October 17, 2004
Why Even Republicans Should Be Glad Iraq Had No WMD
We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the US invaded, and that it posed no immediate threat to us. This is a little embarrassing for Bush, who insisted that Iraq had WMD, and to Bush’s supporters, who have to explain why Bush was wrong. But a little embarrassment is a small price to pay, since it’s also now clear that almost certainly, Bush’s war in Iraq would not have kept Iraqi WMD from the hands of terrorists.
Why do I say this? Look at the record. There have never been enough boots on the ground in Iraq to control the country. Immediately after the invasion, this led to large-scale looting, and I remember thinking to myself: are we accomplishing our primary mission in Iraq? how do we know that materials for WMD are not part of what's being looted? Before the war, Bush talked of mobile biological laboratories - do we know where these are? if we don't know, then who's controlling these weapons now, in the lawless parts of Iraq?
I mostly kept these thoughts to myself, because they seemed totally paranoid. If the US is going to mount an invasion, with the goal of preventing WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists, surely securing those WMD will be the top priority - surely there will be sufficient resources allocated to accomplish that. And yet a a recent CNN story tells us:
The senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished.
Read on. Materials being monitored before the war by the IAEA as "dual use" have not only been lost - entire buildings housing these materials have been dismantled. We know this not from US boots on the ground in Iraq, but satellite imagery.
So what was misplaced? What has disappeared, on Bush's watch, from the country we're occupying?
"The kind of equipment we're talking about ... is the sort of thing that has a multitude of industrial applications," Gwozdecky said. "We were satisfied when we were in Iraq that it was not being used for a nuclear weapons program. In the wrong hands, it could be turned to use in a nuclear weapons program," he said. "Until we establish that this material is in responsible hands, we have to treat it as a serious proliferation concern."
In an earlier post, I pointed out that in retrospect, now that we know
the truth, we can see that on Iraq, Kerry was right and Bush was
wrong. But it could have been worse. Bush could have been right,
and his ineptly executed war could have ended up providing
terrorists with WMD.
Posted by William Cohen at October 17, 2004 01:12 PM
John Kerry was right. Which John Kerry and when? Guess who said the following. Hint - not Bush.
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it
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 …. Although Iraq’s chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program—R&D, production and weaponization—are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region?
John Kerry was right. Which John Kerry and when? Guess who said the following. Hint - not Bush. … It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation …
Which John Kerry? You know, the candidate, the one the Republicans have been falsely representing as a flip-flopper for the last six months? The guy I’ll be voting for on Nov 2.
Kerry has never denied that he thought Saddam was a danger - almost everyone did. And he has consistently recommended a specific course of action. According to FactCheck.org in their story Bush Ad Twists Kerry’s Words on Iraq, “Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support.” Another piece in Salonsummarizes the Kerry out-of-context quotes from that 12 minute video compiled by the RNC, looks at the quotes in context, and also concluded that Kerry’s position was completely consistent. Kerry has not changed his position on Iraq. Are you aware of any non-partisan study that’s come to an opposite conclusion, Jack?
Back to your post: The question isn’t whether it was reasonable to assume that there was some level of threat. The question is, what level, and what sort of action was required? Kerry was calling for containing Saddam with: compliance, inspections, skepticism, process, … all the things that Bush abandoned in his rush into war.
And in retrospect, these actions were the right level of response, and Bush’s far more extreme reaction was unwarranted. Kerry was right and Bush was wrong, and trying to muddy the water with reheated arguments about Kerry’s supposed changes of heart don’t change that fact.
Not to change the subject, but are we then in agreement on the main point of my posting - that Bush has executed the war so ineptly that it was more likely to provide terrorists with WMD than anything else?
Posted by: William Cohen at October 17, 2004 09:37 PMJack, I don’t get your point. Kerry said the above before the inspectors were successfully sent back to Iraq. He said this before those inspectors started reporting that, in fact, the WMD’s weren’t there. And he said all this before he found out that the White House was withholding from the Senate and from the American people mountains of evidence that contradicted this assessment.
