial by 'wag the dog' efforts against a bogus threat.

It's also worth noting that Clinton DID achieve his objective with bin Laden: he drove him out of Sudan.

Does the London attack show us that Bush has achieved any of his objectives?

[rwilymz]

"Put it this way: if there was a choice, I'd rather we caught bin Laden and left Saddam in power. Anybody disagree?"

Classic false dichotomy. There is much to disagree with.

"The guys who wouldn't listen to Clinton's national security folks who warned 'em about al Qaeda?"

Clinton didn't liston to Clinton's national security folks either.

"The guys who didn't respond to a report titled "Al Qaeda to Strike in the US"?"

Do you have any comprehension of how many pissed off hotheads around the world want to "strike at the US"?

"The guys who defended that failure by claiming that 'nobody expected them to hijack aircraft', when in fact that was the PRIMARY warning from the last blue ribbon, bipartisan panel?"

Ah. So the Old-Politicians Home for Stentorian Debate becomes "blue ribbon panel". Gotcha.

"Let's see, what would 'real Republicans' have done after 9-11? Cut corporate taxes? Check. Cut income taxes? Check."

If you're going to argue that classical economics would have tax increases in the face of external economic forces, then you have a point. But if you'r going to suggest that tax cuts were subsequent to 9-11, I'd advise you to get a calendar and learn how to work it.

"Organized a global coalition to lead our best friends and most powerful allies to fight terrorism? Not so much."

Exactly which of our most powerful allies are you crossing off your list so peremptorilly?

"if ignorance was worth as much as oil, I'd bid on the drilling rights to your head."

Mirror mirror?

"By any objective measure, Bush has failed in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan."

As long as by "objective" you don't mean militarily. There were quite a number of best-of-all-possible-worlds assumptions made, particularly about Iraq, not the least of which is the enormity of occupying a nation of 25 million with dubious allegiance of the populace when that populace hadn't been subdued. ...in classical military terms.

If you wish to have any amount of credibility as a commentator on the subject, you'd best familiarize yourself with all facets of the subject, not simply those which grant you the best opportunity to ping a politician you dislike for a policy you don't understand. Why, someone would think you're a partisan merde-foot if you did that.

The best you can say -- and still be accurate -- is that by *some* objective measures, Bush's policies have failed in Iraq. A'stan... not really. You'd be hard-pressed to find actual examples of "failure".

"He set goals that he has not achieved: accountability USED to be a conservative value."

This makes no sense. You're tying "accountability" to "unachieved goals", neither defining nor explaining what was not achieved or what is inaccountable.

"'Course, one can argue (as Bush used to) that we should "stay the course", but even he has figured out that continuing to do what has failed is not exactly the key to success, much less persuading people who notice reality."

The >ahem< "people who notice reality" are most uncommonly ignorant of the means, methods, theories and exigencies of:
1] warfare, modern or otherwise;
2] conquest; or
3] occupation.
These "people" wouldn't know success or failure in such unless it was explained to them by people who do know -- and the American press ain't those people.

What these "people" **do** have, though, is votes, and if those votes can be manipulated by opponents for crass political purposes, well, then, you've got the politics of fear-mongering going up against the ... um ... politics of fear-mongering. And of course "my fear-monger can beat up your fear-monger".

"Now his objective is quite literally simply getting out of office without being driven out of Iraq: that isn't victory. It's the most craven sort of political cowardice: the "decent interval" that Nixon and Kissinger chose as the best way to sell out our allies in South Vietnam."

Wait! Are you arguing that we should have stayed in Vietnam?

"There is such a stench of denial about you guys."

Aw! Thanks. Same to you too.

"Personally, I said just two things about Bush's war in Iraq before we gave up on Afghanistan:"

See? Denial about you as well. Clue #736: we haven't given up on A'stan.

"1) since our President had said Saddam had to go, he had to go: I want the world's bad guys to BELIEVE American Presidents when they say stuff like that"

Frankly, I'm with you on this. And I could go on for days about specifics.

"(and I want American voters to remember why we have elections: Nader voters, especially)"

"Honest!" said the fox; "Those grapes are sour!"

"2) wars are easier to start than to finish."

And I'm with you on this, too. But much of the blame for this goes to the American "people who notice reality", because the reality that they glibly skip on past is that -- as you say -- wars are easier to start than to finish, and the finish is long, boring, costly and often very very messy. What **I** said prior to the War in Iraq was that it'd be a longshot for the US to lose any war, but it'd doubtful if the American Ignoratii could tolerate what was necessary to win the peace.

