Top Democrat held to account for treasonous comments

Jason Mattera of the Young America’s Foundation, finally managed to do what many Americans have wanted to do for quite some time...ask john murtha about his treasonous comments.

Started about a year ago, when murtha openly convicted and proclaimed guilt for his fellow Marines in the one-time famous Haditha incident. Like many democrats today, all it takes is an allegation and they will sell out the military on a dime and convict them without a trial for some media attention. This is exactly what murtha did. He openly convicted them and proclaimed their guilt. A year or so later, most of those men have been cleared of any wrong doing while the trials slowly wind down.

Would murtha issue an apology for wrongfully giving aid and comfort to the enemy they were fighting at the time? Nope. He's continuously refused to do so. Normally I'd attribute a quote about "Congressmen that seek to destroy military morale in a time of war should be hanged" to Abe Lincoln. But since I last attributed that quote to him, I've learned it was never a quote of Lincoln. Too bad, as it would be a fitting quote right about now.

Watch the video of murtha, refusing to take personal responsibility for violating Article III, Section III of the Constitution. Yep, that very Constitution that makes our country so great, that so many only invoke when they believe it's to the advantage of terrorists.

Can we question their patriotism now?

 

A congressman not taking responsibility for their actions or words. What a surprise. If he doesn’t want to do it publicly he should do at least do it privately.

 

I think your definition of "aid and comfort" is different from the legal definition. People say things all the time that might bring comfort to our enemies indirectly, but I don't think any of them are being charged with treason. Protesting any war would bring comfort to the opposing side, but that's not the same as treason. Have you ever not agreed with a war? Is patriotism always on the side of war?

 

Oh awesome, another "you're with us or against us" tool.

 

This isn't about protesting a war. It's about a Congressman, an elected representative, publicly proclaiming guilt for soldiers without a trial, and then refusing to take responsibility for those words. He's held to a higher standard than the average US hating liberal.

With school back in session now, special ed teachers are giving out passes for students to use the internet.

 

LOL. That one made me giggle.

 

Someone on another site commented that:

Under heavy questioning, Murtha redeployed to the elevator.

heh.

 

LOL! Yeah, I saw a comment that said "when the questions got tough, murtha cut and run."

 

Well said. The quiet voices of reason. Sanity in the midst of frantic accusations.

 

Earlpearl, check out the "Iran digging its own grave" thread. It's full of win :-/

 

Apparently for some, the "voice of reason" means supporting democrats in the usual partisan manner, for betraying US troops.

Sadly, it's not surprising.

 

Seriously, can you just quit with the jackass left/right bullshit? Trying to decide all your political stances based solely by a letter after your name is exactly what breeds a lot of the idiocy we see in Congress right now. I know it makes you feel better when you can simplify everything down to "us and them", but in reality the world is not so simple.

So let's see: we're partisan for saying it's stupid to boil down the argument to "patriots = let's stay strong in iraq". I wasn't aware there could be no dissenting opinions...that sounds very patriotic and American. I'm a conservative leaning person, who is opposed to the war in Iraq. It's possible to have political opinions that don't fit nicely into one box or another.

On the other hand, I also think he should apologize for statements that are now appearing to be false, but to call them treasonous is just silly. He made a statement with the facts he had at the time, just like ANY politician does, and thankfully, that's why he's a politician and not a judge.

 

This isn't about left or right. It's about treasonous comments a Congressman made. I reject your red herrings and canards.

Another canard. No one, but you, has said any such thing in this thread. Is honesty something you feel makes up part of your character? You seek to silence those you don't agree with, but insist that you be afforded a higher standard. This is typical liberalism.

They should have never been made. By openly convicting these soldiers in the media, without a trial, based upon his personal hatred for Bush and the war, he gave aid and comfort to the enemy to further their agenda.

 

I took the time to read GTech's post that "explains" his reasoning for calling certain people "traitors" or "treasonous" here.

I found it stunning.