John Kerry was simply saying what he thought at the time. But by March 2003, more facts were revealed and at that point he would not have ordered the invasion of Iraq.
So I repeat: What’s your point?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 17, 2004 09:42 PMWilliam, I agree completely with your post. I don’t know which is worse:
1) That the Bush Administration actually sincerely beleived there were WMDs in Iraq, and yet they did nothing to secure them during and after the invasion.
2) That they knew the WMDs weren’t there, and therefore calculated that it was safe to not look for them and to go right for the oil facilities.
Either way, it was terrible and reckless misjudgement. And the fact remains that the conventional weapons stockpiles, the nuclear facilities and materials, and the WMD research labs, have all been looted and uprooted by god-knows-who and are now probably in the hands of terrorists and insurgents fighting our troops at this very minute. All of this because of the Administration’s reckless overconfidence, their reliance on faith rather than fact, and, quite possibly, their deliberate dishonesty.
Willian Cohen, I wish you were still our Secretary of Defense!!
-Cf
Of course you must Re-elect Bush, is there any doubt. You want to know why? 9/11
And I don’t mean the battle cry, I mean the 9/11 that you don’t even realize, that you never seen because you’re too chicken shit. Let’s take a closer look at the events of 9/11.
4 planes are hijacked.
4 Buildings are destroyed
3 Buildings are hit by planes
1 Building collapses even though it is not hit.
How did the terrorists blow up World Trade Center No. 7? How is that possible? That is the extent of thier true power.
How did the terrorists crash into the side of the pentagon with a 60 ton airplane and leave no trace of a plane? The plane circled over the pentagon, did a sharp 270 degree turn while dropping 1500 feet and flew at 400 miles 2 feet from the ground to crash into the side of the pentagon. And thank goodness they crashed into that side, otherwise they may have smashed into one of the sides that were occupied by people. They claimed these pilots were inept. This sounds miraculous. Planes don’t disintegrate. Something else hit the pentagon. Something they can’t tell us because we would be too afraid. It truly is an amazing thing that some people can look at this situation and think that Kerry can protect us from that.
Not only that but many of them had infiltrated our military. That is the only thing that could explain why it took the Air Force so long to respond. The terrorists tied them up for over an hour and 45 minutes. Our airforce has very clear procedures on how to handle a possible hijacking and they weren’t followed, they didn’t need presidential authority to do the job they do everyday. This is why the president sat in that school for so long while we were under attack. He figured the Air Force was doing its job. Don’t you see what you’re up against? This is rediculous to even hold an election.
These guys are so good they befuddled all of our defenses. They somehow got the planes to disappear from radar. The governement tells us that was because they turned off the transponders but that doesn’t defeat radar. The hijacked planes were simply a diversion to get our defenses looking in the wrong direction.
We are in a war people. That is why we need the patriot act. Do you want Anthrax showing up in your mail, again? Do you want people who we trust in high level positions abetting the enemy? You’re rights are going to do you no good when your dead. Without George Bush to protect you, you will all die. It’s as simple as that. Maybe we need another terrorist attack to whip the rest of these losers into line and get them on the same program as the rest of us. This is America. We have earned the right to do and say whatever we like. We deserve the right to destroy countries that stand in in the way of peace and that includes the civilians. Quit pussyfooting around. The next time you see a Kerry supporter, punch him right in his ignorant face. Putting that man in charge would be like committing suicide.
These terrorists are a real threat. Can you explain how World Trade Center 7 fell? It wasn’t hit by a plane or the falling debris from tower 2. It is impossible for that building to fall the way it did. How is it possible that a few small fires brought that building down? Fire has never brought down a steel framed building. Never. I’ll tell you, these terrorists are more powerful than we were told. They had to have exploded that building. I bet we did shoot down flight 93, how else do you explain wreckage strewn over 6 miles? Since the plane couldn’t smash into that building, they decided to go ahead and pull it anyway. I bet all the evidence we needed was in that building. You can say that in hindsight, it may have been a mistake to dispose of the wreckage so quickly and permanently but we needed to heal. They are too powerful and they need to be killed, every last man woman and child. Yes the children too. They grow up to become Muslim Terrorists too, just like these pussies who vote Kerry. They ain’t worth a shit and if you step in them just hose them off your shoe.
