I certainly defended Gary's right to express his views and provided what I thought was a reasonable basis for them that I thought was likely given my knowledge of Gary as a generally moderate nonconfrontational person. I have never claimed otherwise. My basic position never changed other than that I probably was overly harsh in my initial response to Robert. I did try over and over to show those attacking Gary were making misleadings statements about both Gary and me and using tortured logic in the process. Your words above two replies ago do not match your words in the last post just as so many responses to my comments way back then bore little resemblence to the points I was trying to make(all succinctly restated above).

I'm sorry If I lumped you in with others on some inaccuracies and logic blunders, as there were too many posts to keep track of in memory. It is clear however that you and many others never bothered to challenge any inaccuracies on your side. A fair and honest debate was not the goal of the mob. No person here can honestly claim I have been against criticizing Bush if they have read even 10% of my posts yet you would find that hard to believe based on the opposing sides rants in the traitor debate.

Treason used to be simply disobeying the supreme leader - no more
Treason was once publicly disagreeing with the leader - no more
Treason is still aiding and abetting the enemy for your own gain with clear disregard for the impact on your own country and the lives of the people figting for it.

There never was anything wrong with criticizing policies both internal and external. There was never anything wrong with debating strategy and goals. There was something wrong with telling lies for political gain. I don't know for sure what Gary took issue with, but I'd bet money on something close to the latter.

Mark