In a discussion on my Joni Ernst narrative piece, the commenter “flintandsteel” used the word “seditious” in describing the Senator Tom Cotton’s open letter to Iran. I generally wave off this kind of hyperbole because, mostly, it’s used for effect. Liberals use such words, especially out of context, when there is serious butthurt about something Republicans do against the President.
However, I noticed a number of my liberal friends were also using these words on Facebook posts, tweets, and comments on various articles around the interwebs. It was bad enough that the word “treason” was used, which, under the Constitution, has a totally different meaning.
Treason and Sedition are two different criminal acts. Treason providing aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States during a time of war as defined under the Constitution. Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. The letter penned by Senator Cotton and signed by forty six other Senators does neither.
For treason, the question is, “Which enemy are we aiding and comforting that we are at war with?” We aren’t at war with Iran. We’re not really at war with anyone since Obama ended combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re technically not at war with ISIL, although we’re at war with “terrorism” since the President is using the previous Congressional authorization to launch drone attacks and to continue bombing operations in Northern Iraq and Syria. How the letter rises to the level of treason seems require a huge leap of extremely fragile logic, since the purpose of the letter was to illuminate and educate Iran on what hurdles its agreement faced with Obama. Hardly treasonous.
For sedition, the question is, “How is one branch of government inciting revolt?” Besides the obvious snark that liberals find anything Republicans do as revolting, there isn’t an act here because there is nothing to incite (except for inciting liberal anger their All Knowing and Wizard Oracle Obama might get his feelings hurt that he isn’t supposed to make these agreements all by himself.) Again, the letter only spells out to Iran the process involved for a foreign agreement.
It is true that the letter makes some strong characteristics that whatever Obama agrees to, still has to pass the Congress. Obama’s spokespeople have said a bad deal is better than no deal, but Republican’s insist you can get a better deal and that Iran shouldn’t assume that any deal will just be rubber stamped.
I admit, this is a tedious post quibbling over semantics of what people believe and say. The problem is, the left’s use of grave terms and hyperbole actually make them look more foolish when one scrutinizes the language being thrown about. The only reason for them to say these things is to support the overall narrative that protects Obama at all costs. If it means characterizing the Republicans as traitorous actors in seditious activity, so be it. Alinsky would be proud.
In fact, the left decided to use a former General, Retired Major General Paul D. Eaton, to give a characterization of Senator Cotton’s actions. In broad military terms, Gen Eaton classified his actions as “mutinous”:
“I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.
“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.”
How the Senate’s responsibility towards approval of an agreement “undermines” the work of diplomats trying to reach an agreement is beyond me. If the President wants a good deal, the Republican’s just gave him ammunition and support. The way General Eaton tells it, you just need to shut up and stay in line.
General Eaton was critical of the Bush administration, especially during his time in Iraq. Eaton was also a favorite of the Clinton administration and has very left leaning politics, including being an advisor for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Typical of leftist dogma when dealing with party apparatus, his statements speak to people needing to be kept in line, obviously a learned result of his military career.
What is even more audacious is the fact that Eaton believes that Senators not following the President, somehow breaks the chain of command, and therefore elevates his actions as illegal.
Senators being in the Chain of the Command of the President? General Eaton does not understand our form of government after all, and certainly, this is not how it works. Perhaps General Eaton has spent too much time being in the military and not realized that our government doesn’t work that way.