It has been opined by one commenter that...
It's getting tiring hear you call people with divergent opinions treasonous. You would like to see the failure of Social Security, Federal taxation, and American immigration laws. Should I call you traitorous because of your words and opinions? Get a clue!
The Legal Definition of Treason as defined by the Constitution of the United States, Article III
"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."
From Case Law: "The vacillation of Chief Justice Marshall between the Bollman and Burr cases and the vacillation of the Court in the Cramer and Haupt cases leave the law of treason in a somewhat doubtful condition. The difficulties created by the Burr case have been obviated to a considerable extent through the punishment of acts ordinarily treasonable in nature under a different label, within a formula provided by Chief Justice Marshall himself in the Bollman case."
Even Timothy McVeigh wasn't charged with Treason. He got what he deserved nonetheless.
As to the everyday definition of Treason...
-- a crime that undermines the offender's government
-- disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
-- treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal
-- a purposeful betrayal, usually constituting aid to one's enemies
Now...
Telling the world on international television that "the war is lost" while doing nothing substantive to end the war, is a purposeful betrayal of American citizens on the battlefield who are, ostensibly, fighting a war that is already lost. A majority of Americans disagree, but when has that ever stopped the Left... or Reid, for that matter?
The New York Times, and LA Times both, have deliberately printed classified material, giving aid to the enemy. But Reid and the Democrats have what? Condemned these failing fonts of Liberalism for their seditious acts? No, of course not, the Times-es both carry water for the Left. Instead Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Shumer, et al, praise these rags for their "Patriotism."
But how is wanting to see something better than Social Security put in place is Treasonous? A superior tax code? Actually enforcing current Immigration Law? You are WAY off base, here.
Do you really wish to compare "a concerted effort to lose the war, and applause of those who aid in the effort" to "criticism of Social Security, the Progressive Tax Code, and Immigration enforcement"? You can't even say 'Apples and Oranges' here because they're not even remotely related. It's more like Lodestones and Pearls.
If you're getting tired why not quit like your Democrat Leaders? For while believing the war is lost is certainly a divergent view from those who believe otherwise, what makes the former "treasonous" is the public support it offers to the enemy when spoken aloud on international television, and the efforts it makes in Congress to subvert the Military's mission... a mission APPROVED and sanctioned by the Left in the first place.
Liberalism specifically, and Democrats by extension, have been "undermining" the Constitution for decades.... D.C.'s 23(?) year ban on personal firearms? The reinterpretation of the First Amendment as it relates to faith and worship? Seeking to remove 'In God We Trust' from our currency? Seeking to abolish the name of God and any reference to Him in our Nations' Capitol, and other National Landmarks and Treasures? The indoctrination of our children in Marxist ideology in public schools? The Confiscation of property from one private citizen to be given to another private citizen for the purpose of adding to a community's tax coffers? The bizarre right to kill an unborn child in utero?
So let me get this straight... the Left-- and to no small extent, you --support the trashing of the Second Amendment, the trashing of the First Amendment, defacing centuries of Minting tradition, effacing and defacing the oral and written history of Faith from the Gestalt American consciousness, raising up generations of Marxists on taxpayer monies, theft of private property that does NOT serve the public need, ie, Highways, Bridges, and Public Works, and the wholesale slaughter of more than 47 million unborn children.
Judging strictly by the things you choose to defend and castigate, I'd say you yourself have been indoctrinated by the evils of Liberalism, which is evidenced by the fact that you can't think for yourself. Because you've been trained NOT to. Because you've been taught 'White is Black,' 'Up is Down,' and 'Left is Right.' That you defend these blatant subversions of our Constitution and rich American tradition, and the moral underpinnings of what made this a truly great nation speaks volumes. VOLUMES! I'd throw your 'get a clue' statement back at you, but you'd never catch it, let alone find it in the high grass of Liberal conceit.
22 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your thoughts on the media publishing classified information is laughable too. Just because the government stamps something classified doesn't mean that it's vital to national security. If Pres. Nixon could have declared his cassettes "classified" we'd never know about the watergate scandal. Or the Iran Contra Affair. Or Abu Ghraib Prison. If George Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzalez, and the rest of the administration wanted to try the newspapers and journalists for treason they could have. The fact they didn't prosecute legally shows that they understood the difference between legitimate national security material and secrets that were just embarrassing to the administration. And the better question might be from you who tries to act so ethically and morally why aren't you holding your representatives to higher standards?