Even if Kerry should win, we shouldn’t accept him. Our people won’t follow a loser like that. I am so glad that I have finally found people who think like me. Thank God for Bush and Thank God for you Republicans. Maybe in the next election cycle we won’t even worry about these lying Democratic Voters. God I hate them. I wish we could bomb the democrats. That’s who needs bombing even more than the terrorists.
Posted by: BushFan at October 17, 2004 10:16 PMThe title of this thread is pretty unfair. Of course Republicans are glad that there weren’t stockpiles of WMD going loose in Iraq.
It’s the same reason anyone would be glad if a hostage-taker who we believed had a bomb (because he’d commited both bombings and hostage-takings in the past) turned out not to actually have one after we took him down during a standoff with police.
We’re relieved, certainly, that there’s no bomb, but ther’s no reason to apologize for having sent in the SWAT team.
Posted by: Martin at October 17, 2004 10:32 PMMartin makes a good analogy.
It is easy to make decisions when you have time to deliberate and you know how things came out. Much harder to make them in real time with real information. But you know what is interesting. If you were able to time travel and make the decision differently, you could come up with just as bad a result. Saddam didn’t currently have WMD. Thank God for that. But he planned to get more as soon as the sanctions were lifted.
Okay, its March 2003. President Bush decides there is no WMD and no reason to go into Iraq. He brings the troops stationed near Iraq home. Saddam and the “Arab street” interpret this as ignominious defeat and are encouraged. Among the encouraged are the Libyans who decide to step up (not shut down) their own WMD program. They later pass WMD to terrorist groups. The Saudis and Kuwaitis decide the U.S. really can’t be trusted and make accommodations with Saddam. Iraq is now the effective hegemon. The Saudis demand all U.S. troops leave their territory. Saddam, emboldened and supplied with new Russian Radar and French missiles though the oil for food program, manages to shoot down a U.S. plane in the no fly zone. Bush, now rendered impotent, can’t respond. The no fly zone is returned to Saddam’s control. He takes the opportunity to massacre Kurds. Afghans notice this and see the U.S. is a paper tiger. Elections in September are marred by violence and the country descends into anarchy. The world weeps and does nothing. The UN blames the Kurdish massacre (we provoked Saddam) on the U.S. and there is no support for continued sanctions against the “people of Iraq”. Saddam is free and feared. He resumes his WMD program. Since he never really shut it down, it takes only a short time to develop WMD. So now in October 2004, we have no U.S. troops in Iraq. We have not suffered 1000 casualties, but we are about to suffer a lot more. That is the probably scenario of a U.S. stand down. All of you who criticize the President should consider what might have happened if he had made a different decision. I really can’t think of too many good scenarios that would result from leaving Saddam in place.
Jack wrote:
> Okay, its March 2003. President Bush decides
> there is no WMD and no reason to go into Iraq.
> He brings the troops stationed near Iraq home.
Stop right there. That’s where you are wildly mistaken about the point of view of those of us who opposed the Iraq War. I can’t accept anything you wrote after that first line, because the rest of your scenario is based on a premise that is entirely crazy and preposterous.
Nobody is saying that Bush should have packed up and left when the first reports came in from Hans Blix showing that Saddam apparently was completely WMD-free. Instead, we are saying that Bush should have kept the intense pressure on and forced the inspections to go on and on and on. He should have forced Saddam to agree to 24/7 surveillance, electronic and human methods, on all key facilities. If at any point Saddam balked, he should have hit Saddam with some serious firepower. Airstrikes, cruise missle attacks, even ground attacks. The bigger the balk, the bigger the attack. If Saddam resisted the new inspections in any very serious way, which he never did, then yes, maybe a more substantial invasion would have been called for as a last resort.