Hate to say I tolja so, but...

"Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMDs were"

So did Blix. Blix even knew how many were unaccounted for [though he probably rounded in his UNSCR presentations in November of '02]: 6,500.

"We were going to be welcomed with flowers?"

In a manner of speaking. By the Kurds.

"There would be no civil war, Sunnis and Shi'ites and Kurds would happily unite in a single federated government?"

This was probably the biggest pie in the sky, yes. It was roundly criticized by the low-level functionaries I work with, anyway.

"American credibility, now that Saddam is gone? We've lost far more than we've gained. Wars are easy to end? Don't think so."

Wars are sexy! Hard to find people who don't get all tingly when there's a war on. That's why they're easy to sell. Hell, we got all tingly when Britain fought Argentina in '82 and every time Israel fights it's latest batch of misfits. Extracting peace from war, though, is not sexy. It's biggest fault is that it's outright boring. Imagine a city council meeting discussing individual potholes, one at a time, taking a vote on each pothole, and no bathroom breaks. Then multiply it by a zillion giving everyone a microphone at the same time.

The same American "people who notice reality" who get all moist with desire over the war yawn and turn away from the peace-extraction, and then get horrified when, doggone it! the peace-extraction doesn't go according to script. "Oh, boooo! We don't approve!!" Well, you've got the attention-span of a gnat and the credibility of potted plant on the matter ... but you own a vote. So let's subvert military doctrine to partisan political whims.

THAT'S the way to victory, boy!

"The first military principle is the OBJECTIVE."

In the command bunker, yes. In the political arena, the first military objective is getting the people to dance around the flag-pole. The second military objective in the political arena is to *keep* the people dancing around the flag-pole. There are only two military objectives in the political arena.

You are equivocating and/or grossly ignorant of the differing aspects of what you desire to appear so expert on.

"Just as Bush had (foolishly) over-reached in saying we have to take over Iraq after 9-11, he stated our objective in the war on terror plainly: bin Laden, dead or alive."

He got the people dancing around the flag-pole didnee? That's his job.

"He has failed. Look at the London plot -- a few dozen British Muslims: good thing we have 150,000 troops 7,000 miles away from THOSE guys to fight that sorta thing, huh?"

Irrelevant. If it had succeeded, you might -- *might* -- have a point.

"That's one reason you state an objective, yanno: so you can tell if you've achieved it."

You're confusing politics with military command again. You **state** an objective for any number of reasons. Rally the troops being prime. Deliberate duplicity as well. Case in point: the US "objective" of "shock and awe". "Oh, we're going to shock and awe you!! You just wait!!"

Didn't happen. Okay, well, the next time; but the US already hit these targets, so we'll move our assets around ... "Gosh, thanks for sticking your heads up, morons. If you don't mind, we'll bomb those now..." All that radio traffic trying to anticipate when the shock and awe would really happen pointed out very nicely exactly where their C2 assets were. Thanks.

Now, we *said* we'd shock and awe, but we didn't, so that makes us liars now, dunnit? Darn the US, darn us to heck! We LIED about our military methods. How can anyone trust us again?!?!

"(Try to follow along, Dan. Take notes if necessary.)"

Clue: in order to be condescending, you first have to know what you're talking about; you don't.

"A whole lot of sensible people recognized even at the time that the job was way too big for Bush, that he simply wasn't up to it."

Fortunately for those people, their fears are untested since Bush's job in a war, even as CinC, is to give the military the reins. Problems abound when a virtually non-military guy starts giving battlefield orders.

"He has never seemed to know what an objective IS. He defined it as "the war on terror", which a number of people pointed out is an emotion, and thus by definition unwinnable."

Terrorism is not an "emotion", so those people -- who are quite likely the same "people who notice reality" -- are misguided. Big surprise. Terrorism is age-old paramilitarism extracted and revived for modern purposes. The popular impetus behind terrorism is, indeed, an unbeatable phenomenon, as it consists of scads of pissed-off rabble willing to punctuate their off-pissedness on the handiest scapegoat. But "terrorism", the modern incarnation of paramilitaristic hooliganism, is most definitely beatable. Since this pissed-off rabble invariably consists of 99.999% poor and uneducated and trace amounts of charismatic hothead with a wealthy patron to provide weapons and material sustanence, the paramilitarism is beaten by denying the weapons and material sustanence. This is little more than a supply line operation. A *complex* supply line operation, but a supply line operation nonetheless.

