« I Must Have Too Much Free Time | Main | Cult »


January 10, 2006

Bush Accuses Us Of Treason

-- by Dave Johnson

The same President who insists he has the authority to wiretap "enemies" without warrants, imprison "enemies" without hearings or lawyers or even notifying families, even torture "enemies," said today that YOU are an enemy.

Bush Issues Stark Warning to Democrats on Iraq Debate,

In some of his most combative language yet directed as his critics, Mr. Bush said Americans should insist on a debate "that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries."
"Comfort to our adversaries" is a carefully chosen phrase. As in "aid and comfort."

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3,

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Treason is a capital offense.

The increasing use of eliminationist language on the Right has worked its way to the very top. Watch your backs.

Other blogs on this: Needlenose, Heretik

Posted by Dave Johnson at January 10, 2006 1:32 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/1359

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush Accuses Us Of Treason:

» The Prime Question - Will Bush Cancel Elections? from Seeing the Forest
There is a core question lurking under many blog posts I've been reading and conversations I've been having. In the post Bush Above Law - Bush IS Law I wrote,Republicans are saying that the Constitution gives Bush UNLIMITED power because... [Read More]

Tracked on February 22, 2006 2:20 PM


Comments

Wow, Dave didn't do well in Formal logic, didja? comes from being a fuzzy-thinking leftie. For your edification the term "Aid and comfort" is a logical conjunction which both statements have to be true for the overall statement to be true. So, if you provide comfort, but not aid, you are not quilty of treason and therefore the prez was not accusing his enemies of this crime.

And anyway, providing aid is the more damning part of that statement, which is why it is listed first.

Posted by: Pericles at January 10, 2006 3:01 PM

So why do YOU think Bush chose that specific wording, "comfort to our adversaries" if NOT to evoke treason in people's minds, and thereby signal his support for those calling us "traitors?"

What's YOUR explanation for his wording?

Posted by: Dave Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 10, 2006 3:10 PM

Because W is:

A moron
A deserter
A cocksucker
A dipshit
A fucktard

Pick One or More

Posted by: joe blow at January 10, 2006 4:07 PM

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking"' "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"
BILL HICKS (December 16, 1961 - February 26, 1994)

Posted by: Anonymous at January 10, 2006 4:29 PM

Verisimilitude will serve for reality around here, Mister Johnson. The ability to suggest a reality in a listener's mind and then to be able to deny what is suggested because it is not a literal truth is the employed by the same people who now deny they ever said Saddam was behind September Eleventh.

Bush who constantly reminds us that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror forgets how few terrorists might have been front and center before we entered that misbegotten land.

Yet he insists on a certain circularity of argument even those back in the Age of Pericles might admit for what it is: Yet the terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity. And so we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war against the terrorists.

We heard that again today with a certain inflation as the terrorists are now appparently at war not just with us but humanity. No doubt we will hear it again.

Oy.

Posted by: The Heretik at January 10, 2006 4:55 PM

Ha haa hoo!

Does that joker think he gets to voice opinions and who doesn't based soley on how it makes him look?

He is not the be all and end all of America.

Posted by: grannyinsanity at January 10, 2006 6:10 PM

You've seldom if ever seen the forest, Dave, and Bush did not accuse you of treason. You have to do a little more (actually a LOT more) than talk down a war to be guilty of that offense.

Posted by: Charles Bird at January 10, 2006 6:44 PM

Of course, Dave glosses over or ignores both Dean and Gore saying the Prez and "the right" betrayed this country, which is a direct accusation of Treason.

Posted by: Pericles at January 10, 2006 9:11 PM

Bush does not strike an accidental posture, when he poses as the nation's savior, while at the same time, undermining its crucial liberties. He never was that subtle.--which didn't matter before--when so many Americans believed in his "sincerity". But now that he has overplayed his hand, he has, as a consequence, largely lost the audience. At times, the President betrays himself. He is like the nation's most obscene joke. There are moments of mawkish, self parody, when Bush seems attuned to the fact that what he's saying is bullshit. And we hold this truth to be self-evident.

