It’s usually wrong to call the President of the United States a traitor. Especially in a time of war.
Hello, Dick Cheney. Yes, we grasp it. Aid and comfort, though, is a well-understood concept:
“One of their top people will be given the opportunity — courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration — to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to,” he said. “I think it’s likely to give encouragement — aid and comfort — to the enemy.”
Cheney is not only making a reasonable argument; I happen to think he is correct. It will help our enemies, or so I think. But.
“Aid and comfort” has a very specific historical root. Constitutionally, this is treason.
No sane person would suggest that Barack Obama is committing treason. So why the loaded language?
It’s wrong. Deeply, direly, wrong.
Cheney could have phrased it differently. “Doing so provides the enemy with disturbing advantages”. That would be a respectable opinion (and one with which I agree). Instead he used constitutional language to suggest that Barack Obama is a traitor.
Indeed, only Al Gore manages to capture the sweepstakes in “nasty smears by an ex-VP of a sitting President in a time of war”.
Try Al Gore’s directly accusing George W. Bush of treason. This was deeply wrong.
Strangely, few people back in the day complained about Al Gore’s grotesque assertions re: George W. Bush. A lot of people are complaining, today, about Dick Cheney’s slimey assertions about Barack Obama. Interesting.
Both men are wrong. Suggesting that Dick Cheney’s abuse is somehow unprecedented is, however, ludicrously ahistorical.
Barack Obama is my President, and yours, if you are an American. If not, well, you’re stuck with him!