You who advocates abolishing our system of elected representation do yourself no favors when you charge others with treason. If you really want a revolution in this country for all ideologies then support public campaign financing, and computer based redistricting.
I know which project I would have gladly spent my tax dollars to support. Would you EL? Would you support Pres. Bush or Pres. Clinton or Pres. Guilliani if they proposed such a project? The US has enourmous power and wealth in all aspects. And Stan Lee got it right "With great power comes great responsibility." We can use our greatness to elevate others our of terror and hatred. Or we can crush them with fear and terror of our own. WWJD? Get a clue!
If you want to discuss the war in Iraq. or the War in Afghanistan, or the Taliban, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. We can, but to lump all islamic people and countries into this "War on Terror" is to let the wool be pulled over your eyes, EL. I think your smarter than that. I just don't think your willing to invest the time to learn about these individual complex problems when you can get talking points from Neal Bortz and Rush Limbaugh.
Eric,
No apologies necessary as I found nothing wrong in your comments.
And your grasp of legal matters as they pertain to what the government deems 'classified' and the publics' responsibility toward said classified material is more than merely laughable, it's downright dangerous, and displays a colossal level of ignorance.
But that's the high grass of Liberal conceit for ya! Think you know better than anyone else, eh? Well, high grass just begs to get mowed.
---
EL, Do you want discussion or do you just want to slander other people who care about the country, but have different opinions than you? You haven't answered any of the questions I asked.
1. Do you consider anyone who protests a US military engagement to be a traitor?
2. Doesn't the public sometimes have a right to know about classified material? examples: the Watergate tapes and Abu Ghraib photos.
3. Do you think the war in Iraq has been the best project the US could have spent its resources on?
Here's a new question I'm going to add with this comment. The most right-leaning blog I look at is Michelle Malkin. I look at here headlines and read an article or two every day.
4. What is the most left-leaning blog you read and how often?
EL, your only view of liberal discussion is through the "impartial" lenses of right-wing media outlets. I don't read real liberal sites either. I prefer blogs devoted to details. I read everyday Kevin Drum at www.washingtonmonthly.com Then Josh Marshall at www.talkingpointsmemo.com Then I get better religious discussion from the devote catholic Andrew Sullivan at www.andrewsullivan.com From there military news at Intel Dump http://www.intel-dump.com and News from the Christian Science Monitor and the Guardian. Then from the conservative folder I read here and michelle malkin, plus of corse any links that happen to catch my eye. Lately I've been reading a lot at Volokoh Conspiracy. That's what I read and where my thoughts come from.
I try to find websites devoted to the details of government. It was from Intel Dump that I learned that no matter how well the surge is working, we simply don't have troop resources to sustain it beyond about March next year.
What is your daily media diet? Do you consume information or slogans? Logical arguments or emotional ones? Then lets have a debate about who is sheepish or lemming-like.
My answers (even though not directed to me):
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. I don't really read Lefty sites or get any news from especially Lefty sources. I read CNN, my local paper (which often includes AP stories) and listen to NPR for news (and I know that some consider those Lefty sources, but they're not especially, regardless of what some may think), and I visit a handful of blogs (sort of Rightish and sort of Leftish) for fun and discussion (but not really news).
For comedy relief, I'll sometimes catch Colbert or the Daily Show (not that often, really, since I don't have cable) and sometimes WND.
As to the question of treason, clearly support of gun laws, opposition to Social Security nor saying "the war is lost" - none of these are treason. Not by any legal definition and not even by any reasonable definition. You could use the term in describing those for reasons of hyperbole, but not in any real sense at all.
Those just aren't treason.
Having said that, let me clear one thing up by first asking a question? How is it possible that neither of you-- Dan or Ben --have any reading comprehension skills? No where did I say that "support of gun laws, opposition to Social Security..." was treason. This is Dan's famous strawman argument, and quite frankly I'm tired of it. If neither of you can honestly respond to the post why should I even bother trying to have a dialog with you two?
Now, since I'm tired of being nice, let's dig into my email for a deleted comment or two....
...
"Just because the government stamps something classified doesn't mean that it's vital to national security."
Perhaps not, but publishing the details of "Classified" programs IS against the law. That Gonzalez' Justice Department chose to ignore these clear violations of the Law is astounding. Besides which, who made the Media the final arbiter of what is and is not worthy of being stamped "Classified"? You position on this is.... and since I can't think of anything nice to say, I'll simply leave it at that.
