All I did was provide a definition to a word, and mention that "people of your ilk" seemed disturbed about how you're conveying your ideas..
Blame Mr. Webster.. He's the one who defined it, not me.
And I opine that those who would undermine the nation's war effort, and by default, the safety of those soldiers conducting that war, for the purpose of political advantage is sedition.
Again, I have NO PROBLEM with criticism of the administration's current policies and strategies, SO LONG AS they are accompanied by viable alternatives.
But all I hear is that Bush lied, there are no WMDs, and that we should pull our troops out of Iraq right now, or that we should beg with a tin cup to encourage our "allies" to do what should be obviously in their self-interest, a stable, moderate, and progressive Mid-East.
The right of public criticism of the government comes with the terrible burden of providing viable alternative solutions.
So if I have offended you, I apologize. All I'm stating is that if one complains about a problem, they should be part of the solution and not part of the problem..
Btw, if someone in the White House actually "outed" Wilson's wife deliberately to aid our enemies, then yes, that person committed seditious, if not treason. And they should be punished accordingly.
But right now the only people who know who that person is, allegedly, are 6 journalists who believe the sanctity of their source is more important that national security.
Hawk |
