Saturday, February 17, 2007


Yeah, "TREASON." If you really care, you can go here to read the accompanying op-ed, which appears under the byline of Ralph Peters (though it was almost certainly punched up, if not actually drafted, by the Post's editorial staff, judging from the fact that, like the paper's unsigned editorials, it's full of italics and larded with one-sentence paragraphs such as "Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?").

I want to flip the script on Peters, the Post, and every other shrill idiot who's going to yell "Treason!!!" now. Talk is cheap. This editorial and all the other fulminating that's to come add up to, well, a non-binding resolution.

If the Post really thinks this vote is so bad -- treasonous, in fact -- why doesn't Rupert Murdoch use his huge amount of influence with this administration to demand that Nancy Pelosi and everyone else who voted to condemn the surge actually be brought up on treason charges? Come on, let's have this fight. If what's been done is treason, is anything less acceptable?

And shouldn't everyone who's ever told a pollster that the troops should come how now, or soon, also be brought up on treason charges? Surely this administration would be more than willing to demand that polling organizations release the names and/or phone numbers of people who gave such responses to poll questions. Why hasn't Murdoch called on the administration to do so? Aren't those people also giving the enemy aid and comfort?

And while we're on the subject, why not try Ralph Peters for treason? After all, the guy who says today

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

is the same guy who wrote this in November:

And contrary to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn't be weakened by our withdrawal, should it come to that....

We'll still be the greatest power on earth.

Why wasn't that treason, if the House vote was?

Have the courage of your conviction, Rupert. Demand that Bush divide the country by trying and hanging, perhaps, the majority of Americans. Your side says that if the Democrats are really serious about ending the war, they should try to cut off funding; I say if you're really serious when you say this is treason, you should demand mass drumhead trials. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke to rouse the rabble.

No comments: