Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
My post was aimed directly at your comment that you were perhaps too tolerant in your statement last week concerning treason and traitors. The two things I got out of that were that (i) you were begining to think that perhaps being critical of the war could be viewed as treason and (ii) you were suggesting that those who speak out against the war were, if not outright traitors, at least unpatriotic.
|
This is the second time you've missed this key distinction. I was saying earlier that "treason" must have a very high threshold, because, if I dissent against what my government does because I think its actions do not fit what America is or should be, then I am still serving my country. Difference with the new post was Dean's comments about "we've already lost." He's passed the point that Hank spoke of in another post - he's now saying things that directly cause harm to soldiers in order to garner votes. He's getting far closer to what I would call treason with those words. I do not apply this to, as you say, "speaking against the war." Such speech is and should be proper. Dean has just moved on to shock speech with harmful effects with no concern about those effects. There's a way for him to express his opinions about the war just as clearly without doing what he's doing.
