Now Bush Calls Republicans Traitors


The outcry from Republicans over Bush’s allowing the transfer of control of our ports to a company controlled by the government of the UAE has provoked the traditional Bush response — he sent out people to call them traitors:

“If the furor over the port deal should go on, Mr. England said, it would give enemies of the United States aid and comfort: ‘They want us to become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist.

Matt Stoller at MyDD, Dissenting Redstaters: Bush Thinks You’re Traitors,

I really hope that principled conservatives start to realize that there is a very unconservative set of threats coming from this administration, and that staying silent about this very unAmerican intimidation by the government is not conservative in the least.


Update – Just to be clear, when Bush sends people out to say that opposing this port deal “would give enemies of the United States aid and comfort” he is DIRECTLY accusing them of treason. The Consitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3, says,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

When the President sends someone out to say, in the name of the United States government, that people “give enemies of the United States aid and comfort” it is extremely serious, it is a DIRECT accusation of treason against the United States, make no mistake about it.

13 thoughts on “Now Bush Calls Republicans Traitors

  1. There is another observation I would like to make here.
    Has anybody else noticed that the message from Bush, the P.R. agencies and the UAE ranges from all sweetness and love to thinly or not so thinly veiled threats?
    The Christian Science Monitor is chock full of it.

  2. I’m sure that the CSM & Msm are chock full of crock,
    actually I know they are.
    American ports should be run by AMERICANS, I don’t care if there is a security,rascism,financial or whatever issue I/anybody can think of.
    It still is an American port.

  3. Dave,
    A general comment concerning your two posts on the morning of Feb 24, and the late evening post of Feb 23.
    All the topics are interesting and thought provoking. If your goal in posting topics is to generate further discussion, I believe you are meeting that goal in admirable fashion.
    Your topics are well researched and clearly presented. You have to be commiting significant time and energy to this endeavor, and I appreciate your hard work.
    Of course, I fundamentally disagree with most of your assertions, but that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate your presentations.
    Thanks for taking the time, and keep up the good work!

  4. I read Mr. England’s quote in this post, and read the quote in the link. I don’t see where Mr. England calls anyone a traitor, or insinuates that anyone is a traitor. His quote addresses both the furor over the port deal, and what our enemies wish to accomplish. Am I getting a peek at the Democrat’s “super secret language code”. If so, this is very exiting. If a dictionary exists for this language, I would appreciate it if one of you guys could post it, so I could follow along in the discussions.
    Thanks,
    Happy

  5. …the quote:
    “If the furor over the port deal should go on, Mr. England said, it would give enemies of the United States aid and comfort
    …The Constitution of the United States, Article 3, Clause 1 (hereafter to be known as the Democratic “super secret language code):
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

  6. “I don’t see where Mr. England calls anyone a traitor, or insinuates that anyone is a traitor.”
    Happy — The words about providing aid and comfort to enemies is DIRECTLY from our Constitution. You would benefit from knowing what the Constitution says before posting comments here.
    WE care about the Constitution. So when the President sends people out to say that people are providing aid and comfort to our enemies, it concerns us greatly, because he is threatening people with execution. It concerns us EVEN when as in this case he is talking about Repubicans. WE consider them to be Americans, too.


  7. General rule of thumb: If liberals are bitching about an issue and the Bush admin stance, then Bush is doing the correct thing.
    Yep, it’s valid – considering that liberals almost always end up on the wrong side of history.

  8. The title for the thread is grossly inaccurate and irresponsible. It cannot at all be applied to what has been stated in official public discourse.
    Show us Dave, where the President stated as you claim. Show us Dave, where the President even implied what you claim.
    You speculate and spew nonsense, nothing more.

  9. So Dave, you’re now putting a label of troll on people who challenge you?
    What do we get to put on you when you don’t answer our challenges?
    This remains unaddressed: The title for the thread is grossly inaccurate and irresponsible. It cannot at all be applied to what has been stated in official public discourse. Show us Dave, where the President stated as you claim. Show us Dave, where the President even implied what you claim.
    If that makes me a troll (an improper use of the term, since I’m simply requesting that you provide some substance to back your claim), so be it.

  10. I think Dave and Jack K. get credit where credit is due. This is obviously a shot across the bow of any Republicans thinking about straying on this one. The real point for conservatives is that the Administration is showing some back-bone and hitting these guys hard to keep them in line. As far as I’m concerned, we should go back to the days of taking parking spaces, moving people to smaller offices, limiting mailing priviliges, and all the other great ways the Democrats used to use to keep their people in line when they were in the majority. I’ll say this for Democrats: They know what to do when they’re in the majority. A question that is still open concerning the Republicans.

Comments are closed.