I’d feel a bit more sorry if I didn’t think he was a traitor to his country.
Remember, never speak ill of the dead or they may come back to out your spying ass.
Just curious: Daniel Ellsberg: traitor or hero?
“Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy eternal seething cauldron of molten feces.”
Both?
Won’t somebody please think of the cauldron!?!!
To answer Bricker: Nice one, attempted hi-jack on the second post, you don’t waste much time!
How does a man honor his country by aiding it in a dishonorable cause?
Did Daniel Ellsberg die today? Just curious.
You’re comparing the Pentagon Papers to the petty, partisan, purely vindictive outing of a CIA agent?
Yet another chapter in** Bricker**'s autobiography, “Using False Equivalence”. :rolleyes: One might think you’d know by now that you can’t get away with that shit here, even for a moment, but you keep on trying, don’t you?
Novak leaked a CIA agent’s name, and endangered her life, to try to *support *a lie on which a war was based. Ellsberg leaked classified paperwork, at a personal risk to no one, to reveal a lie on which a war was based.
But of course you knew that, right? :rolleyes:
Not only her life, but the lives of everyone connected with her espionage network. Which network had as its mission (at least in part) getting information on WMD. And which was rendered useless upon her outing.
Well, the difference would be thatthe leak of the Pentagon Papers probably hurt the US more.
Why do you believe this to be the case?
How so? It embarrassed the hell out of Nixon, but he wasn’t “the US”. It helped bring about the end of a horribly wasteful and useless war; how did that hurt the US? How was the leak not a patriotic act?
It’s not a hijack. I’m attempting to discover how she figures Novak is a traitor to his country. If Ellsberg is ALSO a traitor, then I have little to challenge on her Novak pronouncement. If Novak is a traitor but Ellsberg isn’t, then it’s clear she’s using a subjective definition of “traitor” and I’m willing to bet her definition involves working against politics she believes in. That’s fair game to challenge her on, but as I say, it may not be the case.
So I asked the question.
Bricker - I don’t like to bait you. I have too much respect for you, and besides, you’d probably pwn my ass.
So I’ll ask straightforwardly - do you view Bob Novak as a traitor or hero, or what?
Do you view Daniel Ellsberg as a traitor or hero, or what?
Which of the two men do you think deserves more praise, or criticism?
What part of “lie” or “war” is fucking subjective?
You asked a stupid question. What was gained exactly by Novak’s actions? What horrible doings were uncovered? What aside from a partisan attack was it exactly?
No, it wasn’t stupid at all. It was a carefully crafted baiting question. One of his specialties.
It hurt the reputation of the US abroad by revealing our actions in Laos and Cambodia. It also helped to turn public opinion against the war, which led to the withdrawal from South Vietnam and its surrender to the Communists.