Is Bush a traitor? Or not?
Let's make either case.
Quote:traitor: One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
Quote:treason: 1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2) A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Looking at 'treason' def 1), we note the hoary 'sovereign' sitting in his big chair, demanding total allegiance, and where it's not forthcoming, treason is abroad in the land.
That is the Bush administration's functional definition(and the definition held by more than a few conservatives)...speaking against the President or his policies, particularly during a time of war (Viet Nam or Iraq or Grenada or Panama, etc) is tantamount to treason.
That's a nice and simple understanding of treason, and it's a nice and simple understanding of civic duty, and it's a nice and simple way to understand how folks are arranged in a totalitarian state. Under this definition, Bush isn't a traitor, and the citizens who really are become quite easy to identify.
If we look at definition 2) of treason, "betrayal of trust or confidence", things get a tad more ambiguous and complicated, which might go some distance to explaining the lack of popularity of this definition in some quarters.
Under this definition, even a soveriegn might be defined, properly, as a traitor if the notion is abroad that this sovereign is himself bound by codes or principles which are intrinsic to the polity. Constitutional principles, legal principles, moral/ethical principles, or most relevant to our case here, democratic principles.
A democratic principle such as the elected representative being in the service of his constituency, for example. Thus such an elected representative who operates more in the service of a relatively small coterie of friends and business associates when such will work against the common good, could reasonably consider a traitorous act. So, for example, say that even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the country was being damaged and its future possibilities at clear risk, but that the representative ignored the evidence so that his associates would continue to enjoy huge prosperity, and said something like, "Yes, I read what those bureaucrats said." That could be considered, by any rational measure, in the clear direction of traitorous.
Or a democratic principle like honesty. Say a representative lied and spun so often that the citizenry became apathetic regarding governance and leaders,and withdrew in signigicant ways and numbers from the democratic process. Numerous or continuous betrayals of trust and confidence such as what we see in this example...
Quote:Trust in ministers has slumped to a critical low following the Iraq war and the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, a survey of attitudes towards public figures has shown.
Tony Blair's style of government has also led to serious public concerns about "spin" and less than a quarter of people now trust ministers to tell the truth.
link
So, the case could be made that Bush is a traitor.