"The fact they didn't prosecute legally shows that they understood the difference between legitimate national security material and secrets that were just embarrassing to the administration."
Actually, it shows nothing of the sort; only another example of how inept Gonzalez was. This is merely your unqualified opinion anyway, and worth about as much as the previous statement I highlighted from you.
"why aren't you holding your representatives to higher standards?"
I hold ALL of OUR representative to a far higher standard than you, who picks and chooses WHO gets a pass based on their party affiliation.
"You who advocates abolishing our system of elected representation"
To borrow a line from Dan, 'you're bearing false witness against me' here. I have never advocated such. I have opined on occasion that I would like to fire the whole lot of them. But how is that any different than you casually mentioning that you might one day walk into the station and go postal? What? Should I take you seriously? I know you better than that, kindly have decency enough to not misrepresent my position.
"fictitious war against fear..."
Is that you or the Boston Globe editorializing? What a crock of rancid pus. Are you really so ignorant as all that? Is there truly nothing at all to fear from Radical Islam?
"Get a Clue!"
This is rich coming from you. How condescending of you, high upon your Himalayan mountain peak, wise beyond your years. I am suitably impressed by your wisdom.
"but to lump all islamic people and countries into this "War on Terror" "
Putting words into my mouth again, Ben? I do not lump ALL Muslim people into the War on Terror.
"talking points..."!
My, what a hypocrite you are! I don't rely on Rush or Neal to tell me what to think. It's nice that they tend to agree with what I already believe, and it's nice that they make themselves available for compelling quotes, but I don't buy what they sell simply because what they say.
You on the other hand... I've seen no evidence of you being a free thinker. You don't question anything you read if it comes from your ideological handlers.
I think you misunderstood me. Or perhaps I misunderstood you.
Is not the point of this post that Reid was being treasonous for his comments? And I wasn't suggesting that YOU were suggesting support of gun ownership (sorry about the misplaced word) or opposition to Social Security was treasonous.
I thought YOU were responding to those who'd suggest that this (support guns=treason) is treason, criticizing them. What I was TRYING to do was agree with you - gun ownership and opposition to social security (or support for reform) is NOT NOT NOT treasonous.
AND neither is criticizing a war. Don't be ridiculous. None of those actions are treasonous.
THAT was my point. Sorry if I got lost in the tangle of words. My fault, I'm sure.
Yes, a little. But they are a tiny group with not much power - until we start legitimizing them by attacking nations like Iraq. IF we make this into a war against Islam (which is what Bush is succeeding in doing) then we are no longer a marginalized group but rather 1/5 of the world's population.
Which is why I and a majority of the world think (according to surveys) that there is MORE to fear from a loose cannon like Bush who plays fast and loose with our own laws and international standards to pursue his agenda.
If the only framework you have for combating antiamerican sentiments and islamic terror is a World War IV style, "War on Terror" then you are destined for failure. Failure because there are many causes and conflicts and many of them have diametrically opposed causes and solutions.
What we do to combat AQI causes antiamerican feelings in Iran and Indonesia.
What we did to combat the Taliban strengthened a dictator and Islamic militants in Pakistan.
What we have done to support Israel has caused antiamerican sentiment in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
A lot of these conflicts are linked, but the are not interdependent. Succeeding in Iraq will not solve our problems with Afghanistan. Treating them all as one problem is simplistic. To demand that all of these conflicts have the same solution is also simplistic. It denies reality. But it is a view favored by polticians and spin-doctors, because it reduces everything to either-or.
Someone wants to move troops to Afghanistan, then they've opened themselves to charges of cutting and running from Iraq. Want to give money to Palestine to alleviate starvation, then one is "soft" on Hezbollah. Have the nuanced view that reality demands, not some false black and white construct.
This post in particular is not so much a defense of labeling Reid & Co. with "traitor" as it is a clear indictment of Reid & Co.'s efforts to ensure failure in Iraq-- that, coupled with their imbecilic insistence that the surge isn't working, hasn't worked, and will ultimately count for nothing. On top of this they appear vulture-like in their eagerness for the next casualty milestone. It's absolutely sickening.
It should have been obvious, as it was to me, that under the Constitution's definition of "Treason" Reid & Co. are quite safe from the hangman's noose. Their behavior is nonetheless reprehensible. Furthermore, according to CaseLaw, actually seeing ANYONE tried for treason is an extremely unlikely proposition... even McVeigh wasn't charged with treason. "Murder" was sufficient enough to get him the death penalty, why then waste the time and effort of leaping through all the legal and political hoops to brand him, try him, and kill him as a traitor?
