Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Douglas MacKinnon :: Townhall.com Columnist
Traitors among us
by Douglas MacKinnon
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Can we really win the war on terror? I am honestly starting to doubt we can.

My main rationale for that doubt being; how can we defeat the unimagined evil of these barbaric terrorist organizations as long as some of our fellow Americans feel they have the right to break the law and continually leak classified information that aids and abets the very vermin that seeks to exterminate us?

While not a complicated question, the only logical answer is unambiguous, frightening, and disheartening: We can’t defeat the terrorists if traitors among us eagerly supply them with intelligence that puts our nation and our troops in harms way. Period.

The latest in a long line of leaks that embolden Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, is the very selective and politically motivated disclosure of information from the highly classified “National Intelligence Estimate.” The NIE being the coordinated judgments of up to sixteen US intelligence agencies that is used to brief the President and other high ranking officials.

This particular, out of context leak, seeks to prove that the war with Iraq has created more terrorists and is putting the United States at greater risk of attack than before we entered the country. In response to the flawed logic of this partisan leak, President George W. Bush said, “We weren’t in Iraq when we got attacked on September 11. We weren’t in Iraq when thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps. We weren’t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren’t in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren’t in Iraq when the blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.”

While the President’s rebuttal makes great sense, I am not here to defend him nor his policies in Iraq. Rather, as one who once worked in a joint command at the Pentagon and dealt with classified information on a daily basis, I am here to beg those in our own government and our own media, to stop this suicidal disclosure of top secret information. If not for reasons of obeying the law and patriotism, then at the very least, for the safety of you and your family. For when the terrorists do visit our shores again – basically at your invitation -- your betrayal of state secrets will not shield you, nor your family, from their fanatical wrath. Deaths of the innocent being an obscene price to be paid for scoring cheap and fleeting, partisan points.

What is most disgusting and troubling about these continual criminal leaks -- be they about the NIE, the terrorist surveillance program, heretofore “secret” CIA prisons in Europe for proven killers, or coerced interrogations – is the fact that the leakers are almost assuredly US intelligence operatives who have an ax to grind with George W. Bush or his administration.

In order to be an effective betrayer of national secrets, these government snitches need accomplices in the media to aid in the dissemination of the classified material. For that role, they turn to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other left of center news organizations that think nothing of revealing top secret information in an effort to harm the policies of an administration they hold in contempt.

Fine. We know the rules of the liberal elite. But what if, come January 20, 2009, Democrat Hillary Clinton or Democrat Mark Warner, is sworn in as the next President of the United States? And what if, two years into his or her term, some intelligence operatives with a right of center bias, decide, purely because they don’t like the policies of the new president, to leak highly classified information to the handful of conservatives outlets, in an attempt to discredit the President and his or her policies. What then, the reaction of Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, The New York Times, and The Washington Post? All liberals or news organizations who are thrilled with this current batch of leaks. What would they say about “conservatives” leaking information to hurt their President?

Their answer is obvious. Mine, maybe less so. Like the partisans who are now leaking to hurt President Bush, if in the future, a “conservative” leaks top secret information that he or she has sworn to protect, I would wish them to face the full brunt of the law. And if even one American lost his or her life because of a leak, then I would want that person to be executed for treason.

Until we severely punish those who leak classified information, then the traitors among us will not only continue to flourish, but will grow more brazen with the secrets they reveal.

Since I don’t believe our nation to prepared to execute or imprison those who leak such information, then it will be clearly impossible to stop them.

Should we not be able to stop these politically motivated leaks, then we cannot stop the terrorists who dream of our destruction. A future of untold loss of life because a handful of our fellow Americans decided they were above the law of the land.

When that day comes, I pity those who have been cheerleading the betrayal of these national secrets.

Douglas MacKinnon was press secretary to former Senator Bob Dole. He is also a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming novel, “America’s Last Days.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming novel, The Apocalypse Directive.

Be the first to read Douglas MacKinnon's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

I absolutely agree
I've often wondered why the leakers aren't tracked down and fully prosecuted. I'm a former Army Intelligence agent; I know it can and has been done. Where are the prosecutions?

Also, classified information doesn't lose its classificatuion just because the New York Treason prints it. They should also be prosecuted.

This giving a pass to the press started with the Pentagon Papers; it's about time it stops. The First amendment acknowledges freedom of the press, not license and lack of accountability. The press can be taken to court for libel; why not treason?

traitors among our lefty media
Good insights -part way.
Now, why not post some real dead or alive notices with real money rewards, just like you OUGHT to do IF you really think what your article just said. It might get you in court even and then you could REALLY sound off. After all, WE are the people -remember? NOT the so called
government hacks. So let some BLOOD flow for real then see who leaks and sides with our murderers -okay? Otherwise just cap it mac....

You sir are partisan & deliberetly false
I take offence to your quote of Bush saying that al Qaeda had ANY links to the regime of Saddam Hussein. As throughly reported in the September 11th commision and highlighted http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

and

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/

Your ENTIRE thesis is false. Because the report was UNAMBIGUOUS and UNBIASED the answer is OBVIOUS. It is ESSENTIAL for the American public KNOW what will and will NOT protect our families. You can rest assured that many Americans carry no fidelety to the bliss of ignorance you ask of us.

With all do respect, let me define the latest breed of McCarthyism based on this article: MacKinnonism, the cheerleader of an uninformed citizenry.

Not sure I agree...
I'm surprised that as a former press secretary the author doesn't have a better command of grammar. Small things such as then vs. than, here vs. hear, the sentence fragment, and other mistakes hurt his credibility.

I'll certainly agree that there was hatred of us before Iraq or Afghanistan, and that's why were were targets of terrorist attacks. Still, you would have to be foolish or partisin indeed to think that having troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting against radical islam is not creating greater hatred for us or recruiting more troops to their cause. I emphasize "greater" and "more" because George Bush's and others' arguments address the straw man accusation that the US was not hated by radical muslims before. No one is claiming that.

I'm also skeptical of the way the author repeats the Bill O'Reilly argument that if you don't support the president, you are inviting terrorists into your house, and further, you would deserve no protection from US forces.

I also agree, of course, that leaking classified information is inappropriate and should be punished. On the other hand, does anyone really believe that leaking information saying that we are emboldening terrorists is more harmful to our cause than are the actions described in the article as emboldening terrorists? That bombing Iraq didn't help recruit terrorists against us, but that terrorists are going to read this article and say "Well maybe we SHOULD attack America, after all? According to their New York Post, we are emboldened!"

I suppose I can't expect someone busy writing a book to have time to bother with grammar,logical coherence or proofreading. Instead, I would like to suggest that Mr. MacKinnon stick with writing the book-- and finding a good editor.

correction
I would like to correct an error in the above post: please change "the sentence fragment" to "sentence fragments."

Thanks you.

And one more thing...
First, I'm sure I'll get comments about my typos; I am not writing professionally and I don't have the ability to edit my posts.

Secondly, I'm surprised it didn't occur to me before, but we have here solid evidence that Mr. MacKinnon is not only partisan but, if not a liar, then one who is easly convinced of his own untruths.

A quick google search of "Monica Lewinsky Leak" will reveal numberous leaks of classified information. The trial was described by one site as "the most leaked trial in the history of America."

So those claims Mr. MacKinnon makes about his nonpartisan opposition to all leaks of classified information? Toss them out the window; MacKinnon had his chance to oppose leaks even when they were to his (or his side's) benefit, and he did not; he chose to remain silent.

A SIMPLE TRUEISM
It's amazing how a simple direct to the point column can generate so many stupid responses! Since when do issues of national security (leaks) require all post to be first dissected for spelling and grammatical errors? This stuff here is not rocket science, it's plain old everyday commonsense, you don't give your enemy your war plans in advance, and you certainly do not keep then updated to any changes in your strategy. There are enough of us here who would love the opportunity to take the snitches running around Washington along with us for up and coming hunting season.
Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org

Traitors, indeed
It's been a long time since we've seen an execution for treason in this country, but I, for one, would like to see the practice revived.
Social critics say that civilized countries do not kill their convicted criminals, but treason can bring about the collapse of a civilized country.
Whatever destroys our country destroys our laws and what we stand for, so the destruction of traitors is a preservation of our culture.
I don't have a problem with the destruction of what, if left unchecked, can cost me my life.

Apparent irrationality of the left
The contrast to how the left would respond to a leak under a Republican administration versus a Democratic administration is valid. The basis for the difference is that Democrats do not see lying as a problem. Truth has no value for them except as a ploy.

Republicans are closer to our Christian heritage. They still see some value in truth and are thus limited in their responses. Democrats have abandoned Christ (who is truth) long ago and don’t even have a vestigial attachment to the truth.

For the Democrat, getting what you want is paramount. The Democrat cannot be shamed (consider Bill Clinton).

The left becomes more understandable when you consider that truth is not something of value to them. They represent an insurgency in our country. So far they have limited themselves to verbal and media warfare. The right still is hampered in its belief that the left can be argued with or corrected of error.

The left is following a path of religious zealotry. The religion is secularism and it is as opposed to truth as anything can be. Like a single-minded berserker, the left seeks only power and control. It acts to destroy anything in its path. Until the right understands its opponent, the frustrations of trying to argue or correct those on the left will continue.

losing
Europe is the canary in the mine. They have already lost their future to Islam.They are doomed. Now take the view of the young Moslems. They are determined to see that Shari law and Islam controls the world. They know they are dealing with cowards and fools. If you can't take advantage of fools,then what else are they good for. Why not take their money,wemon-their only sluts-and country. So crack the whip,make them whimper,and beat them into the second class dogs that they are. Why should the US fare better.

The truth is
Treason has prospered in this country for the last forty years. It has been used as a springboard to Hollywood popularity, and even to the Senate. How long can we continue to survive in such a climate?

Prosecute the leakers
They should be prosecuted, but they all apparently have friends in high places. This has to be stopped. We treat murderous thugs as though they're members of a consripted army (under geneva conventions), and every secret program to fight them is detailed for them in the NYTimes. How can we win under these cicumstances?

Marching in the Fifth Column
Convinced of their own omnipotence someone in our government, who has access to highly sensitive, classified intelligence, believes so strongly in helping Democrats regain power that he (or she) is willing to undermine national security by leaking selective information deemed harmful to the Bush administration. He (or she) assumes, quite wrongly it can be demonstrated, that whatever damages Bush helps Democrats. This is the Watergate strategm for winning elections, but works only if your adversary possesses the same dubious morals as you yourself and therefore must expend a lot of energy covering up its misdeeds. Lacking such an adversary in this case the Democrats need to enter the public debate by offering viable alternatives to the supposed misdirection of this administration. The electorate has rejected the approach that says:
"Bush is bad; his policies are wrong. You don't feel warm and fuzzy. Vote for me". Any creditable ideas, Democrats? (Hint: idea must not threaten the continuation of Western Civilization.)

Leftist thinking
It is amazing how anyone can compare leaks about the Lewinski case to those regarding NSA and other Classified information leaks. Leaking classified information is treason, leaking judicial information is contempt of court.....both illegal but not of the same degree.

Adage
"After this therefore because of this"--Fools cling to this adage without knowing they do. After Daniel Ellsberg... After Bush invaded Iraq... After we failed to sign the Kyoto... After the Democrats said... After education reform... It all depends on when you came into the movie as to your guess about the end. Politicians live and die by the adage, they create programs and then use the adage as if time started with them. Use the "No Child Left Behind Program"--if reading scores go up it will be touted as proof the program worked--if not, it will be said the program needed more money or it did not go far enough. Politicians never lose because the adage protects them. Do nothing--they lose--they cannot employ the adage. Do you see how it works?

LEFTIST DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ
Some of the more left leaning that replied to this article must not know how to comprehend what they read.

