A Soldier's Perspective

Patriot Military Expert Weighs in on Watada

The judge in the 1LT Wetarded cowardice case will not allow defense attorneys to argue the legality of the Iraq War.

"The courts do not adjudicate political questions," Long-time military attorney, Earle Partington explained. "We have a long history of that. They tried the same thing in Vietnam. I don't know how many soldiers tried it. They lost every single case. It's not going to be any different now."

Partington said he served a year and a half in Vietnam with the U.S. Army despite his own reservations about the war.

"I was opposed to the Vietnam War even when I was there, but I realized that I didn't want to jeopardize my future," he said. "Can you imagine what would happen to our military if people could decide the legality of where they're being sent? I mean, it would be chaos."

I don't doubt there are many Soldiers today who aren't happy about going to Iraq and probably even doubt the legitimacy of it. But, that's not their decision to make. They made their decision about following the orders of the President of the United States when they voluntarily joined the military. Since the President did not order the military to go into Iraq and kill every civilian, or even just a few innocent civilians, in Iraq the order is legal and must be followed. The problem that many Wetarded supporters have is that they are stuck on the belief that the war is illegal. About 73% of the combined House and Senate voted FOR military action in Iraq. That made it legal.

People claim that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. He didn't lie, he was wrong (that is, if your ignore the chemical weapons we DID find). Not only was Bush wrong about Iraq's WMDs, but John Kerry was wrong, Bill Clinton was wrong, and the majority of the world leaders were wrong. As a matter of public record, John Kerry himself said on 9 October 2002, "It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution." For the record, we didn't find those missiles, even though they were chemical or biological in nature. They were still in violation. John Kerry is one of biggest vocal Bush opponents and pusher of the "Bush Lied" tagline and yet, just two months before we invaded on Iraq, he said "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…"

The new Speaker of the House, Botox Pelosi, made this comment in 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Bush wasn't even in office at the time to spread such lies. Sen. Carl Levin, another liberal propogandist against Bush said in September 2002, "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Even the Cape Cod Orca, Sen. Ted Kennedy, said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." That was in 2002 as well. Bush had only been in office a little less than two years at the time, so who's really lying? (*as a sidenote: this is also the same guy who is giving Bush grief for sending more troops in Iraq, yet on his own site he gives Bush grief for NOT sending more troops into Iraq. Confusing? No, just politics as usual to make our President look bad.)

Saddam achieved one of the most elaborate bluffs ever. Being wrong isn't a lie. Hell, even David Kay, the leader of the Iraq Study Group before resigning in 2004 after failing to find any, said at one time, “In the marketplace of terrorism and WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.� Even the ultra-high speed Israeli Mossad thought Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD and they're considered one of the best intelligence agencies in the world. So, Bush isn't a liar in that respect either.

So the bottom line is that this war isn't illegal. It's not illegal by legal standards and it's not illegal by fruity liberal standards as hard as they try to convince us. Things are not a cakewalk in Iraq, that's the truth. I would also say that in truth, there is no war in Iraq anymore. We are not at war with Iraq. We are now allies in the war on terror which happens to be centered in Iraq by Al Qaeda's own admission. We could have easily been out of there by now and focused back on Afghanistan, Somalia and other places, but Al Qaeda decided to make Iraq the focus. Ehren Wetarded is getting off quite light in my opinion. He has openly tried to convince other troops to refuse deployment to Iraq. At many press conferences, Wetarded said, "Today, I speak with you about a radical idea," Watada told the gathering. "That to stop an illegal and unjust war, soldiers can choose to stop fighting it…"

Ladies and gentlemen, that is called Subversion. This is the Army's definition of Subversion: "Active attempts to encourage military or civilian employees to violate laws, disobey lawful orders or regulations, or disrupt military activities." It is the responsibility of all officers to report such conduct. All of those apply, but that third one is a kicker. Army regulation also specifies what it means at a time of war:

Advocating, causing, or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the armed forces of the United States or by Department of Defense civilian personnel with the intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty , morale, ordiscipline of such armed forces. During time of war, subversion additionally includes:

(l) making or conveying false reports or false statements with the intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; and
(2) willfully obstructing or attempting to obstruct the recruitment or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the United States (see l8 USC 2387-88).

Wetarded is getting off easy and I think it's a shame and sends the wrong message to others.