GTech takes a part of the constitution that describes a definition of treason and applies it across the board to any member of the government that disagrees with the President during a time of war.

He further justifies it by comparing the military response to dealing with enemies to the public response.

Fortunately, this nation and most nations are not ruled by the military and this type of thinking. That is why thousands of years of history for endless societies have found military domination of a government and people to be oppressive and dangerous.

Our system is not perfect but it is based on checks and balances. It creates constant tensions between valid but different perspectives. Fortunately, in the case of the US they have been worked out in ways that these balances continue, the nation remains the bastion of freedom within the world. It would not be so it one element of the government twists the balance in such a way to eliminate the basic freedoms that best reflect America.

Amongst those freedoms are ones that promote freedom to express oneself and a governmental balance of powers between the executive, the legislature, and the courts.



Fortunately, the nation, the courts, the wide American public, history, the members of the congress, the judiciary, (and excuses to anyone or institution I didn't mention) don't subscribe to the GTechian narrow definition.

The American system is differentiated from despotic tyrannies, dictatorships, fascists, and currently dangerous fundamentalist regimes by supporting debate and public disagreement.

That is what has made America strong. It is a fundamental difference between this system which values truth over lies, and the strength and decision making of the voting public over dictatorships and mindless obeyance to whoever is in power.

How inappropriate, misleading, partisan, and full of crap is the "emboldening the enemy=treason argument. Lets take a look at a recent example:

A prime example of this occurred only a few short months ago. In May '07 Senator Clinton requested information for Congress on Pentagon plans to draw down troops in Iraq. On July 16, '07, UnderSecretary of Defense, Eric Edelman denied the request and used the Gtechian argument that this question is inappropriate and would embolden the enemy. (The very essence of the GTechian treason debate)

On July 19, 07 Clinton directly contacted Gates again on this issue and contested the Edelman response and denial of the right of Congress to pursue oversight of government operations.

On July 25, 07 Gates responded and repudiated the Edelman argument. He acknowledged the right of Congressional Oversight and the value and health of Congressional debate on this and other issues. He reiterated that his department does not believe that Congressional Oversight EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY.

He also said nice things about Undersecretary Edelman, acknowledged that the Pentagon was in fact making plans for drawing down the troops and arranged to provide this information to appropriate elements of Congress.

Subsequent to that Cheney claimed that Edelman's response was appropriate and as a result of that Clinton wrote the President on August 2 '07 for administration clarity on the issue.

Bush never responded. 1 1/2 months following this letter from Senator Clinton Bush announced a proposed draw down schedule of troops contingent on conditions ("return on success")



This example shows how ludicrous, inappropriate, misinforming and historically UnAmerican the GTech concept is.


If the Bush team and its defenders don't like when someone questions them or their actions they instantly label it in some fashion like....emboldens the enemy/treasonous....blah blah blah.

Whether the speaker is performing their governmental rights as a member of Congress....or debating the issue the Bushites go to the blame game/name calling/labeling the questioner as unpatriotic/treasonous/etc. etc. etc.

It is very hard to respect an administration that keeps pulling the same old blame game again and again over 4 and 1/2 years....while not being able to be straight with the American public.

This review is not a hate filled attack, as GTech will probably describe. It is a review of recent facts.

These types of facts have occurred repeatedly over 4.5 years. It is difficult to respect a government that twists responses to the American public by name calling and attacking the patriotism of Americans who disagree with the policies of the administration.

Back to the point of this thread: Murtha, criticised the Marines who were indicted for the Haditha killings. He reportedly reviewed early evidence with members of the Marine investigation team. As of now, I think charges against
4 of the Marines have been dropped.

Several thoughts come to mind. Basic charges against any American military for virtually any charges of abuse have been dropped or minimilized in all cases including Abu Ghraib, this situation, the situation concerning the misinformation about Pat Tillman, etc. to name just a few.

Essentially, the military is not aggressively pursuing or prosecuting cases against its own for perceived abuses during this war. The facts of each case are different...but the results seem to be the same. Soldiers are not being penalized for actions during the course of the war.

