Second, Iraq is in the beginning of a shaky start at something more like democracy than they have ever seen. We had a war that lasted more than 13 years to put our democracy together with a Civil War less than a hundred years later that cost thousands of dead, possibly more dead than the number of innocent Iraqis killed since 2002.

Third, we have the huge potential of having garrisons on the ground in two middle eastern countries for years to come (we even have troops in sub – Saharan Africa, working with the French [!])

This war is well worth fighting, and well worth winning. It is in the interest of the USA to win this. It is not in the interest of the USA to withdraw now or at a date certain.

Is that treasonous? I think not. Is it foolish, self – defeating, and a petty partisan blow at Pres. Bush?

Most definitely.

If you want to run, and you don’t care about the Iraqis, don’t be chicken shit about it, like the Dems were in the Vietnam era.

It certainly does.

My opinion: Treason has specific definition under the constitution, and I believe that it should retain that narrow construction. It should be reserved for people who actually commit acts aimed at harming their countrymen. Southerners committed treason when they seceded; the Rosenbergs, though not charged with treason, committed treason when they passed atomic secrets to the Soviets. John Walker Lindh committed treason when he joined al Qaeda.

Alternatively, people oppose this war for many reasons – some religious, some political, some economic, some personal. As a free society, we must be allowed to voice our opposition or we cease to be Americans. Does this give aid and comfort to Sunni militiamen? I couldn’t care less. I have never lived my life in fear of al Qaeda and I am not about to start now.

Similarly, when Ann Coulter accuses me of treason or Reynolds provocatively hints that I am giving aid and comfort to the enemy, I will accuse them of unamerican tendencies, for they are opposing the right of free people to dissent.

I definitely don’t require you to share my opinion, but I hope it helps shed some light onto why some people are none too pleased with Reynolds.

I agree, and I think the traditional sense of the word is that it is also against the law. However, with free speech, it is possible to give aid and comfort to the enemy without doing anything illegal. So do we still call it treason or do we call it something else?

When a top official or politician of the U.S publicly announces that he/she thinks we’ve lost the war and should pullout, that is surely giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If you don’t agree with that, then the rest of this argument isn’t worth having.

Again, I do not believe that this type of aid or comfort to the enemy is wrong per se. It is merely a cost to a hopefully greater goal for the country, but it still is comfort and aid. An expense is an expense even if it leads to profit.

—

Good explanations though z adura, and I’ll admit that I’m not positive that I’m correct. I’ve never really thought about this topic and this is a good medium to hopefully come to some conclusions.

—

To those who say I’m a right wing troll – I’ve never voted for a Republican in the two elections I’ve been allowed to vote in.

Sometimes the left are correct, sometimes the right are. In my somewhat humble opinion, if you do not see that, then you suffer from huge political cheerleader syndrome.

The fact is that this comment cannot be taken out of the legal context of making the claim. Treason is afterall giving aid and comfort to the enemy as described in the Constitution. Has Ann called the left treasonous? Every day of the week. Should both of them know better? Absolutely, and they should be held accountable to their words.

Could either Hollywood or Save, or any other right wing idiot troll here, please actually identify our enemies in Iraq?

Please be as specific as possible. Just saying “the terrorists” ain’t going to cut it.

Wow. Save re-read your list of to the Iraq’s great crimes. Not a single one of them on their or together justifies the clusterfuck we’ve created over there. I mean you want us to believe that we should have invaded Iraq because some Iraqis were caught cheering 9-11? Are you fucking nuts?

To suggest that the items on your list were no reason to go to war is not to side with America’s enemies. It is to side with reason and rationality. It is, in other words, to side with America’s best, long term interests and not the slobbering madness of the mob.

Seriously. This is what it’s come down to? They cheered 9-11, so there? You guys on the right are losing it.

Correctly or incorrectly, we purported to invade Iraq in order to defeat our terrorist opponents.

The war in Iraq has not accomplished this goal. It has, instead, created a battleground in which more terrorists have been recruited and in which thousands of Americans and innocent Iraqis have been killed.

If the goal has not been accomplished then the strategy has not worked.

Perhaps we should try a different strategy. Perhaps just standing still in the middle of a sectarian firestorm is not the best use of our military, particularly in terms of our goal.

Democrats are not suggesting that we bring the troops home and then sit there, doing nothing, waiting for the next attack. They’re saying that maybe, just maybe, we should try something different besides waiting for George Bush’s vague plan for “victory” to work.

That’s right. Everyone in Iraq was happy-go-lucky and flying kites, just like Michael Moore told you. They certainly weren’t cheering when 9/11 happened. They certainly weren’t shooting at our planes for 12 years. They certainly weren’t threatening Israel’s existence every day of the week and twice on Sunday. And they absolutly, positivly weren’t skirting UN regulations every step of the way.

Except that they were. And you know that. But you want to gloss over that to score a cheap, political point. THAT’s what Reynolds is talking about.

Remember, Reynolds only said this:

“Is there any enemy of America that the left won’t side with? Or any friend that the left won’t oppose? No.”

It was Willis who equated that with treason.

—-

Also, I don’t really understand your comment. What faulty logic?

Treason in this country only applies to the first kind of acts. The few times that America has tried to broaden the definition as in the Alien and Sedition Acts, the error was quickly remedied and understood to be against the spirit of the Constitution.

