2007-08-23 05:07:54 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Trying them all wouldn't be practical, however taking Pelosi, Reid and Hillary before a tribunal would be justified. Hindering a sitting president in wartime is clearly an act of treason.
2007-08-23 05:15:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I have an alternative idea.... In the same time-frame that Bush was citing WMDs as justification to invade Iraq, a CIA agent's identity was leaked to the press. The agent was Valerie Plame and apparently her job was to track down missing nukes. How ironic! Bush said that if the leak was in his administration, he would deal with it. Shortly after commuting Libby's sentence, Bush said the leak was 'water under the bridge' and we just needed to move on now. The leak was from Karl Rove and Matt Cooper, the reporter Rove leaked the information to, has now confirmed him as the source... just days after Rove resigned.
How's that for treason?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082007A.shtml
Although it might be tempting to think anyone who questions the policies of the current administration is 'treasonous' and siding with the enemy, I think the charges are more credible if levied against Rove.
2007-08-23 12:44:52 · answer #2 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about trying Bush and the rest of his administration for treason first?By ignoring terrorism until AFTER 9/11 sounds like dereliction of duty!What about the bogus reason for going into Iraq?Remember the WMDs that were supposed to be such a threat?
2007-08-23 12:23:42 · answer #3 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is treason out there all right.
The Bush administration has stepped on the constitution and started an illegal war. Sounds like actions against the United States to me.
2007-08-23 12:19:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Democrats have not sided with the enemy at all, they just have an alternate belief about Iraq.
I completely disagree with their beliefs, but I'm just saying.
2007-08-23 12:25:30 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Info 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yawn. You guys are really getting tiresome.
Treason is a more accurate reason for getting Bush out than trying the Democrats for telling the truth.
Guess the only way you get the dictatorship you want, is to stifle the opposition.
2007-08-23 12:15:55 · answer #6 · answered by justa 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Democrats, Republicans, War Protestors, War supporters...They all mean nothing to me. All I care about are the troops fighting over there. God Bless Our Troops. May they come home safe. OORAH and HOOAH! USA!
2007-08-23 12:18:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why is it that every time I ask for some sort of supporting evidence to prove this oft-repeated claim, all I ever get, if anything, is "You know you support the enemy"? There are no facts to back it up, but you keep claiming it. I guess you know if you ever admit the truth, you'd have to admit that you're the ones who are wrong here, and that sort of decent behavior is beyond you.
2007-08-23 12:16:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think they should atleast be shamed publicly for their role in aiding the enemy but trying them for treason may be going too far for most of them. Constantly undermining ones own country emboldens the enemy. After what the North Vietnamese told us of how the turmoil in the US caused by the leftist activists actually gave the North the will to hang on when they were ready to surrender, one would think people would learn the lesson.
2007-08-23 12:17:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
If that's true, then why did the Democrats vote for it along with the republicans?
Try again.
2007-08-23 12:18:28 · answer #10 · answered by midnight&moonlight'smom 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