Bush should have forced Saddam to agree to continue to submit his country to extensive inspections indefinately, or until the US and the whole world was satisfied 100%, and then even longer than that. This containment could take 5 years. It could take 10 years. Whatever. As long as Saddam was verifyably unable to attack his neighbors or make common cause with Al Qaeda, then the mission would have been a success, regardless of whether or not Saddam was still in power or not.
You apparently cannot even conceive of anything between the options of total retreat and outright invasion. Thank god people like you were not in charge of this country during the Cold War, or today we’d all be arguing over whether or not rocks and pointed sticks count as WMDs. Even Ronald Reagan, who by all accounts was a strong-willed character, would never have taken such rash and unnecessary step as invading Iraq when so many other options were available.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 18, 2004 12:32 AMbushfan,
Get a grip man! Running around crying “The Sky is Falling” will not solve the problem. You sound like a little school boy who is scared of his own shadow. Yes, it is true that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have been in the US since the 60’s. Yes, it is true that our government failed to protect us on 9/11. However, if you and others want to hide in your terror proof shelters for the rest of your life than go for it. Just leave the rest of us Real Americans to live our life.
As for you wanting to bomb the democrats, I say lets bomb all the republicans that are crying about how unsafe they are. Maybe a few bombs dropped in heir lap will make you all realize that America needs 180 countries involved in the War on Terror not the weak 30 country coalition put together by Bush.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 18, 2004 12:51 AMSorry guys,
I just can’t handle a whimp trying to use scare tactics to justify their actions. Hell, Americans have been living with danger all of our life so we are not going to change just because of Al Qaeda.
On the matter of WMD’s and nuclear weapons in Iraq
What I would like to know is where in the world did the delivery systems for these weapons go? That is the real prize to the terrorist. Although the chemicals make up part of the bomb and are easily obtainable on the open market, the delivery systems for these weapons have never been disgused by anyone.
Since the make up of the shells and other canisters are not available or easily obtained by anyone, the terrorist groups would love to get their hand on one. Imagine letting them get the knowledge and materail for an advance WMD delivery system. That is why the report of missing nuke equipment is so important and why I for one would like to know exactly what was taken.
This is not a dem or rep issue, but an American and World issue that needs to be dealt with. By trying to blame Bush or anyone else we are taking our eye off the ball, again. Although I’m not exactly sure what was taken, I do know and others on this site can tell you that some equipment is priceless if you want to create a bomb that is both stable and effective. It is that type of equipment that is not on the black market and is highly desirable for certain weaponized use.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 18, 2004 01:16 AMCf, I’d like to second your last post. Thank you.
Henry, I don’t know about the chem systems, but I know they started finding Iraqi yellowcake, long-range missile engines, and other WMD equipment in scrap heaps around the world.
Why President Bush wouldn’t either secure it with US troops or let the UN back in to handle all that stuff is a mystery to me.
At a guess, it all just slipped through the cracks because of the poor planning and incompetence that have dogged the Bush administration’s occupation of Iraq from the start.
Good article, William.
AP,
Thats exactly the type of stuff I’m talking about. While the articles you show is most likely someone just trying to make a quick dollar, a person who knows what they are doing and the right equipment can quickly (a week or two) produce a dirty bomb or a small WMD.
I just wonder why no one in the main media has not picked up on these stories. However, like you I feel that it was a big mistake of this administration not to take the securing of those sites very serious.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 18, 2004 03:09 AMWillian Cohen, I wish you were still our Secretary of Defense!!
LOL!
Posted by: William Cohen at October 18, 2004 08:54 AMBush should have forced Saddam to agree to continue to submit his country to extensive inspections indefinately, or until the US and the whole world was satisfied 100%, and then even longer than that.
When Saddam Hussein agreed to the cease fire resolution (UN 687), he agreed to all the above issues. He then broke all his promises for the next 12 years.
