Treason?

  1. Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration's course of action represents too much of a shift of America's longstanding "no first strike" policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.
    _
    "We have a dangerous role reversal here," one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. "The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution."
    _
    Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of_Defense Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger coalition in the Middle East.
    _
    "This is not Desert Storm," one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. "We don't have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don't have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we're advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies."
    _
    Intelligenced sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."
    _
    An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be "extremely angry" at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.
    _
    "The President considers this nation to be at war," a White House source says," and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."
    _
    But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into battle.
    _
    Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to "find and document" links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
    _
    "The implication is clear," grumbles one longtime FBI agent. "Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq."
    _
    While Hussein and Iraq have been linked to various terrorist groups in the past, U.S. intelligence agencies have not been able to establish a provable link with bin Laden's al Qaeda forces.
    _
    "There may be one," says another FBI source. "There should be one. All logic says there has to be one, but we haven't established it as a fact. Not yet."
    _
    Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a "Bush league war," something that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.
    _
    "During Desert Storm, the line officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to march into Iraq and take out Hussein and his government, but President Bush and JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the plug on the operation," says one Pentagon officer. "We had our chance. We had the justification. We had the support. We don't have it now."
    _
    Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend's antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the _crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm.
    _
    "This wasn't just a bunch of tree huggers and longhairs marching," says Arnold Giftos of Huntington, West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to march. "Go to any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see serious discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this war."
    _
    Reporters covering the marches on Saturday and Sunday say they counted about 500 marchers among the 30,000 who carried signs or other items identifying themselves as veterans.
    _
    "I served in Vietnam," said Robert Brighton of Detroit, who marched in Washington. "I supported Desert Storm. I don't support this. It's madness."
    _
    In addition, Capitol Hill Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have "increasing" numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about the war.
    _
    "Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he's wrong," says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, "but we don't have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time."
    _
    Public support for a war with Iraq is also slipping. In November of 2001, just two months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, 78 percent of Americans favored military action against Iraq. That support has slipped to as low as 52 percent in January polls. A Washington Post-ABC news poll taken last week shows Americans evenly split over Bush's handling of the crisis with Iraq.
    _
    Spokesmen for the White House, Pentagon and Congressional leadership offices would not comment on the record for this report.

    Copyright 2003 by Capitol Hill Blue

    Already we have France, Russia, China, Germany and Canada saying wait....
    this administration scares me.
    •  
  2. 11 Comments

  3. by   fergus51
    I personally don't believe it is treason for people to follow their consciences and object to a war that hasn't even started yet. They are doing what they believe is in the best interest of the country and I think it is outrageous to even insinuate these veteran armed forces personell are traitors (whatever you think about Iraq).
  4. by   maureeno
    I posted this not because I think the opposition is treasonous but because the BushII people may. And this scares me. Our country may be being run by a bunch of zealots; remember the 'you are with us or against us ' talk, note the curtailment of civil liberties?

    >>>An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be "extremely angry" at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.
    _
    "The President considers this nation to be at war," a White House source says," and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason." <<<
  5. by   SharonH, RN
    *shudder* This is scary. Everyday it seems that the real axis of evil are Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/Ashcroft. They seem determined to do what they want and to hell with any and every one else. Look at how Rumsfield handled that disagreement with France and Germany this week. The top Bush officials have no tact or diplomacy whatsoever. Before it's over, Bush is going to look like the evil dictator to the rest of the world. I just hope we don't all end up paying the price for their actions.


    On a more positive note, I am glad to see more people starting to speak up against this war. I went to the MLK parade on Monday and it ended up being an anti-war march. There were thousands of us with signs chanting anti-war slogans. I hope thousands more shake off their apathy and join in. Perhaps if enough Americans make it clear that they are absolutely against this, it will get through to Bush's thick head and his sense of political self-preservation will take over.
  6. by   rncountry
    Disagreeing with the President regardless of whether one is a civilian or a military professional, does not in any way constitute treason. We have a President and cronies who obviously cannot read the constitution appropriately.
    Even Aaron Burr, who planned on invading Mexico, splitting the area that was part of the Louisiana purchase from the rest of the country and setting himself up as the ruler of this area, was not convicted of treason. He was charged, but not convicted. By the constitution it is extremely difficult to convict for treason. Though Maureeno is right, what is scary is that the President and his ilk would even toss that word out against those who do not agree. As each day goes by I dislike GW more and more. Even had a doc today that is a strong Republican tell me he thought he was an ******* and that eventually he would harm the party deeply.
    I believe it is the duty for any American that disagrees with policy to let their lawmaker know it.
    I for one, plan on actively doing so, not only now but in the next campaign.
  7. by   fergus51
    Originally posted by maureeno
    I posted this not because I think the opposition is treasonous but because the BushII people may. And this scares me. Our country may be being run by a bunch of zealots; remember the 'you are with us or against us ' talk, note the curtailment of civil liberties?

