Jordan blames the terrorists; the senior senator from Massachusetts blames the war.
Kennedy would be happy for us to come crawling home with our tail between our legs if it means bringing down his political enemies.
We could debate whether that means “losing”.
I’m curious how far he and his brethren have to go before it constitutes “aid and comfort” to our enemies?
Nice way to stifle free debate and a free society.
Effectively, you’re saying that anyone who disagrees with and criticizes the war effort (of which there’s a LONG history in this country going on through all wars) is potentially committing treason.
And, frankly, that’s more injurious to the nation than any Senator criticizing the administration.
That’s not what I’m saying. Actually I asked the question.
Let me put it another way … suppose that 99.8% of one’s motive is to end a war that one was against in the first place. But the .2% bonus is that political enemies get defeated. And let’s also suppose that one’s “free debate” has admittedly crossed the line from difference of opinion to spin and outright misrepresentation or lies if you wish. Then what?
You argue for what’s right. If that happens to defeat your enemies, fine. If you happen to be on the same side, fine. Are you saying that Kennedy cannot take any position that would hurt Bush? Does Bush have the same constraint?
Or what you believe is right. I can respect someone who stands up for what they truly believe even if I disagree with them. I’ll respect them more if they can articulate why they believe it and if they understand and demonstrate the need to listen to the opposition and educate themselves on the issues.
The problem with many of our elected officials is that they become professional politicians and can no longer do either. I don’t like Bush because he’s a liar and a hypocryte. I feel the same way about Michael Moore. If our elected officials have been in office so long that they have lost their courage and conviction to the political game it’s time to give someone else a shot.
Although a bit inarticulate,[sup]*[/sup] the OP may be asking a slightly nuanced question. It seems as if he (?) is asking something a bit more than “is talking out against the war an immoral act?”
Consider:
The OP is setting a condition to the hypothetical, that one’s “free debate” has crossed a line. This is different from asking did the Senator’s comment cross the line. That’s fodder for another debate. Wouldn’t arguing about the given premises of a hypothetical be a disservice to a debate? That is, debating the premises, while perhaps eliciting worthwhile comments on that subject, inhibits the addressing of the original question.
Given that the OP states that speech has “crossed a line,” that is that a Senator (as opposed to the Senator) has crafted outright fabrications in order to deride a political opponent, it seems that the question of ‘what then’ moves to the fore.
Unfortunately for clarity, it remains difficult to tease out just what the OP is asking. This is because there seems to be other areas in question. The OP also (appears) to state that most of the motivation for making such line-crossing statements is ‘good’ (i.e. one really believes those statements), but a small portion of the motivation is ‘bad’ in that it stems from a desire to hurt your political enemies.
Those who have read Kant within the past ten years will forgive me if I get this wrong, but isn’t this aspect of the OP asking something similar to the question of whether or not moral credit should be given to an act that is done in accordance with duty, rather than from duty? Clearly there is a difference between the standards for moral credit and moral approbation, but there are parallels.
Lastly, by making reference to government officers, the waters may be a bit muddier, in that the question of whether or not the statements and acts of politicians should be held to a higher standard than ordinary people.
So:
There are two avenues of action. One, that candidate should not be returned to office. Thats how it should work in theory. But that assumes a fully informed electorate, and one that has reasonable choices. Pragmatically speaking, if the choice is either the lying politician who generally supports your beliefs or one that hold’s beliefs that are antithetical to your views, it turns into a different moral question, one that focuses on the voter.
I daresay the second is impeachment. If, as the OP states, the statements and actions were wholly founded on intentional, knowing lies, than I suggest that such actions would be an impeachable offense. Putting aside the specifics of the rules of various houses and other bodies of government, and assuming that the fabrications could be provable and demonstrably false (a high burden, but such standards are again fodder for another debate) then in my opinion, an electoral body would within their rights to remove that person from said body.
Given that the OP states that the statements ‘crossed a line’ into lies, etc, I don’t think this question can be addressed without either taking it as a completely separate question (i.e. isolating it from the rest of the hypothetical) or accepting a means justifies the ends outlook. If not, then the motivation behind such statements strikes me as irrelevant, because a wrong act (i.e. lying) is a wrong act regardless of the motivation.
