Even though I was an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq and a proponent of the early Bush Doctrine, I was fully willing to accept honest and sincere arguments against the war - from both sides - on their perceived merits, even if I disagreed. Prior to 9/11, I too would have likely been against such an effort, as my opinions of Islam and Arab Muslims have never been very sympathetic to say the least. But that event changed my view, and I had faith that the excellent and experienced men running our country had a plan that contained more wisdom than my previous inclination to bomb first and not even bother asking questions later. I still feel that way, but their efforts became so hindered by the "anti-war" crowd both in and out of government that the strategic policy was slowly altered to a more realpolitik version necessarily doomed to failure, just as it was during the Cold War. Sure, Dubya was able to successfully execute "The Surge" in Iraq, but the Bush Doctrine was largely dead by that time - a product of the rise in influence of Condi Rice and subsequent decline of both Cheney & Rumsfeld. The political fall of those men was not only actively cheered by the Democrats, but actually pursued as a primary political strategy for years. So fervently did Democrats deride "NeoCons" (the anti-Jew slur of the decade), that they hounded two Protestants with charges of conspiracy, treason, et al., all in an effort to destroy the only fresh geopolitical strategy in over a decade.
Anyway, my point is not to recite the political history of the previous decade, but rather to address the issue of what constitutes sedition and or treason. At that time many of my friends & I argued that the behavior of the Democrats amounted to borderline sedition, if not treason. They, in fact, accused the president and others of being "worse than Hitler" for a multitude of actions and policies which where taken in the interest of national security. All of their accusations were false, and the Democrats knew this, but they were consistently made with vigor and a lack of veracity, or even any attempt to actually verify it (false attempts by mid-level career CIA bureaucrats aside). This was disputed by some in my circle, under the argument that dissent concerning America's involvement in war was not only an historical tradition, but a constitutional right, and calling dissenters unpatriotic was actually un-American. However, there is a limit at which dissent crosses the line from being the "highest form of patriotism" into being seditious libel, and that was indeed crossed by many, if not most, Democrats during the previous administration. This is a legally disputable point, and perhaps I could not have won that argument in the courts, however my argument was always based upon the intentions of those accused thereof, and not entirely the actions themselves. I will never accuse legitmate dissent against a war of being anywhere near treason, but if the intent of the accuser is not to dispute the war, but rather to topple the democratically elected government making it, that fits the technical definition of sedition. Or worse.
That said, I can forgive past transgressions if consistency of the transgressor's so-called "principle" is applied to future administrations, especially ones governed by the candidates of their choice. And here is where their argument collapses, and I mean utterly.
As that brings us to today. Barack Hussein Obama has not only continued every single national security policy of the previous administration - including military tribunals, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, financial snooping, indefinite detention (in Guantanamo Bay, no less...), and even the illegal-immoral-fabricated-wars-of-choice-with-no-exit-strategy-against-sovereign-nations-who-posed-no-immediate-threat-and-were-effectively-contained, in both Iraq & Afghanistan - but has also added a third "war of choice" in Libya with no clear national interest and without even seeking congressional approval or funding, or explaining a coherent and functional strategy to the American people. Thus, our current president is the same as the previous president in this regard. Or actually, worse.
But where are the detractors from the "anti-war movement"? Where are the self-appointed adolescents claiming to be "adults" in the Democrat Party who have only the soldiers' best interests at heart? Where is the media, with their incessant body count, and questioning of everything from body armor and hardened military equipment to tactics and strategy? Where are the almost weekly "anti-war" protests, complete with Obama-as-Hitler effigies and Jewish conspiracy sub-plots, in every major city? Where are the "principled" Democrat politicians rushing to challenge Obama in the 2012 primary for his apostasy of such revered and steadfast Democrat Party dogma?
The answer is simple: Democrats were never opposed to the wars - any of them - they only opposed who was running them. Their only goal was overthrowing the Republican majorities in Congress (which they achieved in 2006), and regaining the presidency (achieved in 2008). Now that their goals had been realized, there is no purpose to their previous "principles", which were never anything of the sort. Raw power is all that mattered, and they assumed that - to disastrous results, as we have witnessed. To borrow one of their own derogatory hallmarks against Dubya: "Mission Accomplished."
Now, one might say that this is simply politics, and largely you would be correct. However, first take a look at the textbook definition of seditious libel, taking note of one essential distinction:
Only “clear and convincing” evidence of “actual malice”—proof that defendants knew their statements to be false or that they had published in “reckless disregard” of their veracity—might sustain any political libel action, criminal or civil."
The Democrats knowlingly lied about George W. Bush (and others) in their accusations, without any proof whatsoever. That constitutes libel under the legal definition. And the fact that they lied to themselves also - and believed it - does not exonerate them.
This separates what went on then from mere political protest aimed at democratic change, and passes into possibly criminal seditious libel, with the intent of purposefully lying in order to undermine the government itself for the sole purpose of deluding people into granting them power. How is that provable? Simple: If all the accusations over the "War on Terror" were true, then why are the same people making those accusations now cheerleading the current president for the same actions (or worse), and calling their opponents "unpatriotic"?
