"...comfort to our enemies..."

While the most recent "terror attack" has succeeded, through failure, to cost us billions in additional security (an example of super-empowerment as John Robb of Global Guerrillas calls it), it has also, thanks to the likes of Liz and Dick Cheney, succeeded in spreading terror.

But is it treason? Well, as treason is, by constitutional definition, giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, then the exaggerated news coverage and commentary is halfway there.

From the NY Times: “We give comfort to our enemies,” said Charles E. Allen, a 40-year C.I.A. veteran who served as the top intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security from 2007 to early last year. Exaggerated news coverage and commentary, he said, “creates an atmosphere of tension and fear, and to me that’s exactly the wrong way to go.”

So all you "conservatives" (too ashamed to call themselves Republicans anymore?) out there hyping up this threat should realize you're almost there on the treason scale. The real threat is fear itself, and you're trying to create more of it.

Guess that makes Dick and Liz (et al) terrorists, too.

And, in the case of the former Vice President, who played a large part in ignoring threats before 9-11, and in the strategy that let Bin Laden get away from Tora Bora, it certainly looks like he was aiding the terrorists.

So, there's your aid and comfort, Dick, you multi-tentacled, fear-mongering, terror loving traitor.

in reference to:

"“We give comfort to our enemies,” said Charles E. Allen, a 40-year C.I.A. veteran who served as the top intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security from 2007 to early last year. Exaggerated news coverage and commentary, he said, “creates an atmosphere of tension and fear, and to me that’s exactly the wrong way to go.”"
- News Analysis - Terrorist Plots in U.S. in 2009 Are Called Amateurish and Unconnected - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)