I really love when they get all legalistic on why they are now refusing to go to Iraq, especially officers. There is a certain scent of chicken shit in the air when they speak.
This whole interview is just pathetic. I'm amazed that he managed to become an officer before figuring out that he didn't want to play. Not to mention that he was so extremely short sighted as to realize once your in the military you don't get a choice on where you go. Decisions as to the legality of a conflict aren't up to you.
I hope they throw the book at this ass.
First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment toAnd
Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.
Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.
He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.
Watada's court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas.
KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?Oh there it is. The administration lying again. Funny thing, I still have yet to see any evidence that the Administration ever said there was anything like an imminent threat. There were definitely lots of politicians saying there was a clear and present danger, but not the President.
EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.
This whole interview is just pathetic. I'm amazed that he managed to become an officer before figuring out that he didn't want to play. Not to mention that he was so extremely short sighted as to realize once your in the military you don't get a choice on where you go. Decisions as to the legality of a conflict aren't up to you.
I hope they throw the book at this ass.
1 comment:
The President NEVER said the threat was imminent, although his critics have often accused him of it. I saw that original State of the Union speech, and I've seen video replays of the section in question, AND the written transcript. What he said was "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
You can go read the transcript for yourself at the whitehouse website. My question is... are his critics being disengenuous when they accuse him of saying Iraq was an imminent threat? Or are they so obtuse they didn't get the point even though he spelled it out for them? Neither answer gives one a lot of confidence in the critics.
Post a Comment