Perhaps you think this is obvious. But, on the off chance that some of you are not yet attuned to it, be aware: why do you suppose the phrase "giving aid and comfort to our enemies", or just "giving comfort to our enemies", comes up so often? After all, talking of "providing comfort" to someone is an old-fashioned sort of phrase. A couple of random examples:
Bush in an address last January to veterans:
We also have an opportunity this year to show the Iraqi people what responsible debate in a democracy looks like. In a free society, there is only one check on political speech _ and that's the judgment of the people. So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy _ not comfort to our adversaries.
Republican Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, attacking anti-war comments made by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle:
[Daschle's] divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country.
So, why the recurring use of the phrase "giving comfort to our enemies"? Well, as it turns out, that language is used in the US constitution to define the federal crime of treason:
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.
Choosing to use the phrase "aid and comfort" when attacking your opponents is something like a URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics]dog whistle: it is a way of accusing them of treason without using the words "traitor" or "treasonous". People who are suitably attuned will understand that you are choosing to use the language of treason.
Above, Bush is making the veiled suggestion that at least some of those who criticize him domestically are traitors to their country. Tom Davis is making the still veiled, but more specific, charge that Tom Daschle is a traitor. Bush and Davis (presumably) chose their language carefully to suggest a charge that they were not willing to make overtly.
This is a pretty weasely use of language, if you ask me. Be on the lookout for it.dog whistle
Bush in an address last January to veterans:
We also have an opportunity this year to show the Iraqi people what responsible debate in a democracy looks like. In a free society, there is only one check on political speech _ and that's the judgment of the people. So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy _ not comfort to our adversaries.
Republican Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, attacking anti-war comments made by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle:
[Daschle's] divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country.
So, why the recurring use of the phrase "giving comfort to our enemies"? Well, as it turns out, that language is used in the US constitution to define the federal crime of treason:
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.
Choosing to use the phrase "aid and comfort" when attacking your opponents is something like a URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics]dog whistle: it is a way of accusing them of treason without using the words "traitor" or "treasonous". People who are suitably attuned will understand that you are choosing to use the language of treason.
Above, Bush is making the veiled suggestion that at least some of those who criticize him domestically are traitors to their country. Tom Davis is making the still veiled, but more specific, charge that Tom Daschle is a traitor. Bush and Davis (presumably) chose their language carefully to suggest a charge that they were not willing to make overtly.
This is a pretty weasely use of language, if you ask me. Be on the lookout for it.dog whistle