Bruce, I'm amazed that you have chosen to adopt a world-weary tone to being called a traitor by your president. I'm afraid that I cannot join you. I think it is completely wrong to respond to Bush's latest remarks that way.
A military deserter who lied a country into an unnecessary war and permanently damaged the name of the United States by officially sanctioning murder and torture has one helluva nerve telling his moral superiors they are unpatriotic.
That seems a far more measured and appropriate reaction.

I think using the term "dissent is not disloyalty" plays into Bush's message a little more than need be done at this point, as the term refers to minority groups criticizing majorities.  Yet, to the extent that we have information to date, it is Bush who is dissenting -- dissenting with a coalescing majority view that he and his team did some shady things in order to scare the country into Iraq.  This is a time for offense, not cautiously defending your right to demand answers to some very hard questions.  Bush should be defending, not those of us who think he is a liar.  

We are once again being pushed to equate dissent with disloyalty. That is dangerous to democracy and destructive to sound policy. We've been through this all too many times. Critics of the Cold War who came forward with serious substantive alternatives often got painted with "soft on communism" charges. Those Vietnam War opponents whose opposition genuinely stemmed from patriotism were harangued with the deeply un-American "America love it or leave it".  Since 9/11 so much of our policy debate has been stunted by today's version, "soft on terrorism". And now with Iraq when we need to be able to have a real debate --- our national interests require it, our values need it, our troops deserve it --- the President of the United States is determined to blindly insist that he and only he is right, and that there can be no legitimate questions asked or policy alternatives proposed other than those that agree with him.

Dissent is not being equated with disloyalty. Lying about the President, the actions of the soldiers, and your reasons for doing it, is being equated with disloyalty...because it is. Question the actions of the President all you want, argue against his policy decisions, call for the troops to come home every day, none of that is "disloyal." Falsely accuse the President of manipulating and fabricating intell in order to take over Iraqi oil reserves without reguard for the lives of soldiers is "Disloyal!" Falsely accuse the soldiers of "routinely torturing" prisoners is "Disloyal!" Senators and Representatives doing it for political gain is unbelievably "Disloyal!" You pretending not to realize they are doing it while you whine about name calling is pitifull.

only the smallest of minds elevates "loyalty" into the most important principle. the idea that, in a democratic society, anyone would insist upon totalitarian-like levels of "loyalty" is really quite apalling, although as one poster here has already demonstrated, there's quite a lot of small-mindedness floating around.

i think the republican party will find a way to separate itself from bush-ism over the next several years, but i don't think there is a single rabbit the shallow little man in the oval office can pull out of rove's hat to recover his standing with the american people, who have most assuredly internalized his dictum "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...won't get fooled again."

No one is accusing soldiers of routinely torturing prisoners  Soldiers do as they are told.  The military opposes torture.  That's why the civilian "leadership" is trying to foist it on the CIA.  It's Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who let the soldiers take the rap for their violations of the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention, and commonly accepted rules of due process. 

SFC Wallace,
Ok, let's cut to the chase. You think I'm disloyal? Report me. That's right, report me to the FBI or the CIA or both. I would take your official denunciation of my behavior as a great honor.
But if you are not prepared to act on your convictions and formally denounce me as a traitor, then I expect you never to dare to insult me and corrupt the discussion by implying that I am. 
Just so that you know exactly where I stand, so you may accurately report my disloyalty, if you so choose:

I do accuse the president of lying and deliberately manipulating intelligence. I do accuse some soliders, not all but some, as well as some other US officials, of routinely torturing prisoners, to the point of death on some occasions, with official authorization (explicit or tacit) from the highest levels of the Bush government. I believe politicians who make these charges will and should benefit poitically from making them.
Now go ahead, turn me in, SFC Wallace. Or permanently stop your nonsense about my disloyalty.

You may find more samples of my opinions at http:tristero.blogspot.com and at digbysblog.blogspot.com Regarding the latter address, I am responsible only for the posts signed Tristero. 
One final thing. I take all charges of treason that are couched as "the people who believe Bush was lying are traitors" as a personal insult and affront to my loyalty. It is an outrageous, cowardly, intolerable and inflammatory charge that you know is untrue.

Somehow I cannot see that the majority he's attacking, for questioning his judgment, honesty, and competency, will shrink due to his attacks.
Maybe fear of him worked before.   
But now?  By what reasoning will he win people to his side by calling them names?  No, it's likely to backfire!

First, since disloyalty is not a crime, it would make no sense for me to "turn you in" to any one, but hallow gestures like that make liberals feel good so consider yourself to have "stood up against the enemy."

Secondly, while I have been acting on my convictions by not calling you guys any of the names you call me, what I can't do is honestly call you a traitor. In order to be a traitor you would have to "switch" sides, since you have been against the administration and any action they propose or take, even before they existed, you may be disloyal, but you don't meet the definition of traitor.

Finally, I never charged anyone with treason, and never said "the people who believe Bush was lying are traitors" I'm not sure where you got that quote, since you can't refute what I said by honestly quoting or even paraphrasing me, your outrage is as fake as your claims. Don't worry though, say it a couple of more times and all here will believe I said it just like the lies you are spewing about the President and the soldiers.

The Chimp is using the same tired old tactic.  He is going to set the American people straight on what the truth is and he does it by talking to himself inside the bubble.  If he really wants to be heard, he should present himself to those who need to be convinced in a truly public forum, not some pre-selected group of dimwits and bootlickers.  There are two pieces of news here that don't get reported properly.  First, the president does not have the brain function to qualify as human let alone to lead the country or engage in a policy debate.  Second, his handlers are in disarray and the country is essentially rudderless. 

