June 30, 2005

This Needs a read from Howard Dean...

OK...Ward Churchill's at it again (via Glenn Reynolds)...and here's my bet:

If Howard Dean is asked to comment on it (they won't, the cowards, unless John Stossel or a Fox News guy is in the room) I bet a coffee mug that the answer will not be clear, unmistakable version of, "He's a low-life and deserves to be fired, exiled and or otherwise isolated from civilized society." Instead, it will be (approximately), "Yeah, that was bad (a sop to the Dem minority that listenes to Joe Lieberman) but I can understand his frustration and the frustration of millions of Americans who see this war as a terrible and costly mistake." In other words, he still won't get it.

There's always that "but", isn't there?


Comments on This Needs a read from Howard Dean...
PigBoatSailor briefed on June 30, 2005 05:43 AM

While the call of "treason" might be a bit overboard - that whole act of war thing would probably be hard to prove here, I do think that (and hopefully some law-types can correct me here) Churchill has managed to go and break US Code this time. Specifically Title 18, Part I, Ch 115. Section 2387, "Activities Affecting Armed Forces Generally" seems to fit well, as it states:
Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States...

Perhaps the "During War" section also, if one can get around the whole 'declaring war' part. Also Section 2385, "Advocating Overthrow of the Government," and Sec 2383, "Rebellion or insurrection" might fit the crime as well. I wonder if anyone will bother to take this up?

Of course, the larger part of me thinks, "Technically, he is threatening -me-. So, wouldn't it be self defense? Hmmm, I wonder if there is a Tomahawk mission already written for this."

John of Argghhh! briefed on June 30, 2005 08:06 AM

Ah, sailor - we wouldn't do it, you know that. Collateral damage. Wouldn't want to inadvertently take out a rare conservative standing near the crapweasel.

PigBoatSailor briefed on June 30, 2005 09:13 AM

Unfortunately, I am only proficient with weapons that make a big boom. Anyone with a more discriminating weapon? I still claim it could be argued as self-defense...