He seems to view as his natural allies Americans who seek defeat in Iraq and fault congressional Democrats for failing to have brought it about, who loathe "neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Richard Pearle [sic]" and admire the work of Noam Chomsky and Michael Scheuer, who see U.S. military servicemen as chumps, who live in fear of "global warming," and who anathematize capitalism and corporations. In what appears to be a sop to the Ron Paul crowd, he also calls for a flat tax.
It seems both fair and accurate to note that there is a confluence of interests between bin Laden and those Americans who seek defeat in Iraq. It is little wonder that this is an embarrassment to the latter. But it would be unfair and inaccurate to suggest that this is anything more than a de facto tactical alliance. The Angry Left wants America to lose in Iraq for its own ideological and partisan purposes, which have little to do with the establishment of a global caliphate.
Makes sense to me, there are points of legitimate debate regarding Iraq, and I certainly don't buy a word that OBL has to say. So I read the Bin Laden transcript, and I did get the uneasy feeling I was watching MSNBC, somewhere near the 8:00pm EST time slot. So OBL watches Oberman, that makes one of us. I continued to think no big deal until I saw this diary, where the koskids actually celebrated the Bin Laden message, and somehow this diary made the frontpage by concluding Bin Laden has it right.
I guess I am naive, between Moveon.org's hit job on Petraeus and the kos celebration of Osama Bin Laden's video, I am speechless regarding how far liberalism as I knew it has fallen.
The fringe left is throwing around the words treason and traitor a lot lately, I for one think it is past time to have that debate revisited in the information age, and debate who is and is not meeting definitions.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, 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.
When a political organization spends money tarnishing the reputation of the Congressionally approved General leading the nation at war under the policy of the sitting President of the United States, how is that not in aid and comfort of the enemy? Look, impeach the president if the policy is wrong, that is how the process works. If someone wants to tar and feather a politician or a president in the press, they have every right, but a paid advertisement against the nations Congressionally approved General leading the troops in wartime, whose sole fault to date is being mandated by Congress to produce the report we saw today? I understand free speech is important, and free press is equally important, but taking this step bothers me a lot.
The nation must maintain impartial Generals and Admirals for the democracy to stay healthy, allowing political slander against military leaders with the implication the General is betraying the nation is a dangerous line for the fringe left to cross, and to allow them to do so with a casual disregard for consequences is a dangerous line for Congress to cross.
At minimum, the credibility of the left stating they support the troops is gone, it was collectively sacrificed for $100k to the New York Times.