The gist of the article is not about any Presidents policies, it is about treasonous acts against our country. Leaking classified information to the enemy either directly or through the media, is treason, period.

I don't see what leaks to the press about the Monica Lewinski affair, (drew), has to do with national security. A tryst with an overweight bimbo in the Oval Office does not undermine national security.

nothappenin: Like most true blue liberals you cannot accknowledge the fact that since we have been in Iraq there has not been one single attack against the USA.

Don't you think it's time you recognize the fact that this is due to highly classified operations conducted by our, and our allies', intelligence agencies? And, if the details of these operations had been leaked to the press that we very well may have had another 9/11 type of attack only a month or so ago?

How loud would you be screaming if British intelligence had not uncovered the plot in their country to blow up 10 planes bound for America? Don't you think that, if their operations had been leaked to the British press, the terrorists would have changed their plans and tried something different at a later date?

Leaking classified information about national security, (knob jobs in the Oval Office doesn't count), to anyone, for any reason, is an act of treason and deserves severe punishment.

If people like you and drew are going to post here at least try to read the article carefully, and then try to post a reasonablly intelligent rebutal. If not, stick to the KOS and Huff Report. You can whine with glee about spelling and grammar there. And, no one there cares if you insist on beating a dead horse to make it run faster.

p.s. Like everyone else here, it irritates me to no end that we can't edit our posts anymore.










The NIE
How did this 'help our enemies'?
You don't think the insurgents already know this stuff? I'm sure they figured it out when job application forms started running low.
A better question is: why wasn't this released back in April?

Drew and Nothin
The point of the article was not the accuracy of the leaks or the report. The point was leaks of classified material can cause great harm to our safety. Do you agree? Would you support partisan leaks in the scenario MacKinnon proposes of a DEM administration being harassed by right wing leakers? Do you believe giving aid and comfort to an enemy is treason? And finally, leaks of Slick Willy's oval office antics may be serious in your estimation, but hardly compares with leaks covered under the provisions of the espionage act concerning disclosure of classified information.

Gregdn
It helps our enemies because it gives them false hopes about our will and ability to resist. Our freedom of speech is alien to them and they think well publicized criticism of war means we won't or can't fight. Thus they persist in underestimating democracies where people can say such obvious things as I hate war, I won't fight, i got nothing against them Congs, As late as the battle of the bulge Hitler was waving around a copy of that manifesto the British college students published in 1936 saying they would never fight for King or country. Hitler said one good defeat and the British would sue for peace. Those students of course, proved the fact that even a rat will fight when he's trapped, and won the battle of Britain a few years later. A united decisive front deters bullies and crazies. Its not what the insurgents (what a nice friendly name for those who wish our deaths) know, but what they think we will do that matters.

Mountain Rose: good post, but...
... we didn't get to hang Benedict Arnold. He fought the remainder of the Revolutionary War as a British officer, then went to Britain at war's end, where he actually died of old age.

But your point is well-made, otherwise.

Drew: Regarding comments...
... on your typos: you shouldn't get any. We all make them, and it's considered bad form here to comment on things like typos and syntax. A comment has to be virtually unintelligible before anyone will comment on its format.

Traitors...
The Bush administration is choosing not to fully prosecute the leakers. There must be a way to at least find out their names and publish them... so their neighbors know them...

Further
I think there are occassional glitches in TH's censor program. I've seen some of my posts, after careful proofreading and correction, still come out messed up when they appear.

TO: drew, nothappenin
Gentlepersons, a few points:

"drew" chides Mr. MacKinnon for leaking about Monica Lewinsky -- that imbroglio DID NOT INVOLVE NATIONAL SECURITY! While those leaks may have been embarrassing to President Clinton, they DID NOT endanger American lives.

I have a much larger bone to pick with "nothappenin" who cites THE WASHINGTON POST and CNN, no fans of Bush or the Iraq war, as well as the notoriously anti-American BBC for being 'unbiased' and 'unambiguous.'

I would cite back at him/her two eyewitness reports that appeared in the DAILY TELEGRAPH of April 27, 2003.

The first is "The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

The second "we'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge brom bin Laden and convey a message back" reproduces this DOCUMENTARY proof.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml

All this evidence was turned over to the commission, who inexplicably chose to ignore it and instead accepted Saddam's testimony as Gospel Truth -- go figure!

It's only a leak if...
...it gets out.

The scenerio of Hillary in the White House with a conservative leaking to main stream media and it never makes print. Then and only then would the media heed the pleas from an administration to protect classified material and have no doubt, they would roll on their source in a heart beat.

There is also the point that if Hillary were to conduct business the way the left wants Bush to, there would be no such thing as classified material.

Drew pe Drawers
Went off on a tear.

Some comments:
"does anyone really believe that leaking information saying that we are emboldening terrorists is more harmful to our cause than are the actions described in the article as emboldening terrorists?" Well, as war is not a function of destruction but rather of breaking the enemy's will to resist, anything that shows our will being damaged is helpful and harmful.

"the author repeats the Bill O'Reilly argument that if you don't support the president, you are inviting terrorists into your house." Must be some other article. Could you quote the passage?

"A quick google search of "Monica Lewinsky Leak" will reveal numberous leaks of classified information. The trial was described by one site as "the most leaked trial in the history of America."" Err, what trial? There was an impeachment, but that is, after all, a political function at core... You know, no judges, all jury? And can you quote where MacKinnon applauded any leaks? And can you tell me how leaks in a non-criminal but embarassing investigation equate to leaks of military secrets in time of war?

So those claims Mr. MacKinnon makes about his nonpartisan opposition to all leaks of classified information? Toss them out the window; MacKinnon had his chance to oppose leaks even when they were to his (or his side's) benefit, and he did not; he chose to remain silent.