Perhaps the President is a sock puppet. Perhaps we have taken him too seriously. Which hands wear him like a glove? Who steers the ship of state while he is chainsawing brush with such frenetic energy? While he is collecting cuts and bruises, who is handing out the marching orders?--dispensing favors?--bribing officials?--tapping phones?--subverting habeas corpus?

We may have to have an impeachment; if only to convince the Inner Circle that we are serious, that this Constitution of ours will continue to reflect our living political theatre, and thereby regain a governing consensus, which can again defend our laws against the lawless, and our civil liberties against the entrenched power which would belittle and sacrifice them.

Posted by: Copeland [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 10, 2006 9:12 PM

As we all know, speeches are vetted and all words spoken specifically intended to make a point. Basic. Using the term "comfort to our adversaries" is intentional and meant to invoke the very thing it invokes - treason. It is intentionally vague, avoiding the exact Constituional phrasing "aid and comfort" so that it is not a precise accusation, but rather a veiled one.

Truthfully, it is not a great leap in logic from "comfort to our adversaries" to "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Focusing upon the "aid" part and attempting to dismiss the rhetorical purpose behind the term "comfort to our adversaries" because the word "aid" is primary is disingenuous at best.

We all know what the President means. Let's be adults shall we?

It is important to know what words mean, and the words, "comfort to our adversaries", delivered by a self proclaimed "war president" to a supportive and receptive audience, are meant to confirm, reaffirm and repeat the theme that to oppose the war and this President in Iraq is treason. It is ever said directly, for that would be too bold, too out front. Rather, it is implied, veiled, but evokative of the overall accussation.

This is nothing new. The tactic was introduced a mere few days after 9/11 from a number of fronts, and has not abated since.

Pericles, you are picking gnats out of horse shit. Formal logic? How about this:

Does the term "comfort to our adversaries" envoke a similar meaning to the term "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."?

Of course it does. That's logic man.

Words have meaning.

The trick is listening to what they say.

Posted by: SNAFU Principle at January 10, 2006 9:44 PM

Of course, Dave glosses over or ignores both Dean and Gore saying the Prez and "the right" betrayed this country, which is a direct accusation of Treason.

Here is some logic for you Pericles: Dave wasn't writing about Gore or Dean, or what they have said in the past. Neither one of them is the Commander in Chief and the President, top of the Executive Branch are they? Neither Dean nor Gore has lead the nation to war, have they? And, neither of them made a speech yesterday that used the term "comfort to our adversarires" now did they? Dave was writing about our current President. Right? So, by up that point, you are attempting to....what?

My deductive reasoning says:

You are trying to create a red herring.

But, being an expert in logic, you know all about logical fallacies, right?

Of course, deductive reasoning dictates that since you do bring up the topic that Dean and Gore have stated "the Prez and "the right" betrayed this country, which is a direct accusation of Treason." then you are either 1) Admitting that Bush is also playing the treason card, because you are constructing a logical fallacy to deflect from that point (no fallacy is necessary if your argument is sound, right?) or 2) You are simply full of shit.
What do you think?

Breathlessly awaiting your logical reply...
That Other David

Posted by: SNAFU Principle at January 10, 2006 10:09 PM

This was a talking points message signaling the right to ramp up the rhetoric into a Coulteresque frenzy. It's already on display in the NSA blogger deliberations. I expect a harder right definition of terms. Let's see if the Democrats follow to maintain equal distance from the new middle point.

Posted by: racrecir at January 10, 2006 10:13 PM

You've seldom if ever seen the forest, Dave, and Bush did not accuse you of treason. You have to do a little more (actually a LOT more) than talk down a war to be guilty of that offense.

What an interesting and completely incorrect statment! Glorious. Yes, Charles, one has to do a LOT more than talk down a war to be GUILTY of treason. But, apparently, our President, and much of the right, doesn't have a problem with ACCUSSING people, usually those who OPPOSE them, of treason. (They sure do like to swing that dead cat though! Weeeeee!)

You don't have to be guilty of treason to be accussed ot treason.

Two different things, aren't they? Yes. Indeed.

That's why we have courts.

Dave's point is that people who simply oppose the President, yet have never lent any aid or comfort, should not be accussed of treason AT ALL.

