Captain's Quarters -

Oh, come on... surely the interests of the Democratic Party outweigh these overblown concerns?! It's all about politics: didn't you get Harry's memo?

Boy, what an f'ing mess Bush has created.

"Third, a US departure risks triggering Iraq's partition. As some Arabs see it, the occupation is what holds the country together. So long as coalition forces are deployed, a full-blown breakup can be avoided."

Great, guess we'll just stay their indefinitely.

My position is as it's been for a while, START drawing down troop levels. MAKE Iraqis step up.

I think the new direction that Gates is taking, inching toward drawing down the American presence, is good. I don't agree with the Dem bill that would have troops out within a year. If anything, they should draft a funding bill that would basically enact the Baker-Hamilton suggestions. That would start reducing the American presence in Iraq, while not abandoning it. And if Bush vetoed it, he would be the clear loser, political speaking.

As it stands now, Dems pushing the wrong strategy, for the war and for themselves politically.

"No one" ... but Democrats.

No amount of international upheaval, death, bloodletting, war and attacks on American lands and citizens is more important than gaining more political power - by being able to say that BUSH LOST!

The entire Middle East, and the whole world could lose - but these meat-heads wouldn't care - if they thought they could win somehow politically from it.

They're willing to commit treason, cause more death and danger to women and children in Iraq and see more Americans endangered right here in EVERY-TOWN - as long as they think they can gain a few more votes from their treasonous ways.

What I really want to know is, why haven't Democrats been hanged yet for the treason they have already committed.

From RonC: "They're willing ... - as long as they think they can gain a few more votes from their treasonous ways."

I've read this for a year or more now, but does this really get them votes? I'm asking here. Is this really a winning strategy, or do Dems just think it is? I find it hard to believe that the majority supports their latest rhetoric.

"What I really want to know is, why haven't Democrats been hanged yet for the treason they have already committed."

Because they haven't committed treason.

And if you want hangings, I suggest you move to Iraq. Plenty there.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Arguably, Ried and others are adhering to the enemies of the United States, and are thus guilty of Treason. Certainly there are no lack of witnesses to their overt actions.

Tom:

Treason is very difficult to define for anything short of actual consorting with the enemy. The closest any Democrat has come to this has been Pelosi’s visit to Assad. Since we are not formally at war with Syria this doesn’t meet the standard either.

However, I think the Democrats and their supporters are certainly guilty of Copperheadism which can be defines as identifying with the enemy while still maintaining what they believe is loyalty to the country. Copperheads show malevolence to their elected leaders and naiveté about their country’s opponent’s war objectives. Just as the Civil War Copperheads truly believed that the all Confederacy wanted was a return to the status quo ante, today’s Copperheads believe that all the insurgents want is an end to the “occupation” and a righting of western wrongs. Both are sadly mistaken.

The one major difference between Civil War Copperheads and today’s equivalent is that the Civil War variety opposed Lincoln because a particular view of the Constitution. But today’s Copperheads are only motivated by the will to power the country be damned.

LarryD,

If you look at Supreme Court rulings on treason, one has to prove that a person's intent was treasonous.

Personally, I think the idea that a person stating their opinion that we cannot win a certain conflict is perposterous. We have to be allowed to speak the truth as we see it. If our comments are not meant to aid the enemy, then it's not treason. case closed. stop making the claim any time a dem opens their mouth.

Personally, I think Reid was wrong to say we have lost the war. I think I agree with him in that we aren't going to win it with the current strategy. We can't "win" militarily. But there's no reason for that kind of rhetoric and better, more constructive ways to get that point across.

"The one major difference between Civil War Copperheads and today’s equivalent is that the Civil War variety opposed Lincoln because a particular view of the Constitution. But today’s Copperheads are only motivated by the will to power the country be damned."

Yeah, that's it. Those who oppose the war in Iraq don't do it because

A) It's bad strategy in the GWOT.
B) It wasn't necessary.
C) Has been managed as if by the Three Stooges.
D) Is showing signs of stagnation with violence rising while our men and women are caught in the middle.
E) Current policy is not working.
F) Want to follow the suggestion of the Baker-Hamilton commission that suggests we start lessoning the presence of US forces in Iraq

It's none of those things. it's that they are political leaches, sucking on any issue that will keep them in power.

Either the U.S. military is a force for stability or it a cause of instability in Iraq.

If the Congress determines that our presence in Iraq is not helping but hurting the cause of stability in Iraq and the region, then they should vote their conscience to cut off funding.

All else is politics and theatre.

"If the Congress determines that our presence in Iraq is not helping but hurting the cause of stability in Iraq and the region, then they should vote their conscience to cut off funding."

This is a false choice as you don't need to cut off funding to begin the process of lessoning the US presence in Iraq.

Tom :

The Civil War Copperheads said the exact same things about Lincoln that you just posted about Bush. They had more reason to make their claims in that more Union soldiers died in a couple a days at the major battles then have been killed in the entire Iraq war. I suggest you read “Copperheads” by Professor Jennifer Weber of the University of Kansas. Taken out of context the writings and speeches of the Copperheads are in many cases indistinguishable from the current rhetoric of the Democratic Party.

