Tuesday, April 25, 2006


"Treason doth never prosper. What is the reason? For if treason doth prosper, none dare call it treason." - Sir Julian Hurrington

On occasion I have been taken to task for plain speaking. There is a hesitancy in these times to call something by its plain name for fear that such usage may offend or outrage others. This is part and parcel of the Gramscian war, of course, and I am unwilling to concede ground on the enemies' terms.

I will not claim that McCarthy should be charged with treason because I am not using the word in the strictly legal sense but in the sense in which it is commonly understood. Cal Thomas has a good column today in which he gives his justification for labeling McCarthy a traitor. I agree with his reasoning and see no reason why she should not be labeled as such. An oathbreaker within the CIA deserves no better. She has betrayed both her oath and the country which elevated her to a position of trust. Traitor is the proper appellation for those who engage in such conduct.

Rush Limbaugh's monologue yesterday referred to the Democratic Party as a "Culture of Treason" and I cannot fault his reasoning for arriving at that conclusion either. Too many Clinton appointees and too many Kerry advisors from within the intelligence community have broken their oaths for the label to be easily discarded. Too many Democratic Senators and Congressmen have subverted the war effort for which they voted. Their subversion and sedition has cost American lives and I will not sit silent while they continue to work against victory in a battle which we did not start but must surely finish.

I have been the subject of reproach at times (as I mentioned) for plain speaking. The argument advanced is that by calling something by its earned name I may give offense to the extent that the supporters of whatever I name will not be "won over" to "my" side. In reply I can only say that I do not regard "winning over" supporters of sedition and treachery to be an admirable aim. I would ask what the value of a traitor gained as an ally might be?

UPDATE:Wretchard has some interesting speculation concerning potential Russian involvement.

Hot Air does an outstanding job on the first 48 hours of the story - with updates through today.

and Gatewaypundit has a rundown of McCarthy's career - both in the CIA and as a media source.

I think Vnjagvet has called this correctly. Even if no indictments come from this it is going to be terribly damaging to the Democrats who chose loyalty to party over loyalty to country.



JB said...

Well said.

Knucklehead said...

I'm in. Traitor it is. Can we shoot her now?

ex-democrat said...

Rick: "I would ask what the value of a traitor gained as an ally might be?" is another acutely perceptive insight.
the arguments embraced here must be cleanly won rather than fudged, or else they will come again in a different guise.

Knucklehead said...

"I would ask what the value of a traitor gained as an ally might be?"

A question that should be asked of John Kerry's campaign team, doncha think? No doubt Katie Couric will get on it ASAP.

Fresh Air said...

Damn shame the Alien & Sedition Acts were repealed.

terrye said...

I don't have a problem with you calling things as you see them, Rick.

But as for plain speaking I will not have anything to do with Michelle Malkin's Hot Air. Nothing. She has spent as much time bashing Bush as any Democrat so I will not help her do what she does best, promote herself.

Knucklehead said...

Wretchard speculates about whether the op within the intelligence community is being run by the remnants of the Soviet penetration there. I would find that hard to believe. Not because I don't think they penetrated the CIA but just because it was so long ago that the Soviets collapsed. We're closing in on 20 years since then. That's an awful lot staying put and aging out.

Given the eager cooperation of the MSM I peg it for a purely Dem party, domestic run op. Clintonistas, almost certainly.

Alan said...

IMO, you diminish its meaning by attaching "gate" ... How many "gates" are there now? Filegate, Chinagate, Rathergate,...etc.

Same with "Culture of...." Rush, and his brother, and every other friggin' pundit blew it during the Shiavo BS by labeling anyone who disagreed with them as a member of the "culture of death."

People should have started calling it sedition when Ted Kennedy was shaking his head "No!" when the President was quoting the Kay Report during the State of the Union.

terrye said...

I think the thing that pisses me off the most is that the Democrats were running the damn government for eight years before Bush ever even left Texas. If it was their contention that Saddam was a harmless little dictator in his desert kingdom or whatever they should have estabished that fact back then rather than supporting the Iraqi Liberation Act. Think of the trouble it would have saved everyone.

Rick Ballard said...


I wasn't referring to any fellow contributors. I frequent some low places where I suffer abuse at others hands.

Mostly after I whack 'em a few times first, though.

Bsigniter - OK - I'll try it your way.

terrye said...


I know what you mean.