That said, I suggest that the motivation is irrelevant nonetheless. First, only in the extreme world of the theoretical is it possible to apply any type of numerical or spatial breakdown to such motives. Even if there is no honest belief in the position that a politician takes (for example, Senator Kennedy is a closet Republican) he still has a duty to represent the beliefs and outlook of his constituents. If in doing so he is fulfilling the desires and wishes of the electorate, who put him in office and will ostensibly reelect him based on his actions, than he is fulfilling the obligations of his office. This, of course, is debatable depending on one’s views of the proper roles of politicians.
Second, it somewhat draws on the pragmatic impossibility to identify an act that stems solely from duty. I don’t think it’s possible, given the basic situation as described in the OP, to hold a political opinion that sharply differs from one’s opponent, to honestly promote that agenda, without simultaneously harming (in the political sense) one’s opponent. Given the nature of politics and the inherent desire to promote other agendas (in my opinion) it is not a moral wrong to harbor and relish such motivations in the course of advancing an agenda.
I don’t think so. Though their statements and actions have a greater affect than posters on a message board, and impeachment is not an option in the normal course of life, the populace still has the power to ignore or discount statements they find out are misleading.
Right and left wing talk show hosts, street corner speakers, and the guy at the bar all have their core audiences who listen regardless of the statements, but I daresay that the majority of citizens listen and react to future statements by them by allowing more or less credence to such opinions. Politician’s speech is subject to much more scrutiny and fact checking, but should not be subject to a higher degree of control.
I hope this made sense, and I hope What the … !!! will forgive me if I took the OP in unwarranted directions.
Rhythm
[sup]Not that I could do better, so please don’t take this as a snarkish quip[/sup]
Traditionally, the “aid and comfort” part of the treason statute has meant material aid and comfort…sheltering the enemies of the US, feeding them, supplying them with weapons or goods. Merely verbally supporting them or advocating their victory, although it may be morally reprehensible, wouldn’t be grounds for a treason conviction. The person doing that might be arrested for lesser offenses, though, like seditious speech, although we don’t currently have a law against sedition, the last such law being repealed in 1921.
So, Senator Kennedy is safe. 
Quite a few people, including me, consider the most powerful and dangerous enemy of America to be Bush. We can end our problems in Iraq by leaving at any time; if the OP is saying what I think ( it’s kind of vague ), Kennedy is simply going for a double win. We leave, Bush is hurt, America is better off twice over. No enemies being aided here.
When John McCain criticized the way Clinton was running the war in Kosovo, do you believe that McCain was giving “aid and comfort” to our enemies?
well, that’s different though. Kosovo didn’t blow up the world trade center.
Nor did Iraq.
You and your damnable facts.
A full six minutes between the posting of utter Bushwah and refutation? Six minutes!? You guys are getting flabby! Laps around the track for everyone!
We arn’t fighting “Iraq” anymore. If we pull out now, we abdicate to those who’s ilk are the ones who do things like 9/11, Bali, Kenya, London Subway, Nairobi, Jordan, etc. To a few that would be hunky dory as long as Bush is hurt. I find that pathetic.
Besides, that would be Serbia, not Kosovo.
Really ? So the Iraqis don’t care that we have conquered their country, abused them, killed them, are building permanent bases, and have completely screwed up the country ? It’s all foreigners ? You have any evidence of that ?
I think he just means we’re not fighting the Iraqi government anymore. We’re fighting extremists in Iraq.
So, according to you, our invasion of a nation that was not a credible threat to us has put it at serious risk for being dominated by terrorists who definitely are a threat to us (and to everybody else). Not to mention that it’s gotten tens of thousands of non-threatening Iraqis killed in the process.
Next to that claim, Ted Kennedy’s blaming the war as a partial cause of the Jordan bombings (which caused fewer than 100 deaths) sounds positively trivial.
Forty five percent support isn’t all that extreme.