U.S. Constitution: Article III

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.

The question is whether or not he is “adhering to their [our] Enemies“.

To demonstrate the point, one would have to find utterances by White-Feather Harry that indicate that he considers the jihaddi opposition in Iraq to be justified.

Can’t say as I know.

Certainly it walks like a duck.

Re Feinstein: Let’s not forget we are talking about politicians here. My problem with this group is that they treat unseemly political behavior (or even normal political posturing) as if it were exclusively the domain of the Democrats, and that’s simply not the case.

As if to prove my point, I wasn’t aware of the Reid land deal so I googled it and came up with this:

Why has CNN devoted 50 times as much coverage to Harry Reid’s land deal as Dennis Hastert’s?

I don’t want to get into the details of these things, I am just pointing out that no party is above them.

And I know that the Feinstein comment was a dodge (I can admit it when people on my side use techniques I don’t like, pace Lee). I find that people on both sides are reluctant to acknowledge evidence that doesn’t make them look good.

From what I can tell, Feinstein’s actions exemplified “the culture of corruption” the dems ran against this last election, so people on Feinstein’s side don’t like to talk about it. Harry Reid’s land deal also looked pretty shady, and the only defense I’ve seen his supporters present is to pretend it didn’t happen.

These cases aren’t relevant to every discussion, but they do make it harder for the Dems to claim the moral high ground.

I can’t say I never “dodge,” but I really try not to. I believe what I believe in large part because my ideological opponents so often refute the points I make by evading them–if there were a valid refutation, they would present it.

And that was the point, about the blogosphere giving props to the MSM. Dianne Feinstein has nothing to do with it, it was just a dodge.

Some Iraqis think the US can win and would like it to, some think the US can win but would rather it didn’t, some think the US can’t win but wish they could, and some think the US can’t win and are glad that they can’t. We can all find examples of Iraqis to support our own viewpoints.

The problem is that Iraqis who want us to win and still actually think we’ve got a shot are discouraged by Sen. Reid’s comments. Not all Iraqis fit into this category, but there are enough of them to matter. Sen. Reid is encouraging those Iraqis who might help us out not to.

I’m certain that this isn’t Harry’s intention–he probably thinks he’s doing the right thing. However, Harry Reid’s noble motives don’t matter; friendly Iraqis being told by powerful Americans that we are about to abandon them does.

I make no claim as to which is more plausible than the other. I’m merely pointing out that there is more than one view coming out of Iraq, and there is no a-priori reason to think one of them as more plausible than the other.