"He got what he deserved nonetheless..."
Having laid that piece of foundation I then moved to the "everyday" definition of treason. But even under this standard Reid & Co. fall short of treason. Their actions are nonetheless reprehensible... perhaps even seditious, but I won't argue the point except to say that according to one of the "everyday" definitions of Treason, Reid & Co.'s actions, and the actions of some members of media, can CERTAINLY be described as "disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior." But again, I'm not going to argue with either of you on that point.
Back on track now, here then is where the focus shifted... stay with me...
"Now..."
Let's look back at the title of this post. It contains multiple elements-- as have several of my more recent posts. This post's title contains two separate ideas.
One, "Finding a Clue." A not so obvious-- obviously --reference to a snarky comment by Ben at the aforementioned post; the one that spawned THIS one. Two, the "High Grass of Liberal Conceit," and the point of all that follows this one simple word...
"Now..."
So what is the High Grass of Liberal Conceit? It's many things, I assure you, but for all intents and purposes, from here on out, the High Grass is where the lion hides when stalking prey. It's also where the snake lies in wait. It's also where the typical Liberal CHOOSES to base himself... not out of fear, but in TALL grass where the ugly root of their conceit-- defined as an "air of presumed moral and ethical superiority" --is easily hid, and over which the bright pretty flower of their intentions easily rises.
And here is conceit! It is the belief that any and every reprehensible statement or breach of the law is "moral" provided it serves a greater good. It's okay to say "the war is lost" within earshot of the enemy if it hastens America's retreat from a war for which they are equally responsible; for they too voted to send "American Blood and Treasure" into harms' way. Making matters worse, they threaten to cut off the very funding that supports our treasure of American life and blood, diminishing their ability to wage the conflict that Liberal Conceit sent them to wage. All the while awaiting the next milestone with which to club those who have NOT wavered in their support of the troops. I assure you, it is quite impossible to both support the troops and NOT the mission.
The High Grass of Liberal Conceit is also that place where cowards like Jack Murtha try, and convict of murder, with impunity, men-- our blood and treasure --who are fighting the war to which Jack Murtha and Reid & Co. voted to send them. And judging strictly from the cowardly statements these "statesmen" have made, a war they hope our Blood and Treasure lose... awaiting yet again another casualty milestone.
This same "High Grass" is where Liberals sit in front of keyboards banging out the details of classified material under the-- at best --dishonest belief that some "greater good" in the Publics' "right to know" trumps the law that says, "classified" means "secret" to all who do not possess the appropriate security clearances. The High Grass of Liberal Conceit is embodied in such statements as
"Stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family is illegal, but not immoral."
Or, "Nuance, over 'Black & White' constructs." The Liberal Conceit-- and Lie --is that Truth is mutable... it has one meaning for ONE situation, but something altogether different for another. Truth, however, is and has always been a Black and White proposition. There are no shades of gray in the Hallowed Halls of Truth.
The very same Conceit has been hard at work the last forty to fifty years changing the "meaning" of some of our Constitution's foundational elements. Liberalism has conveniently forgotten that it is the States that give Government power, not the other way around. If it was not enumerated in the body of the Constitution as being within the pervue of the Federal Government, the decision was then left to the States-- there are very few enumerated powers given to the federal government by our Constitution. But thanks to the Liberal "blurring" of the lines, more than forty-seven million Americans have been ripped from the womb. We spent decades and untold billions fighting the Cold War against Communism only to be conquered from within-- as the USSR promised --by Marxist ideals propagated upon and pounded into the malleable minds of innocent children.
Because of Liberal Conceit, we are forced to continue giving to a "Social Security" net that is far from secure. We are denied our right to private property if some developer wants our land to build a strip mall. We are told in our nation's capitol that owning a firearm is illegal... in direct contradiction to the Constitution-- don't get me started on the atrocities done to the First Amendment by Liberal Conceit.
All of which is justified in the High Grass of Liberal Conceit because of all the "good it will do." Never mind all the lives, all the hopes, and all the dreams that get trampled on the road to Shambala.
On top of all this, is the sickening level of hypocrisy displayed by the Acolytes of Liberalism, who have disingenuously set themselves up as the paragons of Ideological and Intellectual virtue... accusing their "inferiors" of the very same evils in which they themselves engage.
I thought all this was evident in the body of my post. Much of if was certainly inferred, and yet none of you were nuanced enough to grasp it. Marshall, at least saw nothing to argue with.
