This page was last updated on May 9, 2004.

If this be treason; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 9, 2004.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

The editorial defends Democrat Party “leaders” like Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) against alleged charges of treason.  The editorial presented no quote in which a Republican used the words “traitor” or “treason.”  In effect, the editorial said, “but that’s what they meant.”

As the Democrat Party, the Times editorial board sees its reflection in the comments of Republican leaders and does not want the rest of us to see that image.

During World War II there was an admonition, “Loose lips sink ships.”  In case the meaning isn’t clear, it meant the enemy could benefit from careless talk.  Below are two posters from that period.¹

Careless talk is not just about military secrets.  Careless talk also includes anything that can hurt U.S. armed forces and civilian morale and/or help enemy morale.  When enemies use talking points from political photo ops, you have to assume the enemy likes what he hears.  This is giving aid and comfort.

For months, Democrats have been criticizing the Iraq War.  Here are a couple of relatively tame examples from Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).

• During a speech to The Brookings Institution on April 5, 2004, Sen. Kennedy referred to Iraq as “George Bush’s Vietnam.”  This wasn’t the first time Kennedy linked Iraq and Vietnam.  Unfortunately, Kennedy isn’t the only Democrat trying to equate Iraq and Vietnam.  Kennedy knows Americans -- and the world -- equate Vietnam with “unwinnable war.”

On April 7th, anti-American Shiite “cleric” Muqtada al‑Sadr -– with ties to terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah -– said, “Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers.”  I hope Sen. Kennedy and fellow Democrats are proud they are helping our enemies write their speeches and pump up their followers, as did Vietnam anti-war protesters.

• In a speech on October 16, 2003, Kennedy said we should learn lessons from history when he said, “America learned it in Vietnam, and we must not re-learn it in Iraq.”  It’s too bad Sen. Kennedy didn’t take his own advice and learn a lesson from Vietnam.  When will we begin to hear our soldiers in Iraq referred to as “baby killers?”

Are comments like Sen. Kennedy’s treason?  No, not according to the legal definition.

At the very least, however, Kennedy, Murtha, and their cohorts are guilty of very poor judgment.²  Though I would not deny a person his right to voice his disagreement with U.S. policy, we must remember we are at war and we have nearly 150,000 American civilians, marines, and soldiers in harm’s way in Iraq.  They risk their lives to keep us safe.  It is an understatement to say Iraq is a dangerous place, especially for Americans.  Anything that gives aid and comfort to the enemy makes Iraq even more deadly.

The only Vietnam parallel is on U.S. soil.  After the Vietnam War, former North Vietnam officials revealed they had no hope of a military victory.  Their strategy was to feed dissent in America and hope we would lose the will to win.  Indeed, the largest military defeat of North Vietnam during the war was the 1968 Tet Offensive.  If you did not know better, though, you would have thought U.S. forces lost big.  Many Iraq War opponents are using the same divisive tactics as they and/or their predecessors used during the Vietnam War.  To them, the end justifies the means.

The right to dissent brings with it responsibility.  In the 1700s, perhaps open dissent would have been OK.  After all, it is unlikely the enemy in Iraq would ever hear the comments.  It is not the 1700s, however.  When politicians stand in front of a gaggle of reporters and attack our war effort and leadership, our enemies in Iraq see and hear it at the same time as we do.  In some cases, the Arab press adds its own twist.  As you read above, an enemy used Kennedy’s words in speeches inciting violence against Americans.  Not long after, Osama bin Laden also used the Vietnam comparison in a tape encouraging his followers to kill Americans.  Though I’m sure it was unintentional, Sen. Kennedy gave aid and comfort to our enemies.

These are the same people who wanted early primary races so open dissent would not hurt their chance to defeat President Bush.  Do you believe they understand open dissent would hurt their presidential campaign, but cannot understand how open dissent can kill more Americans in Iraq?  You decide.

You cannot convince me responsible politicians cannot do their jobs without broadcasting their dissent all over the world.  Anything that gives our enemies hope also kills more Americans.

Are Murtha, Kennedy, et al traitors?  Of course not.  That said, they certainly are not looking out for the best interests of those brave Americans in Iraq when they make comments that make it into enemy speeches.

1. Unifying a Nation - World War II Posters; New Hampshire State Library.

2. A point the editorial tries to make is that national defense positions by combat veterans are automatically credible and their positions cannot be criticized by non-combat veterans.  Further, you cannot comment at all on national defense issues unless you are a combat veteran.  These are positions expressed in other Times editorials.  If we accept these positions, over 95% of Americans cannot discuss national defense issues.  With all due respect to combat veterans, it is a bogus claim.  Face it, the world’s greatest warrior may know nothing about national defense.  Also, as everyone else, a combat vet may hold beliefs not conducive to national defense.  If we accept this premise, only combat veterans could run for president.  That would have kept Dwight Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln, among others, out of the White House.  It is odd how suddenly post-Vietnam liberals came to revere the same men it called “baby killers.”

The Times would like us to believe Rep. Murtha’s combat veteran status and position on a defense appropriation committee give him credibility.  Even if that were true, how do you excuse him for claiming in front of the whole world -- including the enemy -- that the Iraq War is “unwinnable” unless we do what he recommends?  Whether his position is correct or not, it was completely irresponsible for him to make his comments in a public forum.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.