Who is going to call William F. Buckley a traitor?

We may not be able to call Buckley a traitor, but may we call him a twit?

As for the Repubs going the way of the Whigs--I think the odds are better that a killer comet will crash into their convention (keeping fingers crossed) than of them quietly fading into political history.

Shhh..... they must be sleeping. Their daily "10 minute hate" tantrum takes a lot out of them.

Officious hair-splitting from a pseudo-wonk.

Everyone knows that those on the right haven't hesitated to hurl accusations of "giving comfort to the enemy" at anyone who hasn't drank the "progress is being made in Iraq" koolaid.

Psuedo?

Cycloptichorn

Officious hair-splitting from a pseudo-wonk.

Everyone knows that those on the right haven't hesitated to hurl accusations of "giving comfort to the enemy" at anyone who hasn't drank the "progress is being made in Iraq" koolaid.

Retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson is author of the upcoming book War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror (Crown Forum, June). As the president prepares to veto Congress's timetabled war-funding bill, Lt. Col. Patterson took some questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez about the Democratic congressional majority, war reporting, and more.


Kathryn Jean Lopez: Your upcoming book begins with a quote from Cicero about how a nation "cannot survive treason from within." Surely you're not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?

"Buzz" Patterson: I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as "adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that. When a government official stands on the floor of Congress and declares the war lost; or travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans; or, publicly compares our military men and women to Nazis, Soviets in gulags, and Pol Pot; or refers to our Marines as "cold blooded killers" before an ongoing investigation is completed and charges filed, they have crossed the line and have taken their politics to the battlefield.

personal insert.... practicing the "God-given" right to dissent is now "treasonous" in this Right Wing meme. Is in yours too mysterymeat?

Lopez: Is it fair even to say "The Left has declared war on the U.S. military and the global War on Terror"? And your title! The Left doesn't want to destroy the military, for Pete's sake.

Lt. Col. Patterson: Not only do I absolutely believe that Democrats have declared war on an American victory in the War on Terror but that's generally been the case since 1968. They're opposed to all uses of military force unless one of their guys is in the White House. In 1968, it was Vietnam and President Lyndon Johnson was too hawkish for them. The New Left adroitly turned a military victory overseas into a humiliating national defeat which the Democrats successfully parlayed into political capital, winning Congress and the White House. Now, it's Iraq and the War on Terror. Different war, same game plan. Democrats win if America loses.[/i]

Another personal insert.....Oddly, its nearly almost entirely the case that only Democratic political leaders contain ex soldiers who saw combat while current Republican political leaders hid out with deferment after deferment during the wars of their generation.

http://www.hcdems.com/misc/chickenhawks.html

By facilitating defeat against Islamo-fascism, Democrats have placed the U.S. military squarely in the cross-hairs as well. But, again, this is nothing new. For decades liberals have attempted to emasculate the armed forces.
Another personal insert, because it is just too big and delicious a target; both of those "Democratic" presidents held office immediately after the ending of sustained, decades-long wars, the Vietnam War and the Cold War. So beating swords into ploughshares does seem to be apropos, does it not?

When a Republican president is in office, the military and intelligence organizations receive the necessary funding for procurement, pay, and logistics. Fortunately, we've only had two Democrat commanders-in-chief over that span, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. In my opinion, arguably the two worst military leaders in our country's history, certainly within the last 100 years. Not only doesn't the Left understand military culture, but in fact they regard it with utter disdain.

Lopez: But don't we all support the troops?

Lt. Col. Patterson: The Left's "support" of our military consists of constant undermining or ignoring of the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there have been many), legislation calling for outright defeat, grossly exaggerating or embellishing the misdeeds of a few miscreants at Abu Ghraib, championing baseless claims of torture at Guantanamo Bay, and staging antiwar rallies across the country. Our troops certainly don't need or deserve those sorts of support.

...yet another liberal was trying to depants fair Mother America and sodomize her.

You know, Mysterymeat you remind me of the cartoon character "Daffy Duck" who continually steps on a rake and smacks himself in the beak. I would be sympathetic if you weren't so willfully and pathetically clueless about the reality that swirls around you.

But I do respect your courage; few unfurl the banner of their ignorance in public and wave it so willingly as you do, but then I have a weak spot for exhibitionists

Now understand clearly my original posting in case you missed it frothing at the mouth as you do whenever you see the word "kuvasz;" there are many of you goobers on the Right who call any opposition to their policies "treasonous" and if you disagree with them you cannot show much evidence that you have rebuked them for such baleful silliness. If you lie down with rabid dogs without barking at them expect others to consider you rabid as well.

thus: from one of your own famous crazy people "on the Right," in the nation's premeire Right Wing Journal......just yesterday.

Quote:

Retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson is author of the upcoming book War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror (Crown Forum, June). As the president prepares to veto Congress's timetabled war-funding bill, Lt. Col. Patterson took some questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez about the Democratic congressional majority, war reporting, and more.


