[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 23, 1:41*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 23, 12:00*am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 22, 9:41*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:17*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 22, 2:55*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Yapper woofed:

Did you really say Sen. John Kerry is or was a "traitor"? On what evidence
do you base that accusation?

His statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22,
1971.

[snip details of atrocities]

*Kerry is either a war criminal or a treasonous liar. *

This is where you and the rational world part company. It was a simple
question:

On what evidence do you base that accusation that Kerry is a traitor?

His own admitted false accusations undermining our troops in time of
war.
(See sssshhhh for definition of undermining).

But what cheney said was not.

*not what?

Accusing Congressmen of being 'traitorous'.

*And Congress has a right to vote "no" on
something which cheney then called "undermining the troops" and
therefore accused them of 'treason' using the definition you use to
'prove' Kerry is a 'traitor'.

*You want to rewrite the constitution and remove from Congress the
power of appropriation....well, good luck with that.

Duh.

Chirp chirp. LoL.

See...on the one hand Congress is acting with authority granted by the
constitution.
On the other we have Kerry falsely accusing virtually the entire armed
forces with war crimes. * What part of the constitution granted him
authority to do that?
Obviously your comparison is absurd.

cheney accused Congress of "undermining *the troops".

*OMG. *A calamity of epic proportions.

Calling Congress "traitors" in a time of war is very serious, 2pid.

Using your own definition Kerry, cheney just called those who
voted "no" or voiced dissent 'traitors'.

*LoL. *I thought it was your definition. *Oh well.

OK then, so we agree that Kerry isn't a "traitor". Oh well. LoL.

You had claimed that never happened

*I claimed what you claimed I claimed never happened. Got it?

Um, no. You claimed that nobody accuses Dems of being "traitors" or
"Treasonous".

I proved otherwise. Got it?

*("Give me examples!" and then "You
went all the way back to Kerry? LoL. Get over that campaign".)

Now, though, you use the exact same definition against Kerry as I did
against cheney.

I used your definition, 2pid. If you agree that Kerry isn't a
"traitor" then I'll agree that cheney didn't accuse dissenting
Congressmen of being "traitors".

If you persist with your sladerous accusations against Kerry, then by
your own definition (reinforced, what, yesterday?) cheney is
attempting to stifle dissent by slandering Congressmen who dare
dissent.

Get it? LoL.

*So you claim in childish semantic fashion.

So I proved in an adult fashion.

Duh.

*I knew you'd prove my point for me. LoL.

*You can't do it yourself so now you have to claim someone else has
done it for you. *Truly pathetic.

LOL!

Hopefully there won't be another John Kerry to smear your service or
maybe you plan to be the next John "Traitor" Kerry? *Let me guess,
CAS *will be your .50 cal machine gun.

Don't guess, 2pid. It merely makes you look even dumber. LoL.

* *Maybe you should explain to your buddies in arms, if you have any,
about what a war crime is it to use CAS to save their asses when some
stupid major f'd up the intel.

I never said it was a "war crime" to use CAS, 2pid. I have said it is
often counterproductive to the overall mission.

And it wasn't "intel", dum-dum. It was extremely poor planning.
There's a "major" difference between the two. LoL.

Better planning may very well have made the use of CAS unneccesary.

No wonder you come off so stupid. You don't even understand the basic
argument. LoL.