I don't know.. I think Bush fears the scream.

The Edvard Munch painting?

Was it treasonous?
By the legal definition? No.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
So legally, this is not treason by law.

Do you think Rove should be charged with treason?

Arcie, my boy, I didn't call it treason. Pay attention. I asked a question. However, in as much as Rove "outed" an undercover C.I.A. agent (who may have been working in the middle east at the time), thus giving the nation's "enemies" a chance to strike a blow against national seciurity in a time of war, it seems that one could conclude that he gave aid to our enemies. That would, in fact, fit the legal definition of treason.

But, and this is key, I didn't call it that. I merely asked how long it would take for this action to be condemned as treasonous if the perpetrator had been a highly visible Democrat.

Nate my boy, I never said that you called it treason. I just responded to your question. In fact, I ASKED you if you thought it was treason.
Why don't you pay attention?
I am not arguing with you.
I think the man should be fired, but I don't believe it was treason.
I don't think she was in the middle-east. Even if she was, you would have to prove intent on the part of Rove, which I don't think anyone has done.
I don't understand the apparent glee you show when someone on the "other" side is in the wrong. In my opinion, knee-jerk liberals are the same as knee-jerk conservatives.
Sad.

Are you fags having a political debate again?