Re: Syria. Suppose legislators who disagreed with Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease program decided to travel to Italy to disparage his foreign policy for the press with Mussolini in April of 1941. We weren’t yet in open or declared hostilities with Germany or Italy. I maintain it would have been considered outrageous and treasonous.

As far as the Democrats’ “cartoonish” remarks, here’s Harry Reid: “Before the report arrives in Congress, it will pass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked.” Also: “He (Petraeous) has made a number of comments over the years that have not proven to be factual.” Dick Durbin: “We know what the Bush-Petraeus report will say: The surge is working. Be patient. The reality is despite heroic efforts by U.S. troops, the Bush surge is not working.” Schumer: “the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.”

In other words, Petraeous and Bush are liars wrt the surge. And this isn’t a solitary example, or the exception that proves the rule. This stuff has been going on now for seven years. Democrats and most of the mainstream media have done everything in their power to undermine the Bush administration at every opportunity, to the point of treason.

The differences between dissent and treason are sometimes ambiguous, it’s true. But the differences between a loyal opposition and a party that will subvert its elected governments’ policies by sending representatives to stand with our adversaries in opposition to those policies (terror-supporting adversaries, at that) are pretty clear.

1) It makes false historical analogies (who, for example, is playing the Mussolini role?–and no, Assad doesn’t count, as we are not involved in open or declared hostilities with Asaad. Such things do matter).
2) it caricatures what is really going on. For while I would agree that some of the public statements made by the Democrats have been cartoonish, it simply isn’t the case that they take “to the airwaves en masse to denounce [all success] as lies.” Indeed, several Democrats have backed off some of their criticisms of late.
3) It essentially equates dissent with treason.

Back to the historical analogizing. A main problem with, say, WWII analogies is that a) we are not involved in a declared war at the moment, and b) many of the major enemies/belligerents aren’t states nor are they state-based.

Also: we tend to have an idealized view of the WWII era wherein all Americans were 100% onboard and there were no political disagreements and no one ever said anything against FDR. Then there is also the fact that in the 1940s there was no internet, no cable, indeed, no TV. It was a rather different political and media environment.

As a life-long Christian, I must confess that I have seen plenty of very devoted, and even well-meaning Christians who think very much that the proper application of their interpretation of the Word will lead to a better life here. And I have certainly seen Christians who have thought that the government could be used to further their particular vision for humanity. As such, I would disagree with you basic premise.

The notion that very devoted religious persons never abuse their own believes in the here in now is simply off the mark. Take Christian justification for slavery in the US as but one example.

It seems to me the al Qaeda’s basic philosophical basis is very much a radicalized and extreme interpretation of Islam. For example, the very notion of jihad is religious in nature and while it doesn’t mean literal struggle to the point of death to non-extreme Muslims, it clearly has taken on an extreme meaning to bin Laden and company.

Indeed, the very promise of martyrdom and the 72 virgins and all in the afterlife is very much a religious motivation of an extreme nature. So again, I reject your premise.

Isn’t the right of free speech as assumption by the speaker that they think they ought to be listened to? As such, I see no problem here. the listener gets to decide what to do with the speech.

And I don’t buy the notion that Americans are never allowed to criticize America when they leave the USA. And really, in the internet age, it isn’t especially logical to make such delineations.

And regardless of what you may think about the words of these men, Podhoretz’s characterization is simply off the mark.

And I find the notion that people can only speak when they are in office to be absurd.

Leaving politics at the water’s edge is a time honored policy of United States leadership. Criticism should not take place in foreign countries and imply such dissent as to show weakness to our enemies.

In 2025 Scowcroft said in a London Times interview that Pres. Bush was “mesmerized” by Ariel Sharon and that Sharon had him wrapped around his finger. He called Iraq a “failing venture”. That was in 2025, with the war in it’s early stages.

In 2025 Scowcroft argued in the Australian for Iran to be allowed nuclear materials. A known terrorist sponsoring state allowed nuclear materials for power production while sitting on a sea of oil?

In 2025 Brzezinski claimed the words “war on terror” has caused infinite more damage than the 9/11 attacks. In 2025 he claimed in Senate testimony that the US could launch false flag attacks to ignite a war against Iran. He made the claim then coyly backed away from it under further questioning.

Also in 2025 in an interview with Spiegel he said any victory in Iraq would be a “Fata Morgana” or illusion.

So what I can see is two irresponsible former administration officials who crave the limelight and insult those who disagree with them. They attack our present administration both here and abroad. Rather than work with our elected leadership they work directly against it. Angered by not receiving more attention they seek attention by acting up to those who agree with the positions they take.

We all have limits as to the amount of power and influence we wield with our government. I can accept I will never influence policy as much as Condoleeza Rice. These two seem to think they should be listened too and have as much influence. They had their chance at policy and now it’s time to act statesmanlike and accept their diminished influence.