Could it be any simpler?

Posted by: SNAFU Principle at January 10, 2006 10:18 PM

John at Americablog says it well:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-doesnt-bush-just-arrest-us-all-and.html

I personally believe that he deserves unending ridicule.

Posted by: grannyinsanity at January 10, 2006 11:26 PM

Treason. Not a good issue to raise for Bush. Opens things up. Ginning up a war on false pretenses was treason.
Treason. The only crime in the Constitution, requiring two eyewitnesses. Great stuff, treason: the betrayal of us all, the Judas of all crimes, the last best curse of politics, so horrible as to be a joke if spoken in accusation before earned in argument, and the hermaphrodite parent of misprision. Treason begets misprision of treason. Now there's practical progeny for opening things up.

But first, the grand-daddy of ‘em all, the perfect marriage of politics and crime, treason, as defined by the statute [citation available: look it up]:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies [like taxes] war against them [now there's a pronoun worthy of discussion] or adheres to their enemies [only were it literally so, for the perps would be easy to spot, if you only knew your enemies], giving them aid and comfort [tea?] within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death [but not torture], or shall be imprisoned not less than five years [to what?] and fined under this title but not less than $10,000 [to how much?]; and [if not dead] shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States [too late].

The argument, not researched at the moment -- Aaron Burr keeps getting in the way -- is that those elected officials who set out to persuade the United States to make war, using fraudulent evidence to do so, under circumstances that they know or should know will cause those against whom the United States makes war to levy war against the United States in return, are guilty of treason,
OR
those elected officials who adhere to the enemies of the United States [it's going to be tough for the law to define "enemies"], giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, by providing, by fraudulent means, just cause [under international law? inalienable rights of man? what?] for the enemies of the United States to levy war against the United States, are guilty of treason.

Enough raw edges on that one to shave a porcupine, I know, but theory, like sex, is not pretty at the beginning. I’m sure I stole that, too. Forget the OR.

I'm working on a hook here to snag misprision of treason, although the mind wanders: can we hook a civil rights violation against the conspirators with the right plaintiff? Malcolm Kendall-Smith should have standing, but he doesn't already.

I know you're asking yourself, "If the treason is the only crime in the Constitution, why is there a statute?" but that's another Article.

Best idea yet [ I appreciate you waiting ] : We can package the evidence we have on the false pretenses made for the Iraq war, turn it in for the terrorism bounty, and, when they refuse to pay it, sue for the prize. Lucky Jack would be proud.

As I was saying, but it's anti-climactic at this point to say, that, if treason be the principal offense, then misprision of treason is the ticket to encourage the cooperation of the witnesses and production of the evidence we need (because we don't have enough guns to enforce subpoenas, and), because the statute provides [citation available: right?] :

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
[no jokes there, except the target audience may think, "Seven years? Not too bad. What are the chances they catch me?" Then again, maybe I should send a personal letter to Colin Powell, even though he broke my heart. He might still care, about being prosecuted, I mean.]

As I suggested, uniquely beneficial. My next T-shirt. Gets you two years more than the minimum for treason if you're not dead.

What if someone like Fitzgerald, or the judge, Hogan, or anybody really, were to announce that they are investigating treason, and say,
"YA'LL THAT'S's GOT ANY EBIDENCE OF BUSH LYIN' TO MAKE WAR, YA NEED BE BRANGIN' IT YONDER, LESS'N WE BE COMIN' FO' YOU NEX'."

Now ain't that America. Kevin Costner playing Fitzgerald, and our napalm-in-the-morning man, Robert Duvall, as Judge Hogan, an Open Range to chase for NeoCons to split the Neo from their Con and brand their sorry fat asses with a "T" so big that the big boys with them in prison know who they are, and so they'll wish they were dead (opportunity for reprise: we need a role for Ned Beatty, but Philip Seymour Hoffman would make a better Rove. Cheney for Beatty? Can he bitch it up that much? I think so).
What do you think? I was just kidding about the citations. Let me know if you want the citations. None of the rest of it, though.

