Comments!  We get comments!!!

If it's not one thing, it's another.  When I have writer's block, I have tons of time to write stuff & blog.  When I'm slammed at work and can't  write, I have tons of stuff to write about.

Anyway, it's not having a great deal of time this weekend which explains why I didn't go off in the comment section on a poster who didn't see things my way on *spit* Edwina Leigh Pitts *spit*, the traitorous Tennessee tumblefuck.  So with that in mind...Scooter Blue, front & center, please:

Why all the swearing, slurs, threats, and namecalling?

Uh, let me guess...you didn't read the FAQ, located at the bottom of this very blog...?

No matter.  The short answer is "Because this is my blog, and I can".

If you take all of that out, then your whole post comes down to this:

1) The journalist in question was dishonest (IMO: somewhat, but the soldier wasn't forced to say anything)

No, he wasn't, which is why he shares some of the culpability; in fact, if I were in his chain of command, he'd be doing KP until the end of the war.

I will grant you this:  If I didn't know Rumsfeld better, I'd say that this smelled suspiciously like a photo-op.  What Rummy should have done was cleared the tent of all - and I mean all  - reporters, embeds & otherwise.  No one, save troops and Cabinet staff needed to know what went on in that meeting; now, thanks to a treasonous turdbucket, we all  know.

Including some people whom it would have served our best interested by not knowing - but I'll get to that in a second.

2) The journalist is guilty of treason (clearly not true)

Because you  say so?  Sorry, but it's going to take a lot more than just your word to satisfy me on that score.

Your boy Pitts, Scooter, had two things in mind when he pulled this little stunt:  1) make Rumsfeld - and, by extention, the Bush Administration - look as ill-prepared, inept and incompetent as humanly possible, and 2) make a name for himself in the process.

By accomplishing the first objective, this dumbass accomplished two other things:  1) dealt a blow to the morale, not only of the other troops stationed in Iraq, but all around the world and  at home, and 2) boosted the spirits of what is colloquially known as the "Arab Street" - including the ragheaded insurgent terrorists currently inside Iraq at this moment.

(Or did you not think that Al-Jizz would get their grubby little paws on it and play it every chance they got?)

That,  sir, constitutes giving aid and/or comfort to the enemy in a time of war.  And doing that qualifies as sedition at the very least - and quite possibly treason, as well.

Opinion that differs from mine is fine, but this was mostly just bile-spewing.

Hardly, sir.  These are the rants of an average American who, like a lot of other  average Americns, is sick & tired of the liberal lapdog media trying its damndest to bring down President Bush and his Administration.

Answer me this:  had this been the buffoons known as Das Klintonreich  prosecuting this war, would this episode have made it to most every front page of the major newspapers, and to the top of every national news broadcast?  The answer is not only no, but hell, no.

It's time to face facts.  Their - and I suspect, your - side lost  the election, and it's about time you people got over that little fact.

Until it does, the media will forever be seen as the treasonous fuckwits they are - and this latest sequence is but just one example of why the Fourth Estate no longer enjoys the trust of the American people.

Is asking relevant questions treason?

No, it is not.  But there's a procedure you follow in the military, and neither this soldier, nor his co-conspirator excuse-for-a-reporter friend, followed that procedure.  Because of that, the entire world knows more of the American military's vulnerability than it needed to.  We may as well have just rolled onto our backs, exposed our bellies to the world and said "Here you go - X marks the spot!"

Is questioning administration policy, even in (undeclared) war, treason?

When you give aid and comfort to the enemy, you're damned right it is.

And don't give me this BS about this being an "undeclared" war.  Congress - including your failed Presidential candidate, John-Boy F'n Qetchup-ass - gave the President the authority to do just what he's doing.  Take it up with your congresscritters if you don't like it.

If you're Ann Coulter or Joe Richardson, the answer's "Yes." If you're like me, the answer's "No."

Got that a little backwards, didn't we?

Joe Richardson & Ann Coulter want to see this country emerge victorious.  All the Socialist Left has ever wanted is to see the United States fail.

Slight difference there.

The Left wants  to see the United States on its knees, in the hopes that it can fool the people into accepting its already-proven-failed ideology as a preferred form of government.

And I have news for the Left:  As long as I have breath, I will fight the Socialists tooth & nail to see that that doesn't  occur.  I happen to like  the representative republic the Founding Fathers gave us, and I'm not about  to turn it over to a bunch of limp-wristed, pussified leftists who don't like me calling them names.

Better get used to it, 'cause I'm not going anywhere.