Glenn Greenwald on his debate with Frank Gaffney:
Unlike many of these types of debates, I think this one is really worth listening to. Tough-guy warmongers love to run around spewing the language of Treason against political opponents, or beating their chests and issuing calls for vastly escalated slaughter in the form of sloganeering such as "the U.S. needs to start doing what needs to be done in the Middle East." But when challenged about these views or called upon to say explicitly what they mean, they very frequently lack the courage of their convictions, fearfully running away from the clear meaning of what they said. From the start, because he was aggressively challenged (including by Colmes), that is what Gaffney did. (1)
Link to the debate MP3 files
Gaffney uses the "good faith" argument for the Bush administration's motives. Bush is above the fray. Feith was simply double checking the CIA's work.
Based on what? Nothing. Nothing factual or reality based anyway.
Gaffney uses the tried and true frame...not supporting Bush=not supporting soldiers in harms way. Again, one must ask why Bush's motives are not subject to examination.
Unlike Gaffney, I don't believe that being a cheerleader for corrupt officials is a proper way to support the soldiers.