I will forgive you this kind of faulty logic because you are still a student. I will not similarly forgive Glenn Reynolds or Ann Coulter or others of their ilk who wrongly equate opposition to George Bush’s terrible policies with treason.

um, our presence there doesn’t seem to be doing a damn thing to slow, stop or otherwise discourage the Iraqis from killing each other. Which brings up another point, do you even know who our enemies are anymore? Just who exactly is the “enemy” when shia and sunni are killing each other with equal impunity not to mention our own troops?

A withdrawal is the only thing to do now precisely because we don’t even know who the fuck the enemy is anymore.

It certainly could but that’s not the reason for a withdrawal in this current situation. Not even a politician would try to say that they are voting for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, because the ‘mission is complete.’

If that were the reason for withdrawal, then that would certainly not be an aid to the enemy, but with this current situation where its obvious things are not going well, a withdrawal approval is an aid.

” First, the “enemies” we have created in Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, al Qaeda or terrorism before we got there. We created them by invading them.”

We created enemies? That, by, itself is an admission of support for the enemy which by definition is treason. Before this, I didn’t agree with Mr. Reynolds, but now I see his point.

But I’m not saying you aren’t right to be treasonous, I agree with you for the most part. I just don’t care that people call me treasonous by thinking that we should leave because we shouldn’t have been there in the first part and thinking that since we’ve been there, we’ve created enemies. I’m here to defend Reynolds, who attacked me slightly, and others significantly, from false arguments.

Let’s stay on topic class.

“econd, the “morale” of our troops is significantly more influenced by multiple rotations, insufficient equipment and frankly being away from their families for 3 of the last four years than anything that is said in internet chat rooms.”

I’m referring to the morale of the “enemy”, the ones the U.S as a whole are against. I have no disagreements with that paragraph.

“Third, and this goes to you specifically, how dare you question the patriotism of anyone else.”

My entire point is that some people are patriotic by temporarily aiding the enemy. By pointing out that we’ve fucked up and we got to leave in Iraq aids the enemy but is also patriotic, because in the end, it will be whats best for the country. The two are not completely contradictory. A business needs to spend money to make money and that makes perfect sense. A patriot will sometimes have to aid the enemy to benefit the nation which is patriotic even though the cost exists. All businesses have expenses, but that doesn’t mean they don’t show a profit. I’m only defending Reynolds one post in that he did not call for treason based on one piece of evidence. I’m not calling either wing unpatriotic.

But in the future, I’ll call whoever the fuck I want unpatriotic. I just haven’t with this post.

It could be a clear signal that the military has done what was expected and now it’s time for the next phase, couldn’t it?

Also, when anyone refers to the left or the right, they obviously are NOT referring to everyone. But when a majority of the left votes for a pullout of troops from a battlefield, it is a clear signal to the enemy that we are admitting defeat. I’m not saying its a bad idea or that its not supporting the troops, but letting the enemy know that you realize they are winning the war is a sure sign of enemy aid.

“WHO the fuck do you think you’re talking to.”

Oliver Willis. Is that not clear? He is the author of this blog. He wrote the post that I’m specifically writing about.

And don’t give me this analogy shit buddy. I have friends and family in Iraq who think the world of Bush and who think Bush is ruining the world. It sounds like to me that you have some military connections who support your already extreme view and you’ve decided to use those to try make me look like the ass. I don’t fold to my own confirmation bias. I wish you wouldn’t either.

The point of my post was to defend Reynolds, a man who has done more for the political blogosphere than any other individual, from a reckless, clearly exaggerated post like the one above by Mr. Willis.

Though please don’t get me wrong, if you only read this comment, you’ll think that I have some fanciful man-crush on the guy, but just because someone is guilty of wrongful thinking in many areas doesn’t make him guilty of ALL wrongful thinking and my defense doesn’t make me some right wing shill.

You call me a “scumbag”, because I don’t fully agree with something?! Is there any doubt in your mind? any doubt about your beliefs? I’m against this war in Iraq, but Mr. Willis making misleading proclamations that a Libertarian is making treason calls over one stupid event is fucking wrong. Plain and simple. That’s the point of my defense, but your bottle of emotions sadly not controlled by your own person spits out defamation.

You scumbag.

Now to someone who will leave a username:

I agree Diamond LeGrande, and I should have originally noted that right wingers do the same , but it doesn’t make the left right in doing the same and surely wasn’t the focus of the post.

P.S. Mr Willis, I certainly disagree with you now and numerous other times. But I read this site, because I respect your opinion and your arguments; you often make convincing posts which is why I’m here writing right now and I know your correct enough of the time to make it worth my time to visit this site.

Sorry but you are a piss-poor excuse for an American. First, the “enemies” we have created in Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, al Qaeda or terrorism before we got there. We created them by invading them. Second, the “morale” of our troops is significantly more influenced by multiple rotations, insufficient equipment and frankly being away from their families for 3 of the last four years than anything that is said in internet chat rooms. Third, and this goes to you specifically, how dare you question the patriotism of anyone else. The only reason that there is even a sense of a divided house in these United States is because internet harpies like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have made it chic to hate their fellow Americans. It is ugly, and it has to stop. You may not agree with my position or OW’s position but it does not give you the right to claim any deeper or more enduring Americanness.

What role does the left have? We want to get our friends and family out of harm’s way so that our enemies can settle their own scores without us in the crossfire. Once back home, I am sure the morale of our returning troops will improve.

When I read this sort of nonsense, I’m reminded of a childish retort: “I know you are, but what am I?”

What Republicans have been accusing of Democrats is actually a reflection of themselves.

THEY give aid and comfort to the enemy (Iraq recruiting tool). THEY believe in big government (all the spending). THEY are unAmerican (the constitution is just a piece of paper to their leader).

Ad nauseam.