How many...
9/11s will have to occur before this country unifies enough to protect itself? Will it be too late then? Really, it just sickens me everytime I think about how apathetic a large number of Americans are. If it ain't happening on their street, they can't be bothered. Pass the Bugles, will ya? But who will squeal the loudest when "Desperate Housewives" is replaced with "Allah Knows Best"? I think our forefathers and those who have defended this country in past conflicts would be rightly ashamed of what we have become. This is the last stand, folks, the Alamo. If this country goes down, there's no place left to run.

pghfan
I get your meaning and hate to split too many fine hairs with you but the entire garrison of the Alamo was put to the sword. Gallant stand in the face of overwelming odds and all also the Alamo is still a place of reverance to those of us down here but maybe we use the analogy of San Jacinto.

Gotcha
It's the old "gotcha" game that kids play with adults. Kids will try to justify any wrong behavior by two ways: change the subject, inept comparison. Using the impeachment of Pres. Clinton for lying under oath and comparing it with leaks about national security is inept. Focusing on Monica is changing the subject. Patiently explaining is the job of adults.

If I, as university faculty, were to use my influence and position to indulge in sexual favors with a young female teaching assistant, the university would fire me for abuse of power and adults would be outraged about my irresponsible, and selfish behavior which would malign the University's good name, all for the mere pleasure of a tryst. Similarly, from the presidents I've been able to vote for, from LBJ on, the adolescent and selfish actions of Mr. Clinton with Ms. Lewinsky established a "low water mark" for sliming the office of the presidential. Nixon's paranoia and subsequent watergate, and Kennedy's affair with Marylin Monroe also come to mind. Liberals think that conservatives persecuted and impeached Clinton for something lightweight, his affair. They are fixated on that presumption because of their stereotype that conservatives are uptight about sex. Rather, lying under oath is an impeachable offense, but having bought into the "gotcha" game, their blurred vision could not see the difference.

This leads to the inept comparison. Kids will use any mistake or flaw in adults to justify any behavior they want to do. The degree of flaw or failure is not as clear to an adolescent as an adult. Future consequences escape adolescent thought because they are considering only their feelings and pleasure at the moment. Adults must consider consequences. Thus, comparing "leaks" in hearings about Clinton's lying under oath about his infidelity bear little resemblance to matters of prosecuting a war and its successful outcome. To be sure, had Clinton been removed from office via a successful vote after impeachment was initiated, we would have had a change in leadership, and "Captain Planet" would have been at the helm. Doubtless, the future would have been altered, but we were not in a war. Those who say that the terrorists already knew the contents that the classified report disclosed are disingenuous. North Viet Nam leaders took heart for their cause, watching the continual implosion of American resolve, fomented by the American press. In a similar way, terrorists and jihadists are aided and abetted by the criminal leaks that perpetually flow from the traitors who think that they are patriots and want to humiliate the administration at any cost.

Does Benedict Arnold or Alger Hiss ring any bells? Or, perhaps Judas Iscariot... traitors all. But then, we supposedly know now that Judas' gospel is the new, improved version; it's the same old, childish, "gotcha" game.

Leroy
Point taken. Maybe Midway is a better example. A battle that could have easily gone the wrong way, and might have been the end if it had.

The Alamo could also be representative, if we are already in the "too late" stage. I don't know, and hope not. No doubt it would be a gallant last stand, but the operative in the analogy is about all being put to the sword.

BrianR
Wasn't for lack of trying. I believe it was Arnold's courier, a Major Andre, if memory serves, who got caught and was hanged.

Professor
Well said, and on the mark. Please contact David Horowitz and let him know there is at least one educator out there who can reason. He, as I, will be heartened.

I have to ask: Are you surrounded by Ward Churchills and moonbats, as one might believe from analysis of today's institutions? If not, please let me know where you toil, as that will go on my very short list of schools I will support my children attending in a few years.

Pistol: correct
Andre swung.

Traitors
Our laws state traitors to this country are to be punished. It seems they quit doing it during Vietnam (La Fonda - should have been hanged for turning against our troops - POW's) Why they have stopped trying traitors is beyond me but then they don't enforce a lot of laws that we have on the books such as enforcing illegal immigration. Why have laws if they are not going to be enforced against the offenders. We citizens would be the first to be tried but if you have money and influence you will not be tried. The laws are for everyone and no one should be above the law.

pghfan
I do have some conservative colleagues, the atmosphere, among faculty, is decidedly liberal on campus. (shock!) The liberal voices are tenured and secure, not shrill or strident. Star Parker
was even allowed to speak a couple of years ago. The business faculty tend to have a balance. I'll be pleased to respond in more detail personally from davaultk@cwu.edu.
cheers

Gale: Undeclared War
Question: Like Vietnam, how does one prosecute overt traitors in the midst of an "undeclared war."

Lydia, that is negligence not treason...
...and both parties are guilty of it, because both parties want the hispanic vote. They are betting that hispanics will vote as a block much like blacks do.....

Demosthenes
Treason does not require a declared war. Wherever did you get that idea? Here's the definiton of treason, from Title 18 USC:

" PART I > CHAPTER 115 >

§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

It doesn't mention any requirement about "in time of war", or a declared war.


Recruitment
Is it a coincidence that today the al-Qaida leader in Iraq released an audiotape calling for the recruitment of explosives and nuclear experts? Only a few days following the leak that we're creating more terrorists.

Re: Gretchen
Those articles you mention resemble the daily Spam I get in my email box and far from credibule.

What is notable is that you IGNORE the very BEGINNING of my post that stated the findings of the U.S. governmenbt approved 9/11 Commision that found ZERO evidence that Saddam had ANY links to Osama and his friends. Sorry, but your argument is one sided, inaccurate and a fine example of MacKinnonism in action.

As for "I have a much larger bone to pick with "nothappenin" who cites THE WASHINGTON POST and CNN, no fans of Bush or the Iraq war, as well as the notoriously anti-American BBC for being 'unbiased' and 'unambiguous.'"

1) it is not the job of a free press to be the fan of political officials.

2) the entire U.S. government depends on CNN for their live news sources.

3) calling the BBC anti-American is a disingenious smear and proves nothing.