Kathryn Jean Lopez: Your upcoming book begins with a quote from Cicero about how a nation "cannot survive treason from within." Surely you're not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?

"Buzz" Patterson: I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as "adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that. When a government official stands on the floor of Congress and declares the war lost; or travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans; or, publicly compares our military men and women to Nazis, Soviets in gulags, and Pol Pot; or refers to our Marines as "cold blooded killers" before an ongoing investigation is completed and charges filed, they have crossed the line and have taken their politics to the battlefield.

personal insert.... practicing the "God-given" right to dissent is now "treasonous" in this Right Wing meme. Is in yours too mysterymeat?

Lopez: Is it fair even to say "The Left has declared war on the U.S. military and the global War on Terror"? And your title! The Left doesn't want to destroy the military, for Pete's sake.

Lt. Col. Patterson: Not only do I absolutely believe that Democrats have declared war on an American victory in the War on Terror but that's generally been the case since 1968. They're opposed to all uses of military force unless one of their guys is in the White House. In 1968, it was Vietnam and President Lyndon Johnson was too hawkish for them. The New Left adroitly turned a military victory overseas into a humiliating national defeat which the Democrats successfully parlayed into political capital, winning Congress and the White House. Now, it's Iraq and the War on Terror. Different war, same game plan. Democrats win if America loses.[/i]

Another personal insert.....Oddly, its nearly almost entirely the case that only Democratic political leaders contain ex soldiers who saw combat while current Republican political leaders hid out with deferment after deferment during the wars of their generation.

http://www.hcdems.com/misc/chickenhawks.html

By facilitating defeat against Islamo-fascism, Democrats have placed the U.S. military squarely in the cross-hairs as well. But, again, this is nothing new. For decades liberals have attempted to emasculate the armed forces.
Another personal insert, because it is just too big and delicious a target; both of those "Democratic" presidents held office immediately after the ending of sustained, decades-long wars, the Vietnam War and the Cold War. So beating swords into ploughshares does seem to be apropos, does it not?

When a Republican president is in office, the military and intelligence organizations receive the necessary funding for procurement, pay, and logistics. Fortunately, we've only had two Democrat commanders-in-chief over that span, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. In my opinion, arguably the two worst military leaders in our country's history, certainly within the last 100 years. Not only doesn't the Left understand military culture, but in fact they regard it with utter disdain.

Lopez: But don't we all support the troops?

Lt. Col. Patterson: The Left's "support" of our military consists of constant undermining or ignoring of the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there have been many), legislation calling for outright defeat, grossly exaggerating or embellishing the misdeeds of a few miscreants at Abu Ghraib, championing baseless claims of torture at Guantanamo Bay, and staging antiwar rallies across the country. Our troops certainly don't need or deserve those sorts of support.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzRiYWRlMWM4YWQyYTY4OGIyNTY4MTc0YjFlZWI3NTk=

Now either you can consider these remarks as part and parcel to your own beliefs or you can reject them before us as the bad craziness they actually are.

kuvasz wrote:

You know, Mysterymeat you remind me of the cartoon character "Daffy Duck" who continually steps on a rake and smacks himself in the beak. I would be sympathetic if you weren't so willfully and pathetically clueless about the reality that swirls around you.

But I do respect your courage; few unfurl the banner of their ignorance in public and wave it so willingly as you do, but then I have a weak spot for exhibitionists

Now understand clearly my original posting in case you missed it frothing at the mouth as you do whenever you see the word "kuvasz;" there are many of you goobers on the Right who call any opposition to their policies "treasonous" and if you disagree with them you cannot show much evidence that you have rebuked them for such baleful silliness. If you lie down with rabid dogs without barking at them expect others to consider you rabid as well.

thus: from one of your own famous crazy people "on the Right," in the nation's premeire Right Wing Journal......just yesterday.

Quote:

Retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson is author of the upcoming book War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror (Crown Forum, June). As the president prepares to veto Congress's timetabled war-funding bill, Lt. Col. Patterson took some questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez about the Democratic congressional majority, war reporting, and more.


Kathryn Jean Lopez: Your upcoming book begins with a quote from Cicero about how a nation "cannot survive treason from within." Surely you're not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?

"Buzz" Patterson: I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as "adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that. When a government official stands on the floor of Congress and declares the war lost; or travels to Syria, a state-sponsor of terror, and meets with the leadership that is funneling insurgents into Iraq to kill Americans; or, publicly compares our military men and women to Nazis, Soviets in gulags, and Pol Pot; or refers to our Marines as "cold blooded killers" before an ongoing investigation is completed and charges filed, they have crossed the line and have taken their politics to the battlefield.

personal insert.... practicing the "God-given" right to dissent is now "treasonous" in this Right Wing meme. Is in yours too mysterymeat?

