There's your Democratic platform for '06:

We'll never leave the Geneva Convention!

and then he did a few lines of peruvian flake and drove his car into a light pole. o'reilly tore this goof a new one, when he made the mistake of going on the show. completely clueless. i would love for some reporter to ask these types of people "are you a better person than the soldiers who liberated iraq ?".

I watched that on C-Span.

At the end, the audience of MSM media types gave him a smattering of polite applause. I'll just bet that the audience was warned before taping that there were to be no cheers, whistles, and wild applause at the end.

He was definitely preaching to the choir.

Too bad about Dreyfuss. I enjoyed "The Two Georges," which he co-authored with Harry Turtledove. The plot wasn't riveting, but the setting was a lot of fun. In the book, "The Two Georges" was a famous painting depicting George Washington making a peace accord with George III (not a spoiler). America remained a British colony, and the book takes place in the 1970's, where law is enforced by the RAMP (Royal American Mounted Police), TV's are black-and-white high-ticket items that you can only find in bars and other venues looking to draw customers, and cars are steam-powered.

Wait... this post shows Dreyfuss in a dim light, and yet... America remaining British, almost no TV, and few cars... ah, that explains it, OJ didn't post this one!

Live in the hothouse of the film colony long enough, and talk only to people who think the same way you do, and your ideas might even be a little too out there even for the audience at the National Press Club. Most of them may not like Bush or the GOP, but their day-to-day jobs do require keeping at least one foot in the real world of they'll come off looking like bitter, paranoid lunatics (for an example of not doing that, see David Gregory's dust up in the White House press room earlier this week).

You know, whenever the torture debate comes up, it inevitably boils down to making people stand up for a really long time or something. Which are essentially immunity challenges on Survivor. We're not talking about gouging people's eyes out.

This guy in general is just seriously grumpy and foul mooded. I think he's somewhat bitter about his current career because he certainly doesn't enjoy any of it. He'll just take work for the money and be a grump doing it.

Guys, last time I checked Americans were free to criticize the president (even calling for his impeachment) without it being considered treason. Even if said person is a politically naive nitwit and hopelessly biased liberal.

Did someone change the constitution when I wasn't looking, of is this the way you all wish America really was?

Who would ever accuse Dreyfuss of being a traitor? The human race understands his heroism when he slayed the big shark, thereby saving the world.

daniel:

Dreyfuss is literally advocating treason.

+: The point of the post was that it was stupendously idiotic for Dreyfus to think that he was anywhere near treason. Notice that I didn't entitle it J'accuse.

OJ: How is this treasonous?

David:

Treason: "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance"

bplus: Richard Dreyfus is free to criticize the government. Orrin Judd and his commenters are free to criticize Richard Dreyfus. When Orrin Judd and his commenters criticize Richard Dreyfus, that is not "censorship," "crushing of dissent," or anything like that. Richard Dreyfus is not immune from criticism because he's a "dissenter."

Mike:

Don't blame me--it was that witchburner Cohen.

OJ, how is criticizing president Bush an attempt to overthrow the government?

I mean its a good thing president Clinton didn't subscribe to your definition of "treason".

You and your buddies would all be in concentration camps.

Mike, sure go ahead and critcize Dreyfuss. Personally, I think he's a nitwit. Just don't call him a traitor.

Criticizing alone wouldn't be treasonous. Mr. Dreyfus says he's not willing to accept this government as legitimate.

"We must blindly follow our leaders without question if we ever hope to be free." - Frank Burns (MASH)

Frank did turn out to be righter than Hawkeye about the United Nations. And he wasn't the one exposing covert CIA agents like Col. Flagg...

He believes that the Bush administration (not the government - there is a difference) is illegitimate because he believes voter fraud occured in Florida to give Bush vicotry of Gore and in Ohio to give Bush victory over Kerry.

Like I said, he's a nitwit.

However, nitwits and their opinions are protected by the constitution.

bplus: Yes, he's a nitwt. We're calling him a nitwit. I think we're all in agreement here.

C'mon everybody; virtual group hug!

OJ: I wasn't blaming you, I was sticking up for you.

does any sane person doubt that dreyfus (oh the irony in that name, on this dung beetle) and his despicable ilk wouldn't sell out America at the drop of a pin? of course he would; it's only his innate cowardice that keeps him/them from doing so.

bplus, Shouldn't this quote read, "We must blindly follow our leaders without question if we ever hope to be at liberty"?

Dreyfuss needn't worry that he'll be called a traitor, his silly speech has already been forgotten and he won't even be called for dinner.

Dreyfuss is saying that the president should be impeached because of torture, "leaving the Geneva Convention" (whatever that means), and the expansion of wiretapping. It's not even close to treasonous; it's stuck at stupid.

I'm surprised, though, that no one has commented on treason being referred to as a "more serious motive."

Stupid and treasonous aren't mutually exclusive, though treason can be smart.

Sure, but Dreyfuss isn't being treasonous, he's just being stupid.

He's literally being treasonous, it's just too stupid to matter. The Communists mattered.

Just another example of why these poeple are paid to be anyone but themselves.

Not that it matters, but isn't impeachment part of the ordinary process of government? (By "ordinary" I mean "something that's provided for in the process", even if it doesn't happen very often.) I'm not sure I understand how invoking a little-used operation of government constitutes overthrowing the government. Oh, and Dreyfuss is a nitwit, of course.

joe:

No, Impeachment is specifically reserved for certain extraordinary legal circumstances--High Crimes & Misdemeanors.

Dreyfuss proposes using it because he has a simple political disagreement with the elected government.

Dreyfuss proposes using it because he has a simple political disagreement with the elected government.

And that differs from the hysterical anit-Clintonites and their impeachment proceedings how exactly?

How exactly is Dreyfus committing treason?

Clinton lied under oath. It was over something stupid, but he lied under oath.

Okay, let's try again. How does removing one person from the office of President, and replacing him in that office with his own running mate, constitute overthrowing the government? With this running mate in particular. Oh, and Dreyfuss: still an idiot.

Art III, Sect. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

We've got plenty of witnesses.