And for the rest of you out there citing the need for the law of the land to be upheld you must agree with the immiediate closing of the Guantanomo Prison as being in violation to the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention. Your support for these transgressions put more Americans at risk than the partial release of an obvious fact: the war is lost.

For the record you name calling bloodhounds, I am neither a Leftist or a conservative. I will finish this silly banter with an obligatory Captain Kirk quote, "Rules are meant to be broken".

nothappenin
You evidently don't have a clue as to the purview of the Geneva Conventions, nor their inapplicability to Gitmo. And you are right in characterizing your own post as "silly banter".

As has been written so tiresomely many times here, every time one of your anti-war brethren misuses the Geneva Conventions, they are only applicable to the uniformed forces of signatory nations. Even for signatory nations, they don't apply for forces not wearing uniforms, which is why spies can be summarily executed.

The terrs do not wear uniforms, and they are not the forces of any signatory nation. They can be shot in the field, which I advocate as my "one 12-cent bullet" solution. No prisoners. No detainess. No political discussion. No problem.

And please don't respond with any drivel about Common Article 3. Right in its opening, it clearly states it is only applicable in cases of civil war. There's no civil war involved here; that takes two clear political entities engaged in conflict for control of the government of a country. In this case you have the nation of Iraq which has a recognized government, and the terrs who come from outside the country in many cases, and have no governing body of their own within the country.

Traitors = leakers and leakers = traitor
The two words are the same when Classified (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, Secret SAR and Secret crypto are involved. Monica did not merit any such classification. An analogy would be a mortal versus a venial sin.

I too fear the loss of this country from within. When so many fellow Americans seem to think so much in line with what I believe are not in line with our countries history how can we survive. Yes, shira law will overcome.

Ed

nothappenin
Where does it say in the Geneva Convention that terrorists are signers of the convention? When you are fighting scum like them you have to go them one better. If they are going to behead our people, why can't we do the same to them? How much of the 9/11 report do you believe. Most of the stuff that came out of that was nothing but Parisian redirect on the side of both parties. They could care less if it was right only that it made the politicians look good.Also Whee would you suggest we put the ignorant die hards that are imprisoned there. Your back yard.Where does it say in the constitution that the Islam leftists have a right of protection in the constitution? Wake up and smell the flowers, these non human Neanderthals are out to cut the heads off of everyone in this country. Unless you are one that will convert to Islam. Only cowards would do that. And I would also like to know how you know that the war is lost. Are you some very special person that can see all and know all? You state that you are not left or right, that is a very profound statement, because you do not sound like you are middle of the road, so I will take that as a grain of salt.

Jerry writes:
“Like most true blue liberals you cannot acknowledge the fact that since we have been in Iraq there has not been one single attack against the USA.”

While terrorists have not attacked us here at home, they do continue to attack us elsewhere. You might notice that most of the following occurred after we pulled troops from Afghanistan to invade Iraq.

-- June 14, 2002: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
-- May 12, 2003: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
-- May 16, 2003: Bomb attacks in Morocco kill at least 28 people and injure more than 100. The government blames "international terrorism," and local militant groups linked to Al Qaeda.
-- Aug. 5, 2003: A homicide bombers kills 12 people and injures 150 at the J.W. Marriott in Jakarta, Indonesia. Authorities blame Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian group linked to Al Qaeda.
-- Nov. 8, 2003: A homicide car bomb kills at least 17 people and wounds 122 at an upscale compound for foreign workers in western Riyadh. Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror network is blamed.
-- May 29–31, 2004: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
-- June 11–19, 2004: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
-- Dec. 6, 2004: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
-- Nov. 9, 2005: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

We can't win the war
We can't win the war on terror because the biggest enemy is the 40% liberal population of the U.S. (based on the last election results.) Until we toss all the liberals in internment camps for the duration, toss all the liberal socialist BS they've brainwashed 3 generations with in the trash, we will not be able to win the war.

In "God is my Co-Pilot", Flying Tiger pilot Robert Lee Scott explained that, "...you've got to learn to hate". and our liberal countrymen cannot surrender their failed twin philosophies of equality and tolerance. Until 100% of Americans embrace the idea that Americans are unique *to us*, we will not be able to exercise the bigotry necessary to deny foreign trash Constitutional and human "rights" they do not deserve.

By now, Iraq should have been pacified; it should be a shooting offense for any Iraqi to seriously annoy any U.S. personnel. On the spot. There shouldn't be an Iraqi president, there should be a U.S. governor general. We shouldn't have 140,000 troops in Iraq, we should have 250,000 (even if it means a draft), with at least half that force deployed in secured based along the Iranian and Syrian borders, in preparation for the invasion of one or the other that should be imminent. THAT should have been the purpose of invading Iraq; conquering territory to split the Islamic forces and give us a secure base from which to launch further operations against the middle-east.

We should have orbital THOR weapons platforms deployed, armed with "smart-crowbars" able to take out tanks, trucks, buildings or missle sites from orbit without endangering U.S. personnel.

But, no, Bush wants to make our boys the servants of desert trash, to hand them on a silver platter that which Americans had to die to invent, a social philosophy totally in contradiction to the cultures of the middle east; the concept of individual liberty. (notice how everyone is preaching democracy in Iraq, but not individual liberty...)

This war will be lost, if we lose it, it will be the same way the Indochinese War was lost. Because conservatives don't have the brass to slap down the liberals who get in the way of victory.

History is repeating. The U.S. was based on the Roman Republic, which turned to empire, became sophisticated and tolerant of foreign cultures and ideas, was overwhelmed by illegal aliens (who were coming across to tend gardens and mind children decades before the en-mass invasions of the 4th century) and lost their sense of who they were as a people. Just as Rome could not turn back to its virtuous Republican roots, neither can the U.S. turn back the clock at least 50 years.

Civil Discussion?
Just curious, but is there a website where intelligent, rational discussion can take place between right and left in this country? It seems that everyone here is more interested in demonizing the other side than they are in engaging some decent conversation with someone who holds an opposing viewpoint.

