The fact that you disagree is not what makes people accuse you of McCarthy type tactics. It is the WAY you disagree.
You would be wrong. You see what you wish to see. I've said many, many times that I applauded Bush's war in Afghanistan. What I don't applaud, and believe he should be impeached for, are his lies to the American people to sell his invasion and occupation of Iraq, his trampling of the Constitution, the criminal outing of a CIA operative, and a host of other things. I fail to see how that comes close to calling someone a traitor because they disagree with you. You rarely post anything of substance, basso. You post a couple of lines along with something from a blog or another source you think supports your man Bush, and run away from real discussion. Recently, you asked me what I thought we should do about Iraq. When I replied with some paragraphs in answer, I never saw a reply from you. Perhaps I missed it, but what I saw was another series of threads with one-liners prefacing even more obscure articles and columns. Tell me, basso, did I miss your reply to a post I made that you asked for? If I did, point it out to me. And if I did, my sincere apologies, because I haven't seen it. Impeach Bush.
No you didn't miss his reply. I replied as well to a question about what should be done. But in order to reply basso would have to tear down a preconstructed idea that war opponents just complain and don't really have ideas of their own. It would bring basso in touch with a reality that might be too painful for him.
we recently had evidence that some of the anecdotes of torture working were actually BS, and in fact hindered non-torturous interrogation techniques that were working. But the U.S. Army doesn't believe it works and is not in favor if it, and has their own handbook of what is allowed and effective and what isn't.
I don't oppose everything he does despite that I decided not to vote for him. I make individual judgements about everything he does. I supported Bill Clinton but that certainly doesn't mean I supported every decision he made. It just so happens, that virtually every major policy Bush supports, I happen to oppose. It's just a coincidence but if Bush were to do something I felt was marginally good, I'd support that effort. I actually liked how Bush set an example of being a strong leader after 9/11. It wasn't until he started squandering the good will that many nations sent our way that I felt he was acting like an arse. His 'you are with us or against us campaign' was executed very poorly and angered the world. So we now probably have more enemies than we started with. Freedom Fries. Give me a break! I judge Bush soley on his public record ...which to date is poor by almost every measurable statistic.
Would this insult of our General, during a time of war be considered as the act of a traitor? You betcha. And guess who financed it? Yes, Barack Obama's big financing source, MoveOn.org... Sorry folks, but anyway you slice it, that's the pure definition of a traitor. No two ways about it, friends. Oh, and andymoon, as it relates to your failed dictionary smack, the proper spelling is Merriam-Webster (hilarious laughter at moon's exposed attempt at intellectualism)...
When did the bar for being a traitor get lowered to name calling? He's a freakin general, you'd think he got over name calling hurting his feelings in the second grade.
Truly Jorge Have you come to the point that you don't care if anything you say is actually true or relevant to a discussion? You just spew vile hate? Barack had nothing to do with the MoveOn ad and they are by no means "a big financing source" for the campaign.
Everyone look here, Andy misspelled a word! Please ignore the fact that t_j, as usual, ignored all substance and pointed out the much more grevious spelling error. What a buffoon.
HO HO HO Moon, don't run dictionary smack if you can't even freaking spell the name of the dictionary. You have spelled it wrong repeatedly, friend. Makes your weak dictionary smack ring... hollow. Gawd you are bad at trying to sound smart. Very bad. Oh, and it's spelled, "grievous". Thanks for the chuckle!
i did not see your reply, other than "tell me what you'd do, then i might deign to tell you what i'd do." if i missed it, please point me to it.
Well, your initial comment that started this private chatter was that you judged him on his public debate... not his record.... going back to 1999-- he had no public record as president.
Terrorist vs Hero, page 3. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=148836&page=3&highlight=special+forces You're welcome. Impeach Bush. Hurry!
Glad you caught that and brought it up. It must be nice to be able to ignore reality so completely and, instead of talking about issues, write off someone's salient points as a result of a single spelling error. Actually, I imagine that it must be a pitiful, lonely existence that makes someone act like you do on this board. I really don't have to wonder why you (reportedly) spend so much time at places like Treasures. Someone like you could never hope to attract an intelligent, loving person long enough to create the kind of happy, fulfilling life that I have. Have fun with all the money you claim to make. If you ever feel like taking me up on my debate challenge, feel free, but I suspect that you will continue to hide in the internet's shadows, where you can avoid even the appearance of anything substantive. You are a sad, empty shell of a man who will no longer benefit from my attention.
I think the truth on this, like most things, is somewhere in the middle. Let's just assume, arguendo, that everything moveon.org says is true (I doubt it, but why not?). I would suggest that by bringing it out into the light, they would have behaved exactly as the Framers of the Constitution had envisioned.
What if, during the first Gulf War, Iraqis had taken out an ad in the Baghdad paper, criticizing Saddam or criticizing a key general of the Iraq army? Think about that for a moment. Wouldn't that have given us an indication that the opponent is weak? Clearly it would give off the opinion that the opponent is suffering from division within the ranks. It would provide hope (not that any was needed, but you get the point) against the enemy. So why can't the libs recognize that MoveOn.org doing this is similarly inspirational for our enemies in battle? It's destructive to our morale, and it undermines our objectives. It's treasonous and the work of traitors.
If, at the time, Iraq was a democracy... it would have sent no such message. Unless that message was a prelude to a coup, it would have been similarly irrelevant.
Interesting that you use the First Gulf War. I suspect you had an infrequent moment of clarity and realized if you framed this argument against the backdrop of the current war, people like me would quickly point out that this would be yet another reason why an invasion was not necessary. At any rate, the reason it might suggest that they are weak is because it would mean a dictator no longer controlled the media or a good number of his own people. Is this what you have come to... drawing analogies between the United States and a dictatorship? Pathetic. And before basso jumps in and pats himself on the back for catching me calling Saddam a dictator, that fact does not lead to the current situation under any sane administration.
So now criticizing the government or anybody associated with military decision-making makes one a traitor? Funny. The Framers of the Constitution would have called those people patriots. By your definition, we are a nation founded by traitors on a bedrock of treason. To suggest that anybody who speaks out against the war is a traitor is to pervert the Constitution to such a degree as to render it meaningless. Very sad.