Imagine that.
Lastly. I see no reason to entertain any outside questions when no one has bothered to digest and address the ones I've ALREADY posed in the body of the original post.
As someone quite recently asked me,
Why do you spend so much time arguing with people who neither understand you, nor desire to understand you?"
I'm beginning to ask myself the very same question. One naturally expects that eventually Baby learns to feed himself. I shouldn't have to continually spoon feed folks who can't grasp the simplest concepts of language.
There's nothing false about the black and white reality that Islamic terrorists are bent-the unbeliever on wiping out Israel, doing as much to us, forcing some form of Islamic law on everyone everywhere, and also on continued use of horrific tactics including actual torture, as opposed to the imagined torture of techniques such as waterboarding. Which of these is NOT true of each of the various Islamic extremist groups you mention? That they have "nuanced" or doctrinal differences between Sunni/Shiite or Hamas/Hezb'allah is insignificant and irrelevant. Quite frankly, those you've mentioned are not the limit as there are Islamic radicals all over the world, each perpetuating similar atrocities and oppression. That we view them all as terrorists needing eradication doesn't mean there are no considerations for differences, but in my view, they are minor and not something for which we need pay THAT much attention. Scumbags are scumbags and they all react in similar ways.
It is also worth noting that though they are not a great strength as would be fighting a nation, it took only 19 of their kind to murder 3000 of our fellow
Americans. It isn't numbers that constitutes a high threat level. In some ways they are more of a threat than fighting a regular army and pose unique challenges with their cowardly methods. It is your view of the situation that is skewed.
It really doesn't matter what their individual goals are to those that are being murdered or are targets of their murderous designs. I say again, that if they have complaints, their complaints are meaningless until they cease hostilities and seek dialogue. The onus is on them. If a bully is smackin' you around, you have to make him stop before you can talk to him. It's no different here.
Now I'll answer your questions.
1. No, and it's a stupid question since all such accusations or suggestions are directed at the manner in which dissent has manifested, not dissent itself. The left has looked for any reason to portray the administration as having evil intent in their conduct of this war and they do it for political reasons rather than any concern for troops or Iraqi civilians.
2. No. That's why it's classified. But even worse is the manner in which the info was used to again paint the admin as having nefarious motivations. The Abu Graib situation, for example, was exploited by Kennedy, among others, as typical rather than unique. This is not to say that there might be some info that doesn't deserve such status, or that some info might be self-serving rather than for the public good. But the situations that provoked this question do not fall within that parameter, and it's the info classified by this admin that is what you want publicized. What has been thus far has indeed hurt the our efforts by their mere mention. And if that ain't treasonous, it's base stupidity for sure.
3. Another stupid question for the way it is framed. I think the engagement in Iraq is a better idea now that we've made the move than it was before we made it. Captured documents have borne out fears of Hussein's intentions and our presence has brought to light the extent of his atrocities. Control of a valued resource, oil, by a madman is not good for the world and removing him from power, which was the subject of empty threats and rhetoric by Clinton as well as other nations, was necessary.
4. Currently "What's Left In The Church" and from there I've read a ton of other lefty drivel throught links. Not too many visit this blog, but from all those I've seen, the main differences are the level of vitriol. Don't get too much in the way of actual ideas.
"...many of them have diametrically opposed causes and solutions."
Once again, the causes don't matter, but the solution is the same: kill them all until the survivors lay down arms for good. Then we can talk. Their causes are irrelevant next to their atrocities.
"What we do to combat AQI causes antiamerican feelings in Iran and Indonesia."
Nonsense. Jimma Carter is the cause of Iran's bad feelings. But overall, Indonesia or anywhere with a strong Islamic presence harbors bad feelings because we are not Muslim.
"What we did to combat the Taliban strengthened a dictator and Islamic militants in Pakistan."
So we SHOULDN'T have battled the Taliban? We shouldn't fight evil because it might incite more evil? What the hell do you expect from evil? To lay down and take it?
"What we have done to support Israel has caused antiamerican sentiment in Egypt and Saudi Arabia."
With friends like you, who needs enemies?
"Succeeding in Iraq will not solve our problems with Afghanistan."
But it will help having one less front. It may also help by having Iraq as an ally against the scumbags elsewhere. We are beginning to see Sunni and Shiite turn on the troublemakers in Iraq. They may see similar benefits fighting them elsewhere to insure no further trouble at home. Sort of what we're doing.