Not everyone who still supports the war in Iraq is some crazed jingoistic fascist, just as those who oppose supposedly deserve to be incarcerated in an "internment camp" (as a previous post indicated.) We are all Americans. No one can redefine what that means, regardless of how angry they are.

When everyone is shouting so loudly, it's hard to be heard. Reminds me of a bunch of schoolchildren.

Just wondering:
Has anyone actually read what was leaked? And if so, how is it critical material? Does it give up collection methods or sources? From what I've understood, Bush was about ready to release most of it (suitably redacted) for general circulation.

If we haven't read it, and we're relying on a pundit saying it's critical intelligence, then we're relying on hearsay, and I wonder if he, too, has read what was released, or is he going by what someone else said?

Treason
As defined in the Constitution (that %&$* piece of paper), states, IIRC, that it can be applied only in time of war. At that time we did not have all these degrees of non-declared war (Gulf of Tonkin, War Powers Act, etc). It had to be a Congressionally declared war. At least that's my reading of it. One also had to give "aid and comfort to the enemy". Aid can be a very construed term depending on one's use of it.

By that definition, no, the NYT is NOT guilty of treason, because no formal war has been declared.

Jay in Milwaukee
As far as reading the report or even that portion being de-classified, no I have not.

But as to your question on how is it critical material, sometimes having it released that you know something is more telling than simply the information itself.

For instance, and yeah it's going to sound dumb, but if I tell Jay I am planning a certain operation and by the way I am also thinking of buying a new red car. Then I tell Joe the same thing but the car is now blue, and with John the car is green. Then if my plans leak out and they also reveal I am probably driving a new red car... So the car in and of it's self wasn't important but I will know that old Jay and me are gonna have us a wee chat.

Re: BrianR & cliffhanger
Quote:

"There's no civil war involved here; that takes two clear political entities engaged in conflict for control of the government of a country. In this case you have the nation of Iraq which has a recognized government, and the terrs who come from outside the country in many cases, and have no governing body of their own within the country."

Iraqi Government
Muqtada al-Sadr
al Quida
Kurdish Autonmous Zone
Remmanents of the Baath political party

BTW, Civil War is accuretly defined as two OR more parties seeking to control the state through violence. Ask a military officer for clarifcation. All are VERY clearly contending for dominence in Iraq through violence. THEREBY most combatants qualify under the Geneva Convention as do the forces of formerly legally recognized nations of Afghanastan the Taliban. Thus these collective forces (al Quida itself was sponsored by the U.S. government in the 1980s and by Afghanastan in the 1990s) qualify as once being legally recognized nations by the U.N.

Per cliffhanger (btw, thanks for the more intelligent response thus far):

"Unless you are one that will convert to Islam. Only cowards would do that. And I would also like to know how you know that the war is lost. Are you some very special person that can see all and know all? You state that you are not left or right, that is a very profound statement, because you do not sound like you are middle of the road, so I will take that as a grain of salt."

I'm not converting to Islam, thanks but don't know of anyone ever forcing me to either. Whens the last time you had a Muslim try to convert you? I know the war is lost due to a large tour of history. The most potent example is the recent Russian experience in Afghanastan in the 80s.

You are correct that I'm not middle of the road and you can take that as a grain of salt. I do not see and know all. If you do not know the mistakes of history you are doomed to repeat them in the present.

Brian R
TH not only edits posts, it censors them as well. I have had more than one post returned in purple highlight because TH did not like what i said.

IF YOU PUT UP WITH IT, YOU DESERVE IT
If President Bush continuously lets slide these leaks and does nothing to the leakers, he deserves it.

If the country puts up with an incompetent administration, the country deserves it.

nothinhappenin
So, accoding to your lights, articles from the DAILY TELEGRAPH (by reporters who were on the spot in Iraq immediately after the fall of Baghdad) are "Spam", while your citations of THE WASHINGTON POST, CNN, and the BBC are ... what?
Do I sense a double standard here? Could it POSSIBLY be because the DAILY TELEGRAPH is considered a conservative paper, while the news outlets you cite are liberal?

Just as a point of interest, did you actually bother to read the two TELEGRAPH articles?

You did not seem to grasp that the 9/11 Commission IGNORED the documentary evidence, including, but not limited to the articles I cited.

Curious
The leak in question is claimed to be out of context and misleading. How is misleading our enemy going to help them into our living rooms? These particular leaks certainly make the President's invasion of Iraq look bad, but is there anything about them that is likely to help the enemy any more than any other criticism of the president? The president apparently doesn't think so since he subsequently declassifed the parts of the memo that were leaked, so he doesn't seem to think that this information is particularly dangerous.

Lydia, by your definition of treason....
.....anything that any president did, who belonged to an opposing ideology of a theoretical observer, would be classified as treason, because every ideology believes that following opposing ideologies would be harmful to the nation/culture/world. Any politician that ever supported an initiative that a theoretical observer did not agree with would also be guilty of treason, because the theoretical observer would be disagreeing with a course of action because he/she believed it to be harmful. Everybody would be guilty of treason according to somebody's point of view, so the word treason would lose all meaning.

But wait a minute.....that's kind of what you are going for anyway, isn't it? Twist the definition of the term until it essentially becomes meaningless?

Redneck
Re: your post of 3:01PM. How wonderfully condescending of you!

Please feel free to explore all the other options you like, if you don't like it here. I'm sure if you search hard enough, you can find a site somewhere that doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities.

In the meantime, this is how we do things here. If you can't take it, either eat some Wheaties or hit the highway.

Redneck
Re: your post of 3:01PM.

Or start your own site.

nothappenin:
Sorry, your post may describe a state of anarchy, but it is not civil war. Again, look at our own as a guideline: both sides wore uniforms.

Sooooo: (((((((((( sound of game show loser buzzer))))))))

None of those folks qualify for Geneva Conventions coverage. It simply does not apply to any of the captives thus far. And I know your next fallback position: SCOTUS says it does. SCOTUS is the same body that also handed down the Dred Scott decision, found McCain/Feingold constitutional, and thinks eminent domain property confiscation is just a Jim Dandy idea.