In one egregious example, UN inspectors found VX gas in the mid 90’s—-Saddam said it was left over gas, but inspectors proved it was newly produced. Saddam then said it wasnt weaponized, but inspectors proved it was. Finally, under duress, Saddam allowed inspectors to destroy it.
People are now saying that after 12 years of being lied to, we should have trusted Saddam to follow through on his word in 2003. Those who do not know history, or learn from it, are doomed to repeat their mistakes.
They just dont get it. Saddam was NEVER going to keep his promises. We held Saddam’s feet to the fire briefly in 1998 by bombing Iraq—-this didn’t get Saddam to change for long. So much for the idea of a single attack holding Saddam accountable.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 18, 2004 08:57 AMOf course you must Re-elect Bush, is there any doubt. You want to know why? 9/11
BushFan, you’re echoing an argument I hear over and over from Bushies - 9/11 means we’re in danger, so elect Bush. The argument always goes on at great length about the threats, just like yours. Then there’s, optionally, some off-the-shelf invective about Kerry, usually cut-and-pasted off the Swifties cite or someplace else that doesn’t mind signing a pack of total lies. Then there’s a plug for Bush. (But you’re original in one way, at least - I’ve never seen a proposal to bomb Democrats before. Thanks for your honesty. And for the record, BushFan, real men sign their postings with the real names.)
You can tell this is a red team argument, because when you get down to it, it’s not engaging the enemy. It’s cheerleading. Duh, of course there’s 9/11 and terrorists are bad people. Point conceded. The question is, are you going to leave someone that’s obviously an incompetent cowboy in office - now of all times?
Posted by: William Cohen at October 18, 2004 09:05 AMMaybe the Republicans already knew there were no WMD’s. Certainly that’s what they were saying not long before 9/11.
Posted by: Alejo at October 18, 2004 09:21 AMWhen will people get it, JBD. Probably when they wake up and realize that Bush as other presidents before him was to have real facts and solid proof in hand before he put our country’s name on the line. Honor and truth takes back seat to no one and is what seperates our country from those other countries that the right wing nuts call our enemy.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 18, 2004 09:40 AMPeople are now saying that after 12 years of being lied to, we should have trusted Saddam to follow through on his word in 2003.
Wow. That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that. Who was going to trust Saddam? Do you have anything to back up that ridiculous statement?
Saddam was NEVER going to keep his promises. We held Saddam’s feet to the fire briefly in 1998 by bombing Iraq
That wasn’t holding his feet to the fire. Holding his feet to the fire would have been intrusive inspections backed by military force followed by long-term intrusive monitoring.
BTW, had the Republicans in Congress not yelled “Wag the dog!” every time Clinton tried to deal with Saddam, this might not even be an issue.
This is just a silly argument, jbod. No one was going to let Saddam build nukes. This is just partisan scare tactics.
> When Saddam Hussein agreed to the cease
> fire resolution (UN 687), he agreed to
> all the above issues. He then broke all
> his promises for the next 12 years.
Well, he half-heartedly broke them for a couple of years, then by the late 90’s or so he pretty much had given up on WMD production. We accomplished all that without invading, without even threatening him with invasion. He was, as we know now, neutralized.
But you are correct that in 2002/2003 we were not sure that we had neutralized him. We didn’t know how well Clinton’s policies had succeeded. Saddam was pretty much neutralized, but he was not in compliance with the resolutions, which required him to prove he was neutralized.
So what we could and should have done differently in 2002/2003 is increase and then maintain the military pressure on Saddam to comply. We were in a perfect position to do so, and we were in a much better position after 9/11 to do so than we were in the mid-90’s when Clinton could barely call Saddam a bad guy without some Republican shreiking “Wag the dog!”
Again and again you base your arguments on whether or not Saddam deserved punishment for violating the inspections, and on whether or not Saddam can be trusted, instead of basing your arguments on whether or not it was possible to contain and neutralize Saddam without plunging the American and Iraqi peoples into a state of all out war. It was not only possible, it was actually happening.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 18, 2004 10:48 AM> Honor and truth takes back seat to no one
Amen. That’s what I resent the most about the situation we’re in today. Our country’s honorable reputation around the world is darkly tarnished by President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. It doesn’t matter whether they lied about WMDs or were simply mistaken about them: Either way, we come away from this less trustworthy than we were before.