Tom Shipley,

Your impassioned defense of modern-day Copperheads would carry more weight if they had ever given the slightest evidence that they actually want to win (against the terrorists, that is). Unfortunately, they haven't. Even while they've railed against Bush and his "incompetence" and "arrogance" and "unilateralism", they haven't made a single helpful suggestion. All they've got - all they've ever had - is cut 'n' run.

You're right: it isn't treason in the legal sense, but it IS a hollow, self-serving policy that does nobody but them any good.

I think I'd like to read all of Sen. Harry Reid's US and international email communications for the last three years, and look at all of his office (and personal) phone records. That should be no problem, right? It's just citizen "oversight." He's a supporter of that. No?

Tom Shipley sez:

"If you look at Supreme Court rulings on treason, one has to prove that a person's intent was treasonous"

What jas the Supreme Court ruled about SEDITION ?

Iraq is now a giant sucking killing machine for wanna be Jihadis, Syrian and Iranian proxies. Iran has blown over a billion dollars funding losers like Mookie al Sadr and his Mahdi Army 5.0., Al Dawa, Badr Army Corps - even old school false flag ops recruiting sunni militias and their on again off again deals with Al Qaeda -still Iran has nothing to show for it - no theocracy or caliphate anywhere in Iraq and no super Iranian influenced shia majority in the government. Talk about a quagmire!

So while America truly wishes to establish a tolerant, egalitarian society with a free, uncensored press and transparent open elections and in time She might - for right now, continuing the surge replete with the ray ban wearing, cigar chomping sons of the Great Satan right in the Mullahs face may be the best thing to do especially since intolerant, gender apartheiding, honor killing, corrupt, murderous illegitimate regimes want America to leave.

I understand the fear of full societal collapse in the middle-east and I know a withdrawal would be catastrophic on many levels. What I don't understand is how you can continue to put your faith in the leader that led us off this cliff in the first place! The person who didn't even know the difference between sunni and shia prior to invasion. The people who, the day before the last election continued to repeat the talking point, "we are winning in iraq" and then THE NEXT DAY fired Donald Rumsfeld. The people who told us it would take 6 months at the most, and viciously attacked anyone who called them out on their unjustified optimism, questioning the patriotism of veterans like Jack Murtha who on may 7th, 2004 told the president we did not have enough troops to get the job done. Guess what? He was right! Senator Norm Coleman attacked him for 'emboldening the enemy' and 'hurting the morale of the troops', it's disgusting. This isn't a political game, people's lives are on the line!

We cannot leave Iraq, because to do so would open it up to Iranian domination of the Iraqi oil fields, and Iranian control of the whole northern Gulf. It will also leave Al Qaeda free to organize and train terrorists in Anbar, and to spread jihad throughout the civilized world.

It is hard to imagine these would be acceptable alternatives for any American president, even a Democrat. Therefore, we are staying in Iraq, for a long time to come. Q.E.D.

/Mr Lynn

"What jas the Supreme Court ruled about SEDITION?"

Not really sure, but I haven't seen anyone call for the overthrow of the government (outside of voting them out), so not sure why you ask.

Mr. Shipley's tenuous grasp of the world situation vis-a-vis the war against Islamofascism and the situation in Iraq and in Aphganistan is startling. It is difficult to believe that we are looking at the same set of facts and seeing the same world events.

How disingenuous is it to believe that surrendering is victory, that a pull out will make the country safer, that the leaders of AQ and of its supporting Middle Eastern countries want democratic electoral victories here in the US because they believe that Republicans are mean and Democrats are nice? What kind of a world is he living in?

Isolate the terrorist harboring countries? Surely that is a joke. I hope that Mr. Shipley keeps posting because Kurt Vonnegut has died and there is no one else around to pick up his mantle of bizarre reality.

We don't own Iraq, even though we act like it. The neo-cons WANT to permanently occupy Iraq. They want it as a puppet government, but the Iraqis have different ideas. So Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (all Sunni dominated) wants us to stay so dictatorships aren't threatened by a Shia Caliphate. Oh, isn't that nice, why don't those gutless countries provide TROOPS AND MONEY TO THE CAUSE. The Sauds in particular who fund Wahhabi schools throughout the world. Their playing both sides. What the neo-cons are arguing is that we can NEVER leave. Just admit it rightwingers, you don't want an exit strategy. You want to control the Middle East and all the Iraqi oil. Only problem is the Iraqis don't want to play that game. They'll fight you for a 1000 years, and you know what? you still won't have a clue. So the grownups will have to get us out of Iraq. You neo-clowns followed bush right off a cliff. And your too damn proud to admit you screwed up. Pathetic

Re: conservative democrat at April 25, 2007 09:54 PM

"conservative democrat"

Is that sort of like being a "100-lb sumo wrestler" or a "300-lb jockey?"