Lon
You said the president must not feel that the information wasn't particularlly dangerous since he de-classified it after it was leaked.

Well he just may have thought it was worth keeping under wraps before it was leaked but then once it's out...

J defines treason
According to the US Constitution in Article 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. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Do you see anything there that says "in time of declared war?"

Uh, Husker:
Did you see my post of 12:57PM?

Of course, you're right on the money.

Blog Plug Alert!
Check out the new essay on my blog, right on topic (which is why I posted it a couple of days earlier than planned) entitled "My name is Hassan".

Just click on my name (above).

Sorry for the length
"Well, as war is not a function of destruction but rather of breaking the enemy's will to resist, anything that shows our will being damaged is helpful and harmful."
...Can you show me how “destruction” and “breaking the enemy’s will to resist” are exclusive properties? I’m sorry, but war is a function of destruction, that’s a simple truth. This is the closest anyone has come to addressing my central argument, which is that we should all be able to acknowledge that fighting a war against an enemy who hates you incites that enemy. If anyone disagrees with this, I would love to hear your grounds for disagreement. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we should never engage in war. It means we must consider the choice we have: we can try to reason with people who hate us and diffuse their hatred, or we can go to war. We should choose the latter if and only if we can overcome the enemy and prevent retaliation, which is usually the case. However, in this war, we can’t win. There will always be terrorists who hate us.

Think for a second about a completely different situation. The Pope’s recent statements spurred violence and protests from some muslims. I’ve heard many Americans say “If you disagree with what the pope says, and think he is attacking you unfairly, why would you respond this way, justifying his words?”

Now I realize these two situations are very different. But I’m hoping this can give you a context for understanding how most of the world looks at our War on Terror. They see people who hate Americans in a large part because we use our military and financial power to get our way in the world, marginalizing other countries instead of resorting diplomacy. When we are attacked by terrorists, we respond with an extended war in Iraq against the wishes of the international community. And many in the world wonder why we don’t realize that in acting this way, we are confirming that we are just as bad as people think.
***
"Must be some other article. Could you quote the passage?"
I was off base with this accusation. I meant to focus on the scare tactic here, the assertion that liberals are asking for terrorists to come into their homes and kill them, and my statement didn’t reflect that. Sorry.

pghfan : How many 9/11s will have to happen before this country unifies enough to protect itself….
That is the critical flaw in your thinking. You cannot unite to protect yourself against this kind of enemy, unless you’ve got everyone who isn’t you corralled and under surveillance. No amount of bombing is going to make people like us better, and no amount of security can indefinitely protect us from foreign terrorism.

People often claim that Radical Muslims cannot be reasoned with. Makes sense; anyone willing to kill for their religion is crazy, right? On the other hand, the argument has also been made on this board that all liberals are beyond reasoning, as well. I would take the other extreme: nearly every human being is able to be reasoned with. There are certainly irrational, mentally impaired, or just plain stupid people who are beyond reasoning; I don’t believe most Muslim terrorists fall into these categories. >Tell me, if you thought your religion said you had to kill someone, would you do it? If not, then what does it mean for you to hold that religion? Or if you claim that you would never believe a religion that asked you to kill someone, aren’t you making religion second to secular morals? That you would only believe in a religion that confirms what you already feel? And besides, the old testament and human history are littered with Jews and Christians slaughtering for their God. Why are these radical Muslims, who believe their religion calls for them to spread their religion and conquer opposition by any means, suddenly irrational?

Of course I’m not saying we can let them do what they want; we certainly should defend ourselves the best way possible. However, the best way to defend ourselves in this case is to convince them, within the context of their own religion if necessary, that we are not the enemy, that we are not faithless, and that we do not hate everyone who does not share our democratic values or our religious beliefs. Unfortunately, those last two clearly aren’t true, especially among regulars at this board, but if we are serious about protecting ourselves, changing that would be a great way to start.

Traitors and Terrorist Sympathizers
Having proudly served my country as a member of the US Army Reserves in support of Operation Noble Eagle, I was shocked and saddened that there were fellow Americans rooting against the US in its Global War On Terror. I had always thought that we were all on the same team. Imagine the hometown fans interfering with one of its own players to help the other team win!

The difference with our war against the Islamofascists is that the lives of the players themselves are at stake and if the home team loses, everyone loses.

Total control
Folks, think about what the left, and the far left want - total control.

Abortion on demand, and at any age. HIgher taxes. Total control of ALL courts. Carte Blanch for unions. Gay marriage. Stealing of private property. Diminished military. Unbridled welfare. Elimination of religion. One world government. The list goes on and on.

America has about three hundred million people So even if we lose one million in an attack, it’s a drop in the bucket, less than one percent. There will still be plenty of “workers.” And to the far left, those one million is “justified collateral damage". The elitists will remain at the top of the food chain with the rest of us being what they eat.

Socialism or communism is the goal. Remember that. So why are so many people here so surprised at the New York Times and the rest of the MSM.


My final view on the subject

Brian Buublah
Of course I read your post. However, you quoted statute and the naked jay challenged you that you were not quoting the constitution. So I quoted the constitution. :-)

The Answer Why


....is because Republicans are too spineless to do anything about leakers and triators. Until Republicans grow a spine...nothing will change.

Dummycrats will go after a Republican leaker like stink on a freshly laid dog turd.


Not a Civil War
BrianR;

"Again, look at our own as a guideline: both sides wore uniforms."

Not to burst your bubble, but if you're referring to the U.S. as "our own"... the U.S. has never had a civil war. The Confederate war was a war for independence, not for control of the U.S. gov't. If the Confederate War was a civil war, then so was the War of Independence (aka American Revolution.)

The Confederate States wished to form their own country, as was originally justified for the colonies in the Declaration of Independence.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether there's a civil war in Iraq; Iraq should be already pacified with an American governor-general in charge. We'd have a secured source of oil, and secured bases with which to launch the next stage(s) of the war, the invasion of Syria and/or Iran. Iraq can be given a democracy after we've won the war.


