When Does Dissension Become Treason?
I'm generally a pretty jovial fellow. I like to keep my life and therefore my blogging, pretty light. I'm funny, or at least attempt to be. But I saw something Thursday night that literally made me sick at my stomach. I've chewed on it for the past couple of days, because I honestly don't know how to handle it. It wasn't funny and neither is this post.
Republicans are often accused (and are often guilty) of decrying any disagreement from Democrats to the Administration's policies as counterproductive to the war efforts. Occasionally you'll hear a Republican suggest that the other side is bordering on treason. Now no one is ever brought up on charges but these comments have become commonplace. Likewise the Democrats, seemingly emboldened by the President's poll numbers and the lack of real retribution from the American people, continue to make more and more outlandish statements and accusations.
The New York (and now the Los Angeles) Times are printing National Security secrets but I expect no more from them. What I heard Thursday night though, I did not expect. Carl Levin, Democratic Senator from Michigan, says that General George Casey, top U.S. Commander in Iraq, should "...carry the message that the American people do not support an open-ended commitment, do not support the administration's position that we're there as long as the Iraqis need us." (Courtesy of Fox News) To whom should he carry this message? Sen. Levin believes Gen. Casey should explain this lack of support to the Iraqi govt. and its people.
WHAT? When did it become okay, nevermind expected for the senior military official to disregard and circumvent the authority of the President? When did the opposition party become evil? Why is this acceptable? What really pisses me off is that three days later, I still haven't noticed so much as a mention of this in the blogosphere. Did I miss the memo? If the General were to do this, wouldn't it be treason? Don't we still execute people for that?
It occurs to me that I may be overreacting. No one else apparently thinks much of this. But I am enraged. I have friends all over the political spectrum. I understand (but disagree with) the opinion that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. I understand (but disagree with) the belief that the American military is doing more harm than good in Iraq. I understand (but disagree with) the desire to set a finite date for the return of our servicemen and women. I don't think that those who disagree with me are traitors. Disagreement, discussion and dissension are three essential components of Democracy. But there has to be a line. Somewhere there must be a point where disagreement becomes animosity, discussion becomes argument, and dissension becomes treason. What say you?
Republicans are often accused (and are often guilty) of decrying any disagreement from Democrats to the Administration's policies as counterproductive to the war efforts. Occasionally you'll hear a Republican suggest that the other side is bordering on treason. Now no one is ever brought up on charges but these comments have become commonplace. Likewise the Democrats, seemingly emboldened by the President's poll numbers and the lack of real retribution from the American people, continue to make more and more outlandish statements and accusations.
The New York (and now the Los Angeles) Times are printing National Security secrets but I expect no more from them. What I heard Thursday night though, I did not expect. Carl Levin, Democratic Senator from Michigan, says that General George Casey, top U.S. Commander in Iraq, should "...carry the message that the American people do not support an open-ended commitment, do not support the administration's position that we're there as long as the Iraqis need us." (Courtesy of Fox News) To whom should he carry this message? Sen. Levin believes Gen. Casey should explain this lack of support to the Iraqi govt. and its people.
WHAT? When did it become okay, nevermind expected for the senior military official to disregard and circumvent the authority of the President? When did the opposition party become evil? Why is this acceptable? What really pisses me off is that three days later, I still haven't noticed so much as a mention of this in the blogosphere. Did I miss the memo? If the General were to do this, wouldn't it be treason? Don't we still execute people for that?
It occurs to me that I may be overreacting. No one else apparently thinks much of this. But I am enraged. I have friends all over the political spectrum. I understand (but disagree with) the opinion that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. I understand (but disagree with) the belief that the American military is doing more harm than good in Iraq. I understand (but disagree with) the desire to set a finite date for the return of our servicemen and women. I don't think that those who disagree with me are traitors. Disagreement, discussion and dissension are three essential components of Democracy. But there has to be a line. Somewhere there must be a point where disagreement becomes animosity, discussion becomes argument, and dissension becomes treason. What say you?
posted by Daddy Rogue at 5:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home