Posted by: Mac at January 11, 2006 4:09 AM

But, apparently, our President, and much of the right, doesn't have a problem with ACCUSSING people, usually those who OPPOSE them, of treason.

Bush was accusing you, SNAFU, assuming you're one of those folks who are "defeatists who refuse to see anything that's right" or one of those "partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people", of being irresponsible, not treasonous (cite). Words do indeed mean things, and treason carries a specific meaning. By your same illogic, Bush is himself treasonous because of the befuddled post-war actions which emboldened and aided the insurgency.

Could it be any simpler?

Posted by: Charles Bird at January 11, 2006 8:03 AM

Charles, Actually... I do not think that Bush was speaking to me personally. But, generally labeling all who would deem to opposse him. You know, nearly half of the American public who voted against him in the last election, we... that black mass of nothingness? (Would you push a button and make us all disapper if you could Charles? Be honest now son.)

Charles wrote: Bush is himself treasonous because of the befuddled post-war actions which emboldened and aided the insurgency.

You said it, I didn't. Actually, since you mention it, Bush isn't a traitor because he fukced up the war and "aided" the unsurgemnts. (Aren't they suppossed to be "terrorists" not unsurgents Charles? Have you forgotten the talking poinstz? Shame on you.)

Bush is a traitor because he took us to war on the pretext that we were in danger from WMD that Hussein was aiming at us. Where are the WMD's Charles? Oh wait, did I ask that question? Is there an answer Charles? Interesting that.

And, it has not come to fruition. Bush is a traitor not because he is a liar (or as you seem to think I think, a fuck up), Bush is a traitor because he places politics before his Oath of Office, he continues to move the goalpost (WMD's to "Free the Iraqi's. "Secure American interests (IE OIL)"to "Establish a demoracy in the ME")while also, apparently violationg the Consitutional rights of American citizens, while ALSO repeatedly inferring that to oppose him is givng "comfort to our adversaries" that is, TREASON, when in truth to oppose him is our right as citizens, most especially when we do not agree with him. We see problems when we see devoted foot lickers like yourself hungrily gathering at the feet of these traitors and proclaiming them G-ds on Earth. All in the name of supporting "your team" and your ideology.

Tell me Charles, exactly when did half of the American public become the enemy? Think about that for a moment, won't you?

Please don't tell me what I think Charles, cause you are as clueless in that area as you are in all others.

However much you hurt me darling, I still love you.

Cheers. The Other David

Posted by: SNAFU Principle at January 11, 2006 8:23 AM

Charles wrote: Bush was accusing you, SNAFU, assuming you're one of those folks who are "defeatists who refuse to see anything that's right" or one of those "partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people", of being irresponsible, not treasonous (cite)

Defeatest? No. I do not think we can now leave Iraq. Did I support the war? No. Because I forsaw that it would be a clusterfuck. Which it is. It's not rocket science. The plan is to engage an extended war. It wlways was. Only simpletons assume and beleived that it would indeed be a "cakewalk" and that we'd emerge victorious in a year or two. That was never the plan. Long range presence in the ME is the plan. I do not support this process.

So, if it's "partisan" to state that we are in Iraq because of the oil, then we are not there for the oil? Is that your point Charles? Then why are we there? To build Democracy? Isn't that Imperialsim? Is that what America is about?

If you truly believe that the US would be in Iraq if there were no oil there, or in the ME at all, then you are a greater fool than I take you for...

Tell me Charles, if there was no oil in the ME, would we be there today?

Posted by: SNAFU Principle at January 11, 2006 8:31 AM

Correction above. Should read: "Bush isn't a traitor because he took us to war on the pretext that we were in danger from WMD that Hussein was aiming at us."

Posted by: SNAFU Principle at January 11, 2006 8:39 AM

I heard yesterday on Fox some newsreader or opinion guy say (I don't really sit at the ready to get my Fox attributions correct, sorry) that in his speech Bush "quoted article three, section three" of the Constitution. It was said with a kind of "go-team!" breathless satisfaction. Watch your backs.

Posted by: richard [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 11, 2006 10:38 AM

Bush says lots of outrageous things - stop by our blog and read what we have saying.

Posted by: Gotham Image at January 18, 2006 2:09 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page