    >>>An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be "extremely angry" at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.
    _
    "The President considers this nation to be at war," a White House source says," and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason." <<<
    :chuckle I got that maureeno. I never haqve thought of you as outrageous
  8. by   StuPer
    Hi maureeno,
    Thx for your original post, I cannot agree more with your assessment and the subsequent replies. In a similar post I have argued that Bush is hoodwinking (although I don't think he has the IQ for this.... lets call them the puppet masters) the american public, into thinking, Saddam Hussein = Osama Bin Laden.... hello... who bomded the WTC... OBL... not SH... who has done nothing in 12yrs to indicate WMD.... SH.... hmmm... what is the motive then for war....... as has been said numerous times.. oil... nothing else..... and Bush is willing... no eager to play with the lives of US servicemen to get it. This is'nt treason, its fact.... today the bush administration they had incontirvertial proof that SD had WMD..... but they were'nt going to tell the rest ofthe world what it was......... why?. To preserve some military secret...... no-way... the fact that Bush has said this would make SH move such weapons............ no satellite reckon of this one...... no... he can't even share this info with the UN.... hummmm.... can'tthik of a reason why not... except if there is no evidence in the first place....... calll me cynical... but Bush is happy to waste US lives to get money (oil) rather than find OBL (no-profit).
    regards StuPer
  9. by   maureeno
    BushII has thrived through peoples' underestimation of his smarts. He is plenty smart. He now has the power to name any US citizen he chooses an 'enemy combatant' and that person can be imprisoned indefinitely without a lawyer or judicial review of the evidence against them. The war on terrorism is anything the President says it is and the 'theater of war' is everywhere.
    In the US today our homes can be searched without probable cause of crime, we have reversed centuries of 'habeas corpus' and can be considered guilty without charge. BushII has substituted the presumption of guilt for the presumption of innocence.
  10. by   kavi
    Excellent thread Maureeno. I've been 'away' a few weeks and missed this place!

    I find it incredibly outrageous that Bush II thinks he knows more than his military advisors, the American public, American veterans, and people and leaders all around the world. This little man and his old man advisors have contributed NOTHING to our planet, and now they are trying to destroy lives because their misguided egos tell them they 'can'. And I agree with the idea that Little Bush is doing this for (1) OIL (2) Daddy (3) OIL.

    When you think back on how this man became President, perhaps THIS is an argument for abolishing the electoral college.

    I know there are some here (on this BB) who believe that we should respect our President no matter what because he's the President. I respect the office, but not this man. And this saying popped into my head and I just have to share it:

    A "shrub" is something to peon.


    I sure hope that somehow some way we avoid war. Between that and the Big Brother stuff I have to agree with a previous post, maybe it's OUR leaders that are the axis of evil.
    Last edit by kavi on Jan 26, '03
  11. by   Gomer
    I hope you all remember what you are feeling right now when it comes to the next presidental election. Right now, the Democrats could run Bugs Bunny against Bush and I would vote for the bunny. Bush and his buddies scare the hell out of me...they think they are always right, far right.

    Tomorrow night he gives the State of the Union speech. Let's see if he talks war or the economy, since the economy is a much bigger threat than the nut in the Middle East.
  12. by   StuPer
    I would add Gomer, that P. Bush has exercised the terroritst vote to a tee. Right now there are millions of people around the world, who feel that (no matter how small the risk) they would prefer to give up numerous personal freedoms in order to allow the U.S. government to fail miserably at protecting you.
    There are so many multivarious ways in which the terrorist can strike that it is impossible to prevent all attacks.... but the US government would have you believe they can....ohh really..... look into history of anytime period and you'll find that there is allways a way to strike.
    So what benefit can be obtained from reducing personal freedom inorder to prevent catastrophe..... well you get to find out about everyones personal ****, you get to accuse people of things they can't defend against... but are still inoccent. You can find out what your likely to vote in the next election, without the voter knowing............ ohhhhh and there is a miniscule chance that amongst the billions of personal messages you may.... just may get an sniff of something dodgy about to happen...... but as your getting a hundred or so of these a day you'll likely ignore it anyway.
    regards StuPer
  13. by   ArleneG
    In the past I usually avoid politics but now, with this President, I am becoming too scared at the direction our nation is heading. Check out this website for organizations that have been forming nation-wide to oppose this war. There is a big anti-war march being planned for Febuary 15th for anyone interested.
    http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

close