OH SNAP! IT'S ANOTHER ANGRY RANT!

OK.

For LITERALLY YEARS NOW, people have been protesting against the war in Iraq.

Go right ahead. You're entitled to your opinion, regardless of mine. As I am entitled to mine, regardless of yours.

I've served my country - in combat - and I don't owe anyone jack shit. So, frankly, if your knee-jerk reflex when you hear someone condoning and supporting our actions in Iraq is to say "why don't you join up and go fight yourself instead of blathering on this website, huh?" I say to you, take that crap somewhere else. I already DID, suckhole. I DON'T OWE MY COUNTRY MORE THAN THAT.

But that's only to be expected. There are no limits to the depths of hypocrisy to which people will sink to today; I've seen the same celebrities protesting Iraq that then, months later, turn around and scream that we should be helping out in Darfur.

"But, but, in Darfur they're committing genocide!"

"But, but, in IRAQ they were committing genocide, dumbass."

"That's different!"

NO. IT ISN'T.

Hussein's use of WMDs against his OWN CITIZENS were among the 23 justifications for invasion of Iraq that YOUR GODDAMN LIBERAL SENATORS VOTED FOR.

Too lazy to look it up?

Fine.

I'll save the work.

Here's the resolution.

Here's the relevant section:

"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;"

Here's the vote count. In the HOUSE, and in the SENATE.

Notice HALF THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR IT?

In fact, I'll go farther than that. Notice that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, and Harry Reid, all outspoken critics of the war, ALL voted FOR THE MOTHERFUCKER?

Here's what Hillary Clinton said about it, as a matter of fact:

"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran."

NO WMD'S!!! BUSH LIED!!! NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR!!!

Damn that pesky truth for coming along and fucking things up. Here's Clinton's speech in its entirety, if you'd like to read what she actually said. While I'm at it, here's what John D. Rockefeller IV, also a Democratic Senator who voted for it, said.

Either one of two things is true. Either the DEMOCRATS ARE LYING TO YOU, or they are STAGGERINGLY INCOMPETENT TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE, on account of clearly and obviously being illiterate - or too lazy to READ A RESOLUTION LEADING TO WARFARE WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY.

I am tired of this silly horseshit. It needs to fucking stop.

The same politicians that voted for the war have been yelling about how it's evil ever since. EVER NOTICE, how everything Congress passes is "NON-BINDING" ?

Know why?

Because they read the same intel documents the president does, that's why. They know good and goddamn well that the war is justified, and that a failure on our part in Iraq would catastrophically undermine our position worldwide, which is why they have done nothing to stop it.

They have the power of the purse, people. The war cannot continue without funding; funding they have refused repeatedly to stop.

IF THEY REALLY WANT OUR SOLDIERS HOME, WHY HAVEN'T THEY CUT THE FUNDING?


I'll tell you. Because they are trying to use your desire to avoid getting fucked with to buy your votes. If Hillary Clinton, God Forbid, should get elected President, the war WON'T GO AWAY. She'd be in office, at that point. There's no compelling reason for her to even discuss ending the conflict after she's elected; in fact, there is a 100% chance that if she gets elected, she will bust out the fact that they knew Bin Laden was a threat, and that Iraq would have to be neutralized, back during her husband's time in office.

Of course, the fact that they didn't do shit when they knew all this, way back when, will be shelved and they will pretend it wasn't their fault, somehow, although it was.

But beyond this:


There is another class of people that I want to call to task today.

They are worse than the constantly lying media - on both sides, IMO - and they are worse than the majority of the politicians, again on both sides, for whom "terrorism" isn't a threat, but instead a political counter to be used in an endless shell game of "Let's All Get Elected Again."

They are the traitors.

Traitors are defined as:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source trai·tor (trā'tər) Pronunciation Key
n. One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Ok, what's treason?

Treason is:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source

Main Entry: trea·son

Pronunciation: 'trEz-^&noun
Function: noun

Etymology: Anglo-French treison crime of violence against a person to whom allegiance is owed, literally, betrayal, from Old French traïson, from traïr to betray, from Latin tradere to hand over, surrender
: the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance —trea·son·ous /-&s/ adjective

OR:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source trea·son (trē'zən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Yeah.

Betrayal of one's country by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. That sounds about right.

Explain to me any way in which giving terrorists a specific instruction course in how to bypass Homeland Security and strike where we are most vulnerable ISN'T "betrayal of one's country by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies."

The former Inspector General of Homeland Security, Clark Kent Ervin, has done just that. He has written a book outlining all the weaknesses and mismanagements in the structure of Homeland Security, and along the way, a manual for how to attack America. It's even in his title. See what you think:



Yeah.

And he's not the only one, either.

A whole assload of "authors" have popped up offering "critiques" of American security.

Here's a clue, assholes. Amazon.com ships globally. There are Muslims in the rest of the world; it would be trivially easy for someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to get copies of these books, even if they had to have an agent order them somewhere else and pass them along.

Now, I hate that the news media give away as much information on troop movements and unit information as they do; if you want to get really, really technical, they are guilty of sedition, which is:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source Main Entry: se·di·tion

Pronunciation: si-'di-sh&n
Function: noun

Etymology: Latin seditio, literally, separation, from sed apart + itio act of going, from ire to go
: the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction

Yeah. However, sedition is NOT a crime, legally speaking; it falls into the realm of protected speech, up until the point at which people start burning down buildings and looting stores, at which time you can get in trouble for "inciting a riot."

So, despite the fact that they are virtually all worthless fucktards - pretty much all but Brit Hume, IMO - they are safe.

These authors aren't.

Why? Because there is a qualitative difference between saying "the war is bad, the war is baaaaaad, the President lied, and buggers goats, wheeeeeeeee embrace a tree" and saying "here's how to attack us, right here, on page 231."

One makes you an ignorant, stupid, disloyal fuckhead; the other makes you guilty of treason.

Clark Kent Ervin, I name you a traitor to the United States. You'll never hang for it, but by God, you should.

And any other of you malignant assclowns that think it's ok to give our enemies a helping hand, here's a clue, since you couldn't even BUY one.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death"

That's Title 18, United States Code part 1, Chapter 115, Section 2381.

The Constitution doesn't levy a penalty for treason; it just defines it, as:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

That's Article 3, section 3, by the way. See how I do the research so you don't have to?

Well, there are 8 customer reviews of Ervin's book at Amazon. Guess that fulfills the Constitutional requirement for two witnesses, doesn't it?


You asshole, for telling the enemy HOW TO BOMB US BETTER NEXT TIME, you DESERVE to have your worthless carcass hung by the neck until dead.

And I hope they do it soon.