Because treason is a crime and despicable, and the fact that he included it in his list means that he thinks there are traitors in the anti-war movement. So, who are they?
I think the answer was given in the OP
A tad* OTT IMO but horses for courses and all that 
So you see my point, then.
He wasn’t talking about merely turning a blind eye. Read what you’re quoting. He was talking about turning a blind eye and doing their damnedest to undermine support for the war. And how effective they are is irrelevant to whether or not he was lumping you in with these people. It may mean he’s wrong (I think he’s wrong, anyway), but it still doesn’t mean he’s calling you anything.
Hey, it may be picking nits to dissect out precisely what his words mean, but it’s better than flying off the handle about something they demonstrably do not mean.
What jsgoddess and yojimbo said. Also because, as I pointed out in post #40, the cowards and fools turned out the be the chickenhawks, and “defeatist” doesn’t actually mean anything beyond “nanny, nanny, boo-boo, yer a big doodyhead.” Under the circumstances, “quisling” is the only thing left to object to.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that there are thieves, tax cheats and deadbeat dads in the anti-war movement, too. Does that make you mad?
Take a logic class.
You’ve recognized that he doesn’t know shit about rhetoric, but I still think that’s what he was trying to do, however poorly:
-He quoted a bullet point that he later suggested was broad-brush.
-He added a broad-brush bullet point.
-He said, “That one’s even better than yours.” Obviously he means something sarcastic by this, since he clearly doesn’t think the first one is good.
-Later, he asks someone who objects to his post, “You object to my post but not Cervaise’s?” THat question again tries to establish equivalence between the two.
I don’t know aobut the rest of his posts. I’m just looking at his behavior here. It’s sort of like trying to figure out what squirrels are trying to accomplish through their behavior: approach him as a naturalist and not as a rhetorician, and it might make more sense.
Daniel
Instead of being indignant at the idea that someone is lumping you with quislings, defeatists etc., why not just fire back with a set of equally ludicrous and/or hackle-raising descriptors?
“Those who claim that the latest “revelations” justify the Administration’s pre-war hype and subsequent military action in Iraq, are a bunch of knaves, morons, and swine rooting in the wreckage of our national self-interest.”
I’m kind of bummed no one’s been called a “mustelid felcher” yet.
Uhh, did you have some examples of ludicrous ones?
Taking a leaf from his own debating techniques, I would just like to say to him - this.
I thought equivocating, pussyfooting chickenhawks did the trick.
I’ve protested against the war. I’ve written my congresscritter. I am doing my best to undermine support for this war. I haven’t been that effective. Which am I? A traitor, a fool, a defeatist or a quisling?
None of the above! LP wasn’t talking about me or vibronica or Miller or anybody on this particular messageboard. Noooooo. He was talking about all those ghostly people who aren’t here to call him on his stupidity.
I say again: I do not want an apology. I want him to stand by what he said so that we can talk, not stand behind semantics. And no, I won’t be polite.
I sort of liked that one. Simple, direct, gets to the point expeditiously. 
Oh, please, people. Cervaise peed in my cornflakes, so I peed in his. It’s that simple.
And I still haven’t gotten so much as a half-way decent limerick out of this thread yet.
How can I apply logic to a statement that didn’t use it in the beginning?
LP’s hypothesis was that Hussein wanted to wait for the sanctions to be lifted so that he could “ramp up production.” And that Hussein could “always count on cowards, quislings, fools and defeatists in the United States to turn a blind eye to the fact that he simply was NOT going to give up chemical weapons, no way, no how, and do their damnedest to undermine support for any kind of forceful action against him.”
So, LP thinks that those “cowards, quislings, fools and defeatists” would have been able to keep forceful action from taking place? THAT was Hussein’s master plan?
His defense of the war boils down to:
“We had to go to war despite protests because later we might not have been able to go to war because there might have been protests!”
Did you read post #94?
I’m flattered that you and all these others think I’m so important that a single, smartass, throwaway post of mine in “Great Debates” deserves all this exegesis, but really, I got bored with all this yammering quite some time ago. Do you really believe anything important is being accomplished here? Could anything I’ve ever said on this board (or anywhere) really matter that much to you? Don’t you have anything more gratifying to do with your all too brief time on this earth?
Christ, Mohammed and Moses! Get a sense of perspective!
From my perspective, you’re a boil that needs lanced.
When I drove home this evening there was a dead skunk in the middle of the road.
Stinkin’ to high heaven.
Bet it could still vote in Georgia.
ahem
The simian LonesomePolcat
Is quite fond of Iraqi combat
But his posts full of gall
Ain’t nothing at all
But fodder for us to laugh at
[sub]Okay, I got nothin’[/sub]