Lopez: Is it fair even to say "The Left has declared war on the U.S. military and the global War on Terror"? And your title! The Left doesn't want to destroy the military, for Pete's sake.

Lt. Col. Patterson: Not only do I absolutely believe that Democrats have declared war on an American victory in the War on Terror but that's generally been the case since 1968. They're opposed to all uses of military force unless one of their guys is in the White House. In 1968, it was Vietnam and President Lyndon Johnson was too hawkish for them. The New Left adroitly turned a military victory overseas into a humiliating national defeat which the Democrats successfully parlayed into political capital, winning Congress and the White House. Now, it's Iraq and the War on Terror. Different war, same game plan. Democrats win if America loses.[/i]

Another personal insert.....Oddly, its nearly almost entirely the case that only Democratic political leaders contain ex soldiers who saw combat while current Republican political leaders hid out with deferment after deferment during the wars of their generation.

http://www.hcdems.com/misc/chickenhawks.html

By facilitating defeat against Islamo-fascism, Democrats have placed the U.S. military squarely in the cross-hairs as well. But, again, this is nothing new. For decades liberals have attempted to emasculate the armed forces.
Another personal insert, because it is just too big and delicious a target; both of those "Democratic" presidents held office immediately after the ending of sustained, decades-long wars, the Vietnam War and the Cold War. So beating swords into ploughshares does seem to be apropos, does it not?

When a Republican president is in office, the military and intelligence organizations receive the necessary funding for procurement, pay, and logistics. Fortunately, we've only had two Democrat commanders-in-chief over that span, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. In my opinion, arguably the two worst military leaders in our country's history, certainly within the last 100 years. Not only doesn't the Left understand military culture, but in fact they regard it with utter disdain.

Lopez: But don't we all support the troops?

Lt. Col. Patterson: The Left's "support" of our military consists of constant undermining or ignoring of the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan (and there have been many), legislation calling for outright defeat, grossly exaggerating or embellishing the misdeeds of a few miscreants at Abu Ghraib, championing baseless claims of torture at Guantanamo Bay, and staging antiwar rallies across the country. Our troops certainly don't need or deserve those sorts of support.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzRiYWRlMWM4YWQyYTY4OGIyNTY4MTc0YjFlZWI3NTk=

Now either you can consider these remarks as part and parcel to your own beliefs or you can reject them before us as the bad craziness they actually are.

Because I disagree with you, I'm "ignorant"?

Actually, you would have to explain how disagreeing with me makes you ignorant, because the term usually refers to a lack of knowledge so my disagreement steals from you your knowledge?

Or is it simply that I am constantly pointing out to you important factors and data you do not use in deciding your position?

In the case at point your earlier posts dismissed the thesis I made in my original post, viz., that Bill Buckley's words were such that they would be attacked by some right winger. Was that fashioned from your "ignorance," or as I stated "if you weren't so willfully and pathetically clueless about the reality that swirls around you."

So I assume that since you disagree with Mr. Buzz Fascist Lightyear, yet also implied that such attacks were not likely leveled at people making remarks that Bill Buckley did, you were "ignorant" of the facts being discussed and in ignorance you dismissed my thesis.

Perhaps it was simply as I implied, that you had ignored years of attacks by the Right on their opponents

If that is true,why have you resorted to insults to try and make your point?
That says something about you,doesnt it.

Yes, quite a bit that in I am intolerant of lazy thinking people who shoot off their mouths without a clear understanding of the issues and those who cannot think straight.

I may believe in democracy in politics, but I do demand a meritocracy in ideas

As to the article you linked to,I dont know who Col. Patterson is,nor have I ever heard of him.
BUT,judging ONLY by what you posted, he is an idiot.

Good at least we agree on something.

What the dems are doing is not treason,it dosnt even come close.
While I will say that what the dems are doing is stupid,and will,IMHO,paint themselves into a corner,it is not treasonous or illegal.

Stupid how? In that their plans reduce the safety of America.....That's kind of the point buzz lightyear was attempting to make? Simply less financially efficient with your well earned tax dollar? How? Hoist all the glittering generalities you want from the fringes as examples but Democratic political leaders apparently are not in denial of realities as the Right Wing was and remains.

But let me not put words into your mouth just quote to whom you refer and how they are "stupid," meaning "stupid" as in the way most folks mean, and not in simple disagreement with you.

But even you must admit that some of the comments made by the dems concerning the war have bordered on the criminally stupid.

and they would be....?

Something as stupid as three republican presidential candidates saying last night that they did not believe in the theory of evolution?

But,if it makes you feel better,I do NOT agree with this Colonel,nor do I support his statements.
He does NOT speak for me in any way,shape or form!!

Good, Grasshopper you pass kuvasz civics, and are now on the path to wisdom.

In fact, reading your words made me feel so good I think I'm getting a chubby

Is that clear enough for you to understand?

See above