Is it really treason ? - Democratic Underground

kentuck

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 09:55 AM
Original message

Is it really treason ?

To lie to, to betray, to illegally declare war, to cause thousands of unnecessary deaths, to expose secrets for political revenge, to create groups for propaganda purposes only, to cover up the lies leading to the disaster and consequences of war? What else would we call it if not "treason"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MemphisTiger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message

1. par for the course...

to answer your last questions

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kagemusha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 09:57 AM
Response to Original message

2. If it's not it's only because Congress sat on the job.

And that's the only really fair answer in the US constitutional system.

Mind you, this story going around that Bush knew about what Rove did and berated him IN 2003 is really pushing executive privilege to the breaking point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jedicord

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #2

7. I've always wondered why, when asked for permission to go to war...

That no one in Congress did any personal investigating of the facts. It seems they all just took the Shrub's word for it.

How could someone like me, just a normal citizen, know that the "evidence" was trumped up and they didn't?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MemphisTiger

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #7

8. That was my concern about Iraq

nobody questioned the intelligence, they just said "wow, yellow cake call in the air-raids"

I guess investigating the validity of evidence that has killed nearly 2000 of our own men and women was to much of a chore

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kagemusha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #7

9. They thought showing trust in Bush protected them and us.

Because a wise President would not abuse that trust.

(muffled laughter of disbelief)

...Well ok, they thought it was a good plan at the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

acmavm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 09:57 AM
Response to Original message

3. Standard Operating Procedure for the Republican Party.

Always remember the way Reagan and Poopy negotiated with the Iranian government over the hostages. This threw an entire election. That too, in my book, was treason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

afdip

(660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message

4. i'd call it the gospel

according to dubya the demigod

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wtmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 09:59 AM
Response to Original message

5. By definition, no

"aiding and abetting the enemy" -- you might be able to make a circuitous case for treason

There are any number of other laws which have been broken

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whatever4

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-19-05 10:00 AM
Response to Original message

6. No, the only other word synonymous is Bush, it's a whole new def nm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:56 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.