If we need to confront a more urgent threat someday, like a nuclear threat from Iran or North Korea (or worse, hostile actions by Russia or China towards their neighbors), will we have the stature and trust to acheive a strong alliance on our side? If a regional war breaks out in Central Asian republics, or between India and Pakistan, or in the Middle East around Israel, will we have the international trust it takes to make sure that the world will stand by us in our objectives? Not as long as Bush is in office we won’t.
I’m not so pants-pissing scared of the terrorists that I think it’s worth putting our national honor in the toilet just to be able to scare our enemies into seeing how tough we are. And I certainly don’t think that removing that loser Saddam Hussein was worth sacrificing any of our nation’s sacred honor.
Oh wait, autocrat and dictator-in-waiting Vladimir Putin has endorsed Bush for President. I guess we still do have some respect in the world!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 18, 2004 11:09 AMP. Diddy has this Vote or DIE! campaign going now.
Nothing is better than trying to get the youth of America to become interested in politics and voting. But I do have a few problems with this campaign.
1. It’s run by P. Diddy, a criminal. A guy who shot up a nightclub, causing several people to be injured. A guy that was apprehended with an illegal handgun in his vehicle. Vote or DIE? Maybe vote or I’LL MURDER YOU! would have been better.
2. This campaign is “non-partisan” LOL! P. Diddy is clearly a Kerry supporter, as are many of the people involved in the Vote or I’ll mur… um, DIE! campaign.
3. Again, claiming to be “non-partisan”, but this campaign is aimed at getting people ages 18-30 to vote. Why is that important? Well, we all know that people in that age group, when they vote, tend to vote Democrat much more than Republican. Don’t get me wrong on this point, I am not suggesting that they not be allowed to vote or anything like that, but what I am suggesting is that this “Vote or DIE!” campaign was thought up by democrats to help them win. Ask yourself this, do you think that if polls showed that 75% of people 18-30 ho don’t vote would vote for President Bush if they voted, that P. Diddy or any of the other Hollywood stars involved in this would be? NO! What they are looking for is uninformed young people to go out there and vote for John Kerry. That was Vote or DIE! is all about.
1. Do I need to remind you that George W. Bush, our president, is a criminal. A guy who drove dunk on many occasions and was arrested several times. P. Diddy, on the other hand, was acquitted. In any event, he’s perfect for speaking to young people who think that they are too cool to vote: He’s had a change of heart and now he wants to make a difference in his country. 9/11 changed a lot of people.
2. Sean Combs is a Sharpton supporter! :) My guess is that he’s not a big Bush fan.
3. Citizen Change is part of a consortium of “get out the youth vote” movements, pioneered by “Rock the Vote” and MTV’s “Choose or Lose”. This consortium includes several that lean to the right a bit (“Smackdown the Vote!” is the WWE’s version).
I actually worked on the Citizen Change web site, and I worked on P. Diddy’s initial press conference launching the Citizen Change campaign. I saw how the process worked from the inside. The man certainly leans Democrat, but he tried very hard (and continues to try) to get Republicans involved. He genuinely wants people from both parties to vote in greater numbers, particularly minorites. For every Democratic event he attends, he makes damn sure to attend a Republican one. He’s very diligent about it, as is his staff.
I was actually in the room when two RNC executives walked in to see the press conference being set up and to coordinate the logistics of how the RNC would participate. They saw that there were tons of big media types there. They saw the Citizen Change logo, which depicts P. Diddy and two other young people hilding their fists in the air Black Power style. An hour later, Ed Gillsepie called and said that the RNC would not be involved in the press conference.
