Were Hillary's Words Treasonous?
Geoff
Metcalf
Monday,
Dec. 1, 2003
Treason doth never prosper, what�s
the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason. � Sir John
Harington
The Thanksgiving Day presidential visit to the troops in Baghdad was a
brilliant finesse. Although the mean-spirited, petty, partisan assaults were
inevitable, the scope of the whining is still flummoxing.
Howard Kurtz (from the Washington Post) had a hissy fit over the president
lying to the press. (See: Media Gripes:
Bush Lied About Iraq Troop Visit.)
Huh? The "lie" was a function of security that any reasonable person can
understand. The myriad of other presidential lies should bother Kurtz more �
such as those concerning the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, James
Forestall, the JFK assassination, Vince Foster, Waco and the Branch Davidian
mess, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, TWA Flight 800, Area 51, Bill Clinton et al.
Hey, prior to the Mogadishu disaster, official policy was to deny (lie
about) the existence of Delta Force.
Lady Macbeth (Sen. Hillary Clinton) was apparently miffed over her
Afghanistan/Iraq sojourn with Sen. Jack Reed being overshadowed by the
President�s Baghdad lunch. The result of which, apparently, has compelled her
to provide aid and comfort to the enemy as payback.
Hillary actually told our troops that "the outcome [of the war] is not
assured," and her comment that we "must stay the course" in both Afghanistan
and Iraq is insufficient mitigation for her other egregious comments.
Some have argued that the two Democrat senators actually provided AID &
COMFORT to the ENEMY. It is arguable how significant the intelligence they
offered was ... lawyers can (and probably will) argue whether it is criminal.
According to Section 2381 of U.S. Code Title 18, �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.�
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/115/toc.html]
Demoralizing American troops and encouraging enemies to continue the battle
is not what U.S. senators ought to be doing. Telling our armed forces in a
combat zone, "... there are many questions at home about the administration's
policies," should qualify for a �walk to the woodshed�. That �Congressional
Immunity� policy only works for dumb stuff said on the floor of Congress.
Al Jazeera was obviously jazzed by her rhetoric.
[http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A72E913B-8E34-4F5E-8380-1215D17D3C36.htm]
- She said more troops, preferably an international force, were needed in
both Iraq and Afghanistan.
- "We are fighting an enemy which has a lot of impact by relatively small
numbers and we've got to provide security throughout large countries. That's
not easy with the force numbers that we have.�
Will someone please
slap her?
Telling the bad guys they are being effective because they have �a lot of
impact by relatively small numbers� is monumentally foolish.
Sen. Reed said the U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had critical
shortages of specialized troops such as military police, civil affairs and
psychological operations troops. Shame on you, Jack! YOU ought to know better
(Reed was an Army officer).
The morale of the troops, Clinton said, "is very high," but she said the
military personnel with whom she spoke in meetings and during "two turkey
dinners" wanted to know "how the people at home feel about what we are doing."
"Americans are wholeheartedly proud of what you are doing, " Clinton said
she replied, "but there are many questions at home about the [Bush]
administration's policies."
Both Clinton and Reed claim the expense and political weight in
administering Iraq would be made easier with the U.N.'s imprimatur of
legitimacy and U.N. help in transferring power to Iraqis.
"I'm a big believer that we ought to internationalize this, but it will
take a big change in our administration's thinking," the former first lady
said. "I don't see that it's forthcoming."
You damnbetcha it�s not forthcoming. Unlike the previous "co-presidents,"
this president understands the lessons learned from Bosnia, Rwanda, Mogadishu
and the serial terrorist attacks President Clinton responded to with only
bluster. THIS president is a leader who understands the imperative of "Lead,
follow or get out of the way."
The �United Nothing� is a dysfunctional bureaucratic accident waiting to
happen. It has proven itself to be the personification of incompetence and
corruption.
Albert Camus once observed, "Integrity has no need of rules." The converse
is also true: The degree of integrity is inversely proportional to the number
and complexities of rules and bureaucracy.
