Insider fires a broadside at Rumsfeld's office

There is almost nothing reasoned in her criticisms of Rumsfeld, and her effectively calling her former superiors criminals based on her imaginary conspiracy theories is seditious in time of war.

There are people for whom love of country comes to pass seamlessly over into megalomania, which is not a new phenomenon:

Thucydides reports that the Athenian ambassador to the Spartans asked Alcabiades how he could turn traitor and help the Spartans against his own city.

He replied, "I love her so much I would have her back by any means."

There is almost nothing reasoned in her criticisms of Rumsfeld, and her effectively calling her former superiors criminals based on her imaginary conspiracy theories is seditious in time of war.

There are people for whom love of country comes to pass seamlessly over into megalomania, which is not a new phenomenon:

Thucydides reports that the Athenian ambassador to the Spartans asked Alcabiades how he could turn traitor and help the Spartans against his own city.

He replied, "I love her so much I would have her back by any means."

And her "preferences" are relevant to the topic of this thread, how?

This kind of reminds me of those Retards (not a PC term, I know, but in keeping with the spirit) that bring up totally irrelevant issues in the midst of a conversation.

You know the types. You could be discussing the weather in Jamacia, and these idiots will find a way to connect it to Abortion.

If people want to talk about Gay Priests (Gee, there's a Topic that's NEVER discussed here on FR) Does it really have to be smack dab in the middle of another, totally unrelated topic?

There is almost nothing reasoned in her criticisms of Rumsfeld, and her effectively calling her former superiors criminals based on her imaginary conspiracy theories is seditious in time of war.

Except the fact that the criticisms are coming from other conservative pundits as well. Granted they don't shout as loud as Ann 'The Screech' Coulter or Fox 'PNAC' News but their arguments coming from the true conservatives are more sound and more Constitutionally based than ghost WMDs that are here, then here, then here.....

Secondly she is retired, she is not working for the government, so what she says or doesn't say is not seditious. And from the first paragraph in the condemning article one can see where she is coming from

After eight years of Bill Clinton, many military officers breathed a sigh of relief when George W. Bush was named president. I was in that plurality. At one time, I would have believed the administration's accusations of anti-Americanism against anyone who questioned the integrity and good faith of President Bush, Vice President Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

I was much in that same boat, although not from the military perspective. I was fired up when Bush won in 2000, saw a return to Constitutional values (fiscal and moral), and really had hope again. And after three years, I can't say that anymore. Does that make me a 'commie', a 'rat', a 'fill in the blank'? Because I've been called about everything from the pro-war crowd and I could care less. I know what I feel, I know this 'all war all the time' could come back and bite this nation even worse than 9/11. The terrorist organization that started 9/11 was taken care of in Afghanistan. The state supporting Al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia) was passed over to get rid of old issues, as brought up by the PNAC as early as 1997. Notably the members of PNAC at that time look like a roll call for the inner workings of the Bush defense team but no one wants to hear that now do they?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.