Tristero, support your claim that Bush is a deserter and lied to get us into a war in Iraq instead of multiplying your entities into a non-sequitur argument about nomenclature.

Stay focused and on point. What you wrote in a post below is close, but no cigar.

Desertion means to leave with no intention of returning. Bush did this thus failing to complete is term of service in the Air National Guard.

The intelligence given to support the case for war was not compelling for many people, including Scott Ritter and Hans Blix who were inspectors in Iraq before we invaded the country and this was from reports in the mainstream media, not the alternative sources I use now.

To throw a non-sequitur in here, if I was not fooled then, let alone now, what does this say about the legislators running our country. They are worthless invertebrates.  

Which is why Boy George brought in Uncle Dickie to really run things. The fact that Uncle Dickie is a bit of a loony didn't bother him, because he was too obtuse to understand whatever it is that Dr. Evil does down in his bunker. Does Cheney personally torture people down there? I'm only kidding, but I don't think I'd put it past him.

Is this dart throwing all that much fun to do? I have to tell the dart-throwers it is no fun to read.

The issue on the table is whether Bush's arguments in the speech are valid or not. And beyond that are those who disagree with him "deeply irresponsible."

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

I take issue with what Bush said and what he said about those who disagree.  Using the label of "irresponsible" Bush puts himself in a position where he does not have to answer the points raised by critics until the critics prove they are not irresponsible. The patriotism battle all over again.

Trudging over old ground, disagreeing with Administration policy, decisions, executive decisionmakers does nothing to undermine the military.  A recent interview w/ an exMarine who served between college and grad school (?name) said that those on the ground are unaware and do they care what is going on in Washington. Those on the ground, he said, fight for their unit.  

Again we have no evidence that the enemy wants to destroy our way of life. Everything I read says the they want to live the life they choose in their world.  US presence and influence is an obstacle to their ultimate objective for themselves so they will do anything to get the US out.

Lastly I don't want elected leaders to blindly support a leader or policy. I expect them to think for themselves.  Voters at every level have the final "control" over the elected officials. It sounds trite and simplistic but voters are the real "boss."

Did not the Trent Lott, Republican Senate majority leader say during the US intervention in Bosnia "I support the troops but not the President?"

Who is fooling whom here? The GOP is notorious for casting any opposition to their polical stances as anti-American.

George W(Waste, Fraud, and Abuse) Bush lied to the American peple and the entire world during the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. Now to have him criticize those who oppose him as disloyal to the nation shows his true meglomaniacal nature.

George W (Waste, Fraud, and Abuse) Bush is NOT the state. An attempt at making this sort of equivalency is the worst sin imaginable for an elected leader to make in a republic. Julius Caesar also made such an equivalence.

Considering what George W(Waste, Fraud, and Abuse) Bush has done over the last five years, it is clear that a paid agent provocateur in the service of our deadly enemies could not have done us more damage. 

History will not absolve his man. He will be mentioned along with Phillip II of Spain as the worst leader of a country at the zenith of its empire, and whos policies helped cause its rapid decline.

SFCWallace, I am losing patience with you.  Reading the definition of "troll," I am beginning to think you fit it.  It's not that I find your posts insulting.  Everyone has the right to their opinion.  But you are so predictable in attacking what you call "liberals," and you never back up your "opinions" with either facts or sound reasoning.  You simply say, "you're wrong," "that's a lie," "y'all think this way," etc.

Thus I can only conclude that you are posting just to have a little fun needling people you disagree with.  I have yet to see you engage in a real discourse with anyone, where there is a true interchange of ideas.  And you use the phrase "you liberals" way too much, as though everyone on this site but you are of one mind.  I find this unhelpful and, frankly, uninteresting -- and I'm going to strart rating your posts as such.

Tristero -
My dart throwing label was about the back and forth between posters here.

When we get to the content of what Bush said the analytical in me wants to fight out the policy content and the political actions.  I am no idealist but this Administration is without peer in making policy serve politics.  I will continue to try to win the policy and political arguments because I am both hard-headed and hopeful that there is a better way with better people.

But to your point about buying a bridge or hiring the trusted Chalabi, thanks but no thanks. I go bonkers with the Adminstration shenanigans - events, words, thinly or not so thinly veiled slurs.  It is nothing short of despicable that he/they think that by dancing around "traitors" they can do the damage without resorting to harsh labels.  As wimps masquerading as cowboys, they resort to trashing opponents when they can't win on logic or even just tough politics. 

I do enjoy your sarcasm about bridges, real estate and hearts. My honor to get those darts.

Marcel, exactly. 
If by any chance, you think I'm being defensive, rather than attacking, please let me know what you believe is an appropriate response. I do not believe it is right, either morally or strategically, to ignore a charge of treason, even if it's euphemized as "disloyalty." 

Bad politics in the abstract sense, but not necessarily bad if you take "bad" politics to mean ineffective or counterproductive.  The base loves nothing so much as to hear things phrased in terms of loyalty vs. disloyalty.  This gives the propaganda machine exactly what it needs to get its groove back after some recent bewilderment: a narrative with which to demonize Democrats.

Kirkaracha,

great quote; can you tell me the source?

Thanks,

Bruce Jentleson