You are the one avoiding reality. The solution is in destroying as many of the scumbags as we can until they get the idea that their actions will not be tolerated. It may mean actually destroying them all as they expose themselves because they believe dying for the cause brings them glory. THERE IS NO TALKING TO THEM. They say so themselves. It is a view favored by those who are paying attention.
"IF we make this into a war against Islam (which is what Bush is succeeding in doing)..."
This is a blatant lie. Bush has gone out of his way to draw the distinction between Islam in general and the terrorists with which he's concerned. To suggest that it is HE that is blurring the line is crap and you damn well know it. Rather, it is people like you who continue to perpetuate this lie that is causing this confusion. Stop it.
"Which is why I and a majority of the world think (according to surveys) that there is MORE to fear from a loose cannon like Bush who plays fast and loose with our own laws and international standards to pursue his agenda."
This too is a lie and extremely stupid as well. And his agenda is what he has always said it is, which is to protect his country from terrorism and to fight it and those nations that support it, and helping to give democracy a chance where it has never existed. There has NEVER been any evidence to the contrary. The fast and loose comes in in how you and your majority interpret events. Shame on you for that.
Perhaps you've labeled this internal voice as "GOD" because you certainly speak as if you are some prophet or saint on earth dispensing the revealed wisdom of creation. You're not. You barely perceive what is around you. The scale of creation. The wonder of humanity. You are hoist upon your own petard when you accuse me of arrogance. I have never said my opinions were indivisible truth...you have. If I have presented my opinions I generally have a question at the end, inviting others' thoughts.
Human reality doesn't have a separate identifiable truth. What is just war for you, is bombs raining from the sky for Iraqi's. What is treason / sedition to you is patriotism for others. What others see as reaching to God your "TRUTH" tells you is promoting the Devil.
There's lots of people who think or say stuff like this. What separates you EL is that you can't even see that your opponents believe themselves patriots and christians like you, and that there is no empirical way for you to prove differently.
There are 10-15 million Iraqi refugees spreading across the middle east. Putting a strain on every other country in the region and increasing anti-american feelings. In Iraq itself there has been no political progress. In the capital gas prices are higher there than they are in the US. Water and Electricity average less than 5 hours per day. By summer '08 the troop surge will be through. This country will not become an American success story. In fact global Al-Quaeda recruits have increased, so have the number of global terrorist attacks.
In the US we've begun using torture to get unreliable information from detainees. I say torture, because we know that the administration has authorized waterboarding. waterboarding was declared torture by the Mississippi Supreme Court in the 1920's when it was used by racists on a black man. Waterboarding because we convicted Nazi's as war criminals for using it.
I have no question for the end of this post, because it scarcely matters. You have no introspection. This post scarcely matters to you. This blog isn't about debate or conversion or exploration. It's about you shouting your already formed opinions, and your internal voice is right there inside saying, "Go ahead. It's the truth!"
This remark from the side that thinks they are the civil, rational ones? I see so much of this and yet I, myself have been spoken of as if I a raving maniac and I'm just an older, short, typically shy mother and grandmother that has never struck anyone in my life. Oh well. On with the show.
This is a blatant lie. Bush has gone out of his way to draw the distinction between Islam in general and the terrorists with which he's concerned. To suggest that it is HE that is blurring the line is crap and you damn well know it. Rather, it is people like you who continue to perpetuate this lie that is causing this confusion. Stop it.
Or what? You'll accuse me of treason?
This is rich, somehow people like ME are responsible for the world thinking that Bush is a menace.
I thought you all were all about personal responsibility, owning up to the consequences of your actions.
It is a demonstrable fact that polls show that the image of the US has suffered in the last 8 years, reaching an all time low, I believe is how I've heard it described.
If you need verification for the claim that US image has suffered, you can look here, here, here, here, or here, for starters.
If you need evidence to show that Bush's approach is not working - that it's having the opposite effect and INCREASING terrorism, look at the Intelligence report released last year, reported
here.
"Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official."
Don't blame the bearer of bad news - Plan Bush, even if it weren't immoral and questionably legal, is plain not working. Own it.
"This is rich, somehow people like ME are responsible for the world thinking that Bush is a menace."
You forget that there are plenty of people like you around the world. I in no way meant to imply that there are only people like you here.
You also forget, or ignore the fact, that it is unlikely that a scumbag will back down at the first sign of resistance or retaliation. It isn't such a mystery. In a way, it's nice that they so expose themselves.