If getting out the youth vote automatically means more Democrats end up voting, then that’s just tough luck for the Republicans. Perhaps they should start by giving a damn about America’s future, the future of America’s youths, instead of saying, as Bush himself said when asked about what he thinks about the future, “Who knows? We’ll all be dead.”
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 18, 2004 01:31 PMIts entertaining to watch all the “armchair” generals come up with ways to disparage Bush or kerry with this topic. Especially when they have no idea on how the military, its protocols or rules actually work in real life.
Failure to obey a lawful order can be punishable by imprisonment but is usually dealt with reprimands or a general discharge. Soldiers know this and therefore some will use this tactic as a way out of a situation or duty. I have seen this in Gulf I and in Bosnia and Kosovo and S. America. Disobey an order, get a general discharge and go back home. What many soldiers fail to realize is that during a time of war, this tactic does not work like it does during a time of peace. Some will get a reprimand, some will get busted probably, but I really doubt that their plan to try and come home will work. If they do come home, they will probably live near me in Leavenworth, which they deserve.
Joey
Great post. Totally partisan reasons behind everything those people are doing. Can you imagine all the whining that would be going on if young christians were trying to get this age group to vote for Bush? Even if they kept religion out of it and never mentioned God, there would still be a problem with it somehow.
Sharpton is a proven liar and many believe a racist. Yea, supporting him is the right thing to do.
Posted by: kctim at October 18, 2004 05:38 PMkctim,
While I might believe in your argument if there was only on or two soldiers involved; however, 18 is a number that tells me something went wrong with the Idiot in Charge. For as punishable as it is to dis obey an order in combat (under fire) it is more harmful and carrys a higher penality for a group of soldiers to obey a command that they know is wrong when they are not under fire.
The officer may have given the order, but it is the primary duty of the highest ranking NCO and individual soldier to carry out that order properly. Having heard reports of readiness and other things the investigation will bring out, I inclined to look at the CO and BO first as well as where the TOP was in all of this BS.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 18, 2004 10:24 PMI find it disturbing that Republicans like kctim so quickly conclude that these soldiers must be acting on their own for nefarius reasons, rather than having a legitimate grievance.
Why do Republicans hate our soldiers?
Why is President Bush flying home the bodies of our fallen sons and daughters in the dark of night? Is he ashamed of our men and women in uniform? It’s disgraceful.
Henry
I was just stating, from experience, that situations like these are usually due to soldiers wanting to leave. You may very well be right, but I do not place blame at top for every that goes wrong. That is just as bad as saying all corporations and CEO’s are bad.
AP
I am not a Republican. But maybe, since mainly Republicans and those to the right make up the majority of our military, they have a better understanding of military affairs than those who are “armchair generals.” They are more critical because they know what it is like to be there.
Your last statement is very warranted. I have also wondered about this. If Bush really thinks they are heroes, then why isnt every coffin covered by the media? A hereos death deserves a heroes burial if you ask me. Like you seem to be doing, I also have been looking more into this.
Posted by: kctim at October 19, 2004 09:13 AMThe terrorists killed over 3,000 people on September 11, but over 1100 of the finest of America’s young people have been killed since in what has been shown to be a pointless war. So, that makes over 4000 dead on Bush’s watch, 1000 of which were sent to die by Bush himself, and sentenced to death by his poor planning. I know that those young people volunteered to serve and defend America. I think that that makes them more valuable, not less. I just don’t understand why the overwhelming belief in America is that George Bush will keep us safe, when 1000 Americans have died at the hands of terrorists after September 11th. Will anyone notice when the number of people killed in the war which purports to be a fight against terrorism eclipses the number of people who were killed by terrorists?
Posted by: Brian Poole at October 20, 2004 05:11 PMIf 1000 Americans have died at the hands of “terrorists” after 9/11, the how can the war “purport” to be a fight against terrorism?
Posted by: kctim at October 22, 2004 02:54 PMGreat question, kctim.
Or, if a cop gets killed at the hands of a criminal, how can he be said to have been fighting crime? Good question indeed.
Posted by: Martin at October 24, 2004 10:11 PM