To call a member of Congress treasonous for bringing this case to the public and making various claims is a prime example of the outrageous abuses of the basic American system that the Bush administration and its supporters continue to pursue.

 

Nice response earlpearl. That's basically what I was trying to say, in more, better words. Look, you can disagree with what he said, and think he's a big piece of shit who should keep his mouth shut. And you can hope he apologizes, quits, fades into obscurity, whatever. But to call it treason takes away from the meaning of the word. I'd argue there is more treason in trying to take away all our civil liberties and the basis upon which this country is founded in the name of protecting us, and treason in trying to eliminate questioning the actions of our military and our government. That's the real treason here.

 

Earl, I'm only going to respond this part of your long winded pointless, less than half truth post.

No where in my post have I said any such thing. It's illustrative of your typical dishonesty and hypocrisy.

It's really a shame when you resort to dishonesty to protect those that seek to harm our military. You pretend to care about the military, yet protect those that willfully seek to destroy them in the public eye.

Like I've said before, some are so filled with hatred for Bush, that they would sell their country out to seek defeat for and slander the military, because they are afraid any "return on success" (I saw you reading my counter to your disgusting post) would be a positive for Bush.

Sadly, this is about neither. It isn't about your utter hatred for Bush, or your partisan politics, or how dishonest your responses are. It's about a member of Congress who did the most despicable of things to our military during a time of war, by proclaiming their guilt without even a trial. A trial, since then, that has proven the innocense of most of those (still going on) involved.

Either you simply do not care about our military, or you are so loyal to the defeatist party that you would overlook and excuse such from one of your party's representative. Either way, I find it repulsive, but not surprising...for you.

All the rest of your canards, red herrings and obfuscation of this are simply that. Nothing but hot air.

 

A dishonest person would argue those things. What civil liberty have you lost?

There is a difference between questioning your government and making dishonest allegations. Most people know this. Some don't see to get it.

 

The thing that irks the crap out of me is that the administration, and the Pentagon under Rumsfeld ignored things that have resulted in dead and wounded soldiers and ignored stuff like the mistreatment of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.

Starting in 2003 the Pentagon was made aware of the need for more protection for vehicles and armored vehicles in Iraq. Now the IED problem has spread to Afghanistan.

About 42-4300 American soldiers have died in the 2 wars with many thousands injured. An increasing number of soldiers died and have been injured because of lack of armor and protection on vehicles. Starting in 2003 and continuing into 2007 members of Congress, including both Democrats and Republicans had to step up and push to get more armor delivered faster to soldiers in the field. We discussed this elsewhere.

The Walter Reed mistreatment was first reported several years before it went public in the Washington Post. It was out there in several publications. It didn't get massive publicity. Wounded soldiers were coming back to the states--after getting some of the world's finest care in the field and at military hospitals overseas.

Basically the administration didn't step up on either of these issues. More soldiers either died or received horrible care.

If people didn't bring this to light....if they didn't publicise it/embarrass the administration with it.....still more soldiers would be dead and more soldiers would be receiving sh1tty treatment.

If people, including citizens and members of congress are not consistently calling the administration to task, then there will be simply more mistreatment of soldiers, more deaths, and more of this partisan type of the worst type of name calling/treason crap....that does nothing for the nation, its health, its soldiers, or its well-being.

 

earl, long winded pointless posts don't make an argument.

I really wanted to think better of you. This isn't about calling the Bush administration to task (more canards, a dime a dozen.)

I say again:

It's about a member of Congress who did the most despicable of things to our military during a time of war, by proclaiming their guilt without even a trial.

For someone who spends a great deal of time declaring they care about our troops, for someone who spends an inordinate amount of time proclaiming victimhood on behalf of the democrat party, while making blatant partisan attacks on others, I find it shocking that you not only defend this, but seem to support it.

A better man would set aside partisanship, instead of using it as a shield of protection.

 

Hey, that's 45% more truth than the nonsense you post.