Drew
Most all of us are rational, Jihadists included. Violence stops when neither side sees any gain in resorting to it. It may or may not have been possible to negotiate with the Jihadists, but its too late now. Only violence will solve this contretemps. If our current level of violence is not sufficient to make them decide they have less to gain than to lose, they will attack again. Sooner or later we will make massive response, or concur with their wishes, expressed as a unified Muslim world under sharia.
Back to Traitors among us. Do you believe leakers of classified info are traitors?

Pistol
I agree it's too late now in Iraq, and I absolutely do not think our troops should pull out until we have confirmation from our military that the region is stabilized.

As far as the rest of your paragraph, you simply state the opposite of what I said-- and I wrote lines and lines supporting my idea. If you're going to flat out contradict me, I would like to hear your reasons why I am wrong or more support for your idea. What I am saying is that a "massive response" is STILL not going to be enough, because it is impossible to control a world full of individuals; it is better to minimize hatred towards us. In my opinion, our current level of violence is not a step in the right direction, as you imply, but a short-term scare tactic that in the long run will make us more hated and more vulnerable.

Traitors among us: no, I don't think they're traitors. I think they're criminals, but I don't think the nature of the leak significantly compromises our national security, and I don't think they did it with the intention of aiding our enemies, but rather with the intention of either gaining political points or to accomplish what they believe is best for this country in pressuring our government to bring the soldiers home.

That said, I don't know the technical definition of a traitor, and it seems the definitions above are disputed, as well as subjective to a judge's interpretation. I'm not interested in the technical question of whether they're traitors; to answer that, read a definition and apply it. What I am interested in is whether they are trying to hurt America by aiding our enemies, and I don't think that is what they have in mind.

clarification
Your argument is that they will stop when they have less to gain than to lose. I don't think that logic applies here; these people are fighting because they believe in a cause. They are willing to kill themselves to advance their religion, so I don't think we can make them see that, pragmatically, they should stop fighting because we will retaliate with greater force.

if you buy this reasoning
i have a bridge to sell you.

you fascist morons. you sick, sad, stupid little people. a little less funding for high school football, an ounce of effort put into political education (as opposed to indoctrination), and some concept of _reason_ for goodness sake... we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

freedom of speech would allow all of you to say whatever mindless, brainless, myopic crap you desire while those of us not entirely devoid of thought could go have a real society.

that you are gullable dolts is no reason for me to give up what small sense of freedom this (double plus) un-democratic nation-state so tenuously holds.

youre screwing this up for everyone. bite me.

We SHOULD KILL THEM!
We should kill anyone who speaks up against this country, or against the president. It doesn't matter if they are saying anti american stuff, or that the administration is bad, or whatever. They should be KILLED if they say ANYTHING BAD about BUSH.

ANY editor who speaks against the President should be imprisoned.

Any citizen should be imprisoned for saying or writing anything against bush or the administration.

They should be forced into labor camps. How dare they have the freedom of speech, that is a bad law. They should not be allowed to have opinions. In fact, if they even THINK that the administration is bad, they should be in jail.

America, land of the free? I don't think so! Under the guise of 'patriotism' and 'the war of terror', these people are stealing EVERYONE'S RIGHTS, and you morons are swallowing it hook line and sinker. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves. You people who believe that people should be put to death for some made up treasonous act should be ashamed to call yourselves Americans. You are just controlled. You are sad.

pghfan peaks of the Alamo
To draw a comparison between our current sitauation and the Alamo is very interesting. The Alamo was indeed NOT the last stand, but a tragic waste of human life. Santa Anna was delayed by a couple of days, to be defeated by the larger force waiting further east. Had the Alamo forces moved eastward to join up with the main forces, the victory might have been less costly overall.

As this is a country governed by the rule of law, not the whim of the King(see the American Revolution), there are provisions in place for coutner-terrorism to be approved in a hurry even providing for approval after the start of such actions.

Does anybody really think that an enemy sophisitcated enough to use satelite phones and turn them off when being bombed, sophisitcated enough to employ video production in the mountains of Afghanistan, sophisticated enough to use the modern international banking system to obtain and distribute money, sophisiticated enough to plan to use modern jetliners as weapoons, is going to assume that they are not being monitored? Really what is the revealation to them. The people who assume they are not being watched and recorded are the citizens of the United States. Unfortunately there is a history of such collected information being mis-used(see J. Edgar Hoover).


Critics to be rounded up?
First they came for the critics...

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Martin Niemöller, 1946

You're ALL Traitors! Line up!!
So the consensus is "death to the traitors!"

Obviously, you haven't thought this through. Bush himself leaked the eavesdropping program during a state of the union address. So he's dead. Rove leaked a few things, so off him. Rumsfeld emboldened our enemies when he said, "you can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it still can be blown up!" Just tell everybody, Rummy! Sheesh... But it doesn't stop at the top. You see, a great deal of information that was previously public knowledge has been recently RE-classified, meaning that tens of thousands of journalists and librarians and historians have leaked "sensitive" information without even knowing it. Heck, they still sell MAPS in convenience stores! Those maps have bases, industrial areas, and supply lines on them! How about Custer Battles? Will they be prosecuted for all the hindrances to our operations in Iraq that they've caused, or will we simply shoot the whistleblowers for hindering that hindrance? Ever heard of Depleted Uranium? You're a leaker. Heard of that operation in 2002 where they airdropped 50 million dollars of uncirculated taxpayer money on the Taliban militias? No? The Pentagon itself literally provided material support to the enemy. In short, if we're going to kill all the traitors, we're going to need a LOT of bullets. Traitors, it would appear, comprise 78% of the population.

I have an idea... we'll arrest them all, and then gas them in the showers! It'll have to be done in secret, of course, because folks might notice all the dead bodies, but at least we can trust you to keep THAT secret. Or else.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.