Rantings of a Drunken Vet: Impeach Harry Reid...

Senators don't get impeached. They get expelled.

Senate leadership is not subject to impeachment. They are removed.

How is stating a fact treasonous? Are you saying that anyone who doesn't say the war is going swimmingly is guilty of treason? You want to put 70% of the American people in front of a firing squad? Calling for the murder of a U.S. Senator, however, is not treason?

Maybe you should stop drinking...

1. "The war is lost" is opinion, not fact.

2. Firing squads and hangmen do not imply murder, but have also been used for lawful death sentences.

technically, it isn't treason.

good luck!

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution:

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.

Is saying the war is lost giving our enemies aid and comfort?

How about calling our guards at Gitmo Nazis and KGB thugs?

Or maybe saying a group of Marines are guilty of murder before the trial is even held?

Not exactly what I'd call supporting the troops. But then again I only spent 22 years in the Army, so what do I know?

I understand that you disapprove of his comments. It still isn't treason. I think aid and comfort means like, room and board, or guns and whiskey.

...what does your time in the army have to do with it?

Marshmallow,
Reid's comments help the enemy. Therefore it IS treasonous. Your "it's not treason because I can come up with any dopey definition I want so nyah nyah" line of reasoning does not impress pal.

from webster's dictionary: aid: the activity of contributing to the fulfillment of a need or furtherance of an effort or purpose

You're going back? I guess a lot has happened lately? We should catch up.

It's treason because it might make the enemy feel good? that's stupid.

even your webster's definition of aid seems to refer to more to material aid than fuzzy feelings.

he might be a schmuck for saying that, but calling it treason is just hyperbole. sorry.

Stupid?! Really? Bin Laden said we will lose because we won't have the WILL to fight. This war is asymetric. We cannot loose on the battle field. We can loose in the hearts and minds fight.

Reid has staked his party's success during this election cycle's on the war going badly, which is playing into bin Laden's hands. You don't know this, are you sure you don't deserve the appelation 'stupid'? Actually willfully ignorant is better term.

I agree, Reid is a schmuck. Actually he is the Goodyear blimp of all schmucks. A traitorious schmuck at that.

THIS election cycle? call me a traitor, but the war's been going badly since "mission accomplished"

the republicans took a big gamble and their number didn't come up, now they're playing pin the blame on the donkey.

didn't NR say that the "hearts and minds" stuff was a load of crap in his last rantings?

Is this treason?

"When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup," - Thomas Sowell

Or is this treason?

"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." William Buckley

Was this treason?

"Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. … But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. … Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing."-Tom Delay

all that, and today, "the Bitch" decides that she wants to "cut and run" ...
Got a ring to it, don't it?
"Ol' Cut n' run Clinton."

zimzo,
in the case of delay, we were not at war then. we are at war now. the serbs never threatened us. the same can't be said for the Islamists or Saddam, now can it.

buckley is disagreeing with the policy. disagreeing with the policy is not treason. undermining the policy is another kettle of fish.

you are against the war. I would defend your right to disagree with it. Protest in the street if you must. If you start sending letters to the troops that would demoralise them, I would call that bordering on treason.

If you were in a position of power and lets say told the enemy our intentions, or impeded our efforts, that is most definitly treason.

Hey NR, e-mail me so we can catch up.

Zimzo-

Big fan. In fact, your comments keep me coming back for more. I guess I will never stop getting a kick out of watching wingnut logic get shredded by reality.

Keep up the good work.

AFF

OP- why don't you try quoting people in context next time? I believe the fine Senator said something to the effect of "If we continue down the President's path the war is lost"

If anything you should be making fun of him for stating the obvious

Saddam wasn't threatening us.

I don't recall ever having trouble sleeping for fear of an Iraqi invasion.

So, "ignorance is bliss," or "paranoia runs deep" ?

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002

"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."



Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002

"Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

You may also remember, puffalump, that Hussein launched a "satellite" in 1984. A launcher that can put a satellite in orbit can put a nuclear warhead here.

Jack,
Don't confuse Marshmallow with the facts. He made up his mind. It is very convenient to have a Republican to blame.

Jack,

that's all very nice. By that criteria, France is a bigger threat. They actually have nukes, AND they've launched satellites. I'd say a French invasion is imminent!

Rather than providing quotes about the leader of a soverign nation raising an army, why don't you answer the question:

When did he threaten the US?

Jacob,

what are you talking about?

"Facts" you use this word a lot. I do not think you know what it means.

;)

No, puffalump. France is a law-abiding state. Iraq was not. THAT is the difference.

That is why we allow law-abiding citizens to have guns, even machine guns, but that right is forfeited by criminals.

are you referring to international law?

is there a difference between breaking the law and threatening a nation?

"buckle up - it's the law" So if someone fails to wear a seatbelt, I should assume that, since they are not law-abiding citizens, they are capable of anything, and therefore they pose a threat to my personal safety?

did Saddam ever say anything to the effect of, "I'd really like to attack that US" or not?

Don't be obtuse, puffalump. Saddam attacked Kuwait, and threatened Israel. He used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own people. (I know, Clinton used banned chemical weapons on our people, too.)

Do I need to explain the difference between "mala in se" and "mala prohibita"? Murder is one, not buckling up is the other.

And yes, he did threaten the United States, by attempting to assassinate our President.

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." -- Pres. William J. Clinton

our ambassador in Baghdad gave him the go-ahead to invade Kuwait, and the US is not Kuwait anyway.

when did he try to assassinate the pres? was it before or after we had invaded his country?

don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the guy. but the claim that "Saddam threatened the US" is questionable at best.

Our ambassador said he could invade Kuwait? That's news to me.

c'est vrai

actually, the Iraqi government sent a guy to the US embassy to find out what the Bush admin's response would be if Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was told something to the effect of, "we have no official policy on that" That statement was interpreted to mean that Bush/the US didn't care one way or the other if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Sources, man, sources!

search for April Glaspie (the ambassador to Iraq at the time) and the phrase, "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts"

it looks like there are some archived NYtimes articles, but you can only get to them if you have an account. here's something:

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990
Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy

"GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

here's an abstract from a 1991 article in the New Republic (v. 205 (Aug. 5 '91) p. 8-10):

"Secret cables that April Glaspie, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, sent to the State Department suggest that the ambassador willfully misled the Senate when she was asked to explain what happened in her July 25, 1990, meeting with Ṣaddām Hussein. On March 20, 1991, a month after the war ended, Glaspie appeared at an informal hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said that the transcript of the July 25 meeting that Hussein had released was mostly fabricated. Denying his claim that she had suggested that America was indifferent to his war plans, she insisted that she had been firm with him. After the hearing, she seemed vindicated. When the Senate committee finally received a copy of her July 11 cable, however, it conflicted with her testimony and indicated that she had in fact taken a conciliatory tack with the dictator. Moreover, it suggested that she may have done so at the behest of her superiors."

I can post a link to the whole article if you'd like

schooled. Nice work.

Yes, please do.