draft his white fat ass, he knows so much about war, he's an invaluable asset

Quoted: You need to check up on your history. The Isolationist movement was VERY strong in the US even after Pearl Harbor. Some people even speculate that PH was allowed by FDR to weaken the Isolationists.

'Some people' can speculate until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that the isolationist movement threw its support behind the war following Peal Harbor. Once America entered the war, there were no major political parties calling it 'the wrong war at the wrong time' or any other leftardarific nonsense. Contrast that with today, where various Dems sound like mouthpieces for AQ.

Quoted: Quoted: Show me where he actually said something to demoralize those alreadly serving. He didn't (IN THIS QUOTE). If you can't see it, its more becasue you won't see it. You think he said he wouldn't join the military because of the quality of the  chow? His comments are a DIRECT attack on the chain of command, including the C in C and the generals. he is fomenting rebellion within teh ranks. He is sowing seeds of discord. Tokyo Rose had nothing on this clown. He is telling  al Queda how to win - by  disheartening the American people ala Viet Nam.

"If you can't see it, its more becasue you won't see it."

And if you have to be "reading between the lines" to "see the treason," you are only proving my point that true treason as defined by American law has not taken place.

YOU formed that impression in your mind. In reality, it is much more likely that he was simply trying to say that he is opposed to the reasoning behind the war, and thus he would choose not to participate in this war if given the option. Or maybe he was trying to say that zuchinni is best eaten with peanut butter. It really doesn't matter. You CANNOT be convicted (or even tried) for treason simply because someone thinks they discovered a hidden meaning/secret "rebellion" plot within a totally legal comment. It is important, however, to note the phrase "legal comment." If Murtha had made an illegal comment (such as going on Al-Jazeera or CNN and giving an hour-long detailed instruction on how to build a suitcase nuke), THEN we can start talking about treason. But unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing illegal about saying you wouldn't join the military. Any illegal aid to the enemy in such a comment would have to be individually interpreted, and that my friend simply won't cut it in any court of law (besides, of course, instances using secret codes, etcetera - but somehow I doubt Murtha had a secret code organized to speak to Osama with ).

He says: "I wouldn't join the military today if given the option, nor would I detest anyone who chooses likewise."

Your discovered hidden message: "I am attempting to reveal to al Queda the secret to the destruction of America by instigating a DIRECT (...verbal....) attack on the American chain of command with the intent of sowing seeds of discord and forming dissention in the ranks in order to spark a rebellion."

Good luck trying to get ANYONE even CONSIDERED for any sort of treason conviction based on that. You can't get charged with narcotics posession for telling the world that you think weed is good. You can't get charged with murder for saying you hate your boss. And you can't get charged with treason for saying you wouldn't join the military. You can INFER from one's comments that they have a bag of weed in their pocket because they say they like it, you can INFER from one's comments that he is plotting to murder his boss since he told you he hates the guy, and you can INFER from a congressman's comments that he is plotting to give al Queda the secret to our destruction because he said we wouldn't join the military. But you cannot be charged with a crime simply for saying any of those things.

Some of you people apparently just don't realize how severe treason really is. And SOME people think nothing short of picking up a rifle for al Queda is treason.

Yes, some people probably think that. I am not one of them. But no matter how much we may disagree with the guy, simply saying "I wouldn't join the military" SIMPLY DOES NOT EQUATE TO PROVIDING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY. Millions of young men and women say that exact same thing to themselves every year. This is just fine. But apparently if you say it to the reporters then you can get life in prison or death. What's up with that? What I find especially perplexing is that you think this one single comment of his is as bad as/worse than Hanoi Jane's escapades. I don't know how you could ever think that endorsing a legal, popular, and important choice we all must face could EVER come close to being as bad as actually sitting in an NVA anti-aircraft gun, appearing in propaganda films speaking directly against the United States, going to enemy POW camps to intentionally demoralize the troops being tortured there, etc. etc. etc., and never apologizing for the bulk of it. Would you mind explaining to me how this single comment by Murtha is as bad as Hanoi Jane's laundry list?

Quoted: Quoted: You need to check up on your history. The Isolationist movement was VERY strong in the US even after Pearl Harbor. Some people even speculate that PH was allowed by FDR to weaken the Isolationists. 'Some people' can speculate until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that the isolationist movement threw its support behind the war following Peal Harbor. Once America entered the war, there were no major political parties calling it 'the wrong war at the wrong time' or any other leftardarific nonsense. Contrast that with today, where various Dems sound like mouthpieces for AQ.

In any case, there must be an avenue for disagreement. During WWII, the Republican Party's leader was their candidate for president in 1940: Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie consistently hammered home the need for a "loyal opposition" even after Pearl Harbor. In fact, FDR recognized how powerful Wilkie was (even in defeat, after all, FDR beat Wilkie in the 1940 race for the presidency) and he named Wilkie as his own personal ambassador to the world during WWII. Wilkie, it is said, became even MORE influencial during this time, and he never missed an opportunity to say the following:

"Military experts, as well as our leaders, must be constantly exposed to democracy's greatest driving power -- the whiplash of public opinion, developed from honest, free discussion."

FDR knew this, Wilkie knew this, and our allies knew this.  We should realize it as well.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You need to check up on your history. The Isolationist movement was VERY strong in the US even after Pearl Harbor. Some people even speculate that PH was allowed by FDR to weaken the Isolationists. 'Some people' can speculate until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that the isolationist movement threw its support behind the war following Peal Harbor. Once America entered the war, there were no major political parties calling it 'the wrong war at the wrong time' or any other leftardarific nonsense. Contrast that with today, where various Dems sound like mouthpieces for AQ. In any case, there must be an avenue for disagreement. During WWII, the Republican Party's leader was their candidate for president in 1940: Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie consistently hammered home the need for a "loyal opposition" even after Pearl Harbor. In fact, FDR recognized how powerful Wilkie was (even in defeat, after all, FDR beat Wilkie in the 1940 race for the presidency) and he named Wilkie as his own personal ambassador to the world during WWII. Wilkie, it is said, became even MORE influencial during this time, and he never missed an opportunity to say the following: "Military experts, as well as our leaders, must be constantly exposed to democracy's greatest driving power -- the whiplash of public opinion, developed from honest, free discussion." FDR knew this, Wilkie knew this, and our allies knew this.  We should realize it as well.

Wilkie was a bad example what he did makes our point not vice versa.

You forget to say Wilkie ALSO consistently hammered home the need to WIN the war, was Strongly behind the war effort, and very unsupportive of things that could derail the war effort… like partisan political investigation of war time decisions.

Your example of Wilkie goes a long way in showing that Murtha is NOT the loyal opposition but is exactly what we accuse him of being a lying treasonous prick.