"And when you look at the specific objectives he HAS set, e.g., capturing bin Laden, toppling Saddam, pacifying Iraq and leaving it stable, you realise he's at best one for three, and the least important one, at that: not to mention (as London proves) the most counterproductive."

Al Qaida is, today, practically worthless as an effective paramilitary outfit.

First of all, Osama is little more than a figurehead, and arguably was never more than a glorified payroll clerk. Operationally he's incompetent.

The operational head is Doc Ayman. But the good doctor is playing a game of pride against himself. He won't consider any attacks unless they can be bigger and better than the last one. Which means greater complexity, greater need for resources [including money, which they no longer have the luxury of moving freely], greater need for access, greater need for everything. What has al Qaida done since 9-11? Not the al Qaida-lites; al Qaida itself. Bali? What else?

Bupkus.

They've got **plans** -- complex plans. 10 airliners in succession. Thousands of failure points. By all indications, the failure points were breached years ago.

[rwilymz]

"I won't bother to dignify what you consider 'thoughtful' with an answer."

In other words, you can't. Gotcha.

"Subtle, you ain't."

Don't think I've claimed to be.

"Bear in mind, bin Laden had been our ALLY in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan."

????

Verify please.

"Whatever else we know about the incident, your premise is that Clinton's intelligence was better than Bush's: we KNEW where bin Laden was. Where is he now?"

Pakistan's northwest frontier.

Because he's so unsullied by our attempts to nail him.

"If you reject Clinton's initial decision not to try to kill bin Laden BEFORE 9-11 (which he reversed, btw, also before 9-11), then it is considerably worse that Bush has failed to capture or kill the guy, EVEN THOUGH HE SAID IT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE, after he killed 3,000 Americans in an attack Bush was explicitly warned about -- and did nothing whatsoever to prevent."

There is a significant difference between "somebody might hijack a plane" and "we're going to have multiple concurrent hijackings turning civilian airliners into makeshift guided missiles".

"The "guys who wouldn't listen to Clinton's national security folks who warned 'em about al Qaeda" were BUSH'S staff."

...et al.

"It is reasonable (but false) to say that Clinton's people did not warn Bush's guys about al Qaeda."

Cuz the 9-11 commission said they did?

The same report also says, fairly clearly, that the "warnings" were nebulous and not actionable. Can't pick and choose, bucko, cuz that'd make you fundamentally dishonest.

"The record is very clear -- they DID warn Rice, et al, but the Bush guys essentially took the view that whatever was important to Clinton was not important to them."

That's not indicated in any of the analysis.

"It's also worth remembering that at the time when the Clinton administration was changing its mind, recognizing that there bin Laden DID pose "a clear and present danger" and then trying to kill him (and failing), Republicans in Congress were vigorously undermining American troops in combat in Kosovo"

That's not accurate. But someone as ignorant about military doctrine as you wouldn't have any way of knowing. The Republicans in Congress were telling the CinC that it is not wise to have the Oval Office giving battlefield orders. Like ... no low-level recon missions. Like ... no ground forces. The military makes war plans for a reason, and to start wars and then get cold feet right in the middle and choose to not implement the plan when it starts to get hot ... inappropriate.

Remember when Clark risked insubordination for backbiting Clinton in the press over Clinton's ad hoc alteration of the plans? the alterations that violated every rule of the tactical rulebook?

Same thing.

"(I didn't notice Dan talking about treason then), and accusing Clinton of trying to distract from his pending impeachment trial by 'wag the dog' efforts against a bogus threat."

Ah yes, the dog-wagging. Wasn't that because Hussein was in violation of the cease fire?

"It's also worth noting that Clinton DID achieve his objective with bin Laden: he drove him out of Sudan."

That wasn't the objective. You're equivocating again.

"Does the London attack show us that Bush has achieved any of his objectives?"

What London attack? 7-11? Or the recent deal?

If you're talking about the recent deal, there *was no* attack.

C'mon, skeezix. Be honest. You can do it.

[Phoenix]

He can't do it right now. Those, under whose care he is, are drilling a hole in his head for an I.V. lithium push. That will cut down on his loud-mouthed insults and name-calling, and maybe give him the ability to detect sarcasm. But probably not.

[Original Rick]

Did Clinton know where UBL actually was?????????? Dept of Justicec says he did.

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden — just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled — giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".