Photocredit: Michelle Malkin
Is it to make ‘conscientious objectors’ legitimate? It would seem to me that is what they are striving for, but this is interesting:
As his court-martial got under way, military judge Lt. Col. John Head refus…

The Left’s definition of a “hero” Just in tonight from Ft. Lewis via the Seattle P-I: The court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in a mistrial Wednesday. The case’s judge, Lt. Col. John Head, declared the trial over……

I’m still staying super busy trying to get the Old War Dogs site ready to launch and I have a couple of great Russ Vaughn pieces to post after bit but I can’t let the day slide by without recommending…

A RightWinged.com PSA *****Yes RightWingers, I’m still alive, but still not quite settled in enough for any regular blogging***** (This post turned out longer than intended, but rest assured I do get to the AP photo bias eventually) Despite not……

Moonbats have heroes like everyone else. But whereas as a normal person’s hero would be characterized by courage, sacrifice, devotion, and honor, a moonbat’s hero displays the traits of cowardice, selfishness, irresponsibility, and ignominiousness. N…

Politically, he is not that smart neither. He will never be in the inner liberal circle. May be he can join Cindy Sheehan to be her side kick.

Watada is a liar, a fraud, a coward and a traitor.

FWIW, I’m an ex-USAF/ANG enlisted swine (E-6).

Today is the day that anti-American, anti-war leftists are celebrating Lt. Ehren Watada, the Fort Lewis officer who refused to be deployed to Iraq. In my post about Lt. Watada’s refusing to deploy to Iraq, I said this: This is……

I love that Michelle Malkin is inadvertently flashing the British sign for F-U in her latest Hot Air video…….

If Watada was a politically smart loony liberal (and if he had a shred of courage), he would have deployed to Iraq and THEN refused an order. At least then he might have had a legal leg to stand on.

This is a good point. A soldier should refuse illegal orders. Like, if a real life “Jesse Macbeth” were ordered to murder defenseless civilians. He’s required to refuse that order. And I (and I imagine most of you), would applaud him for that.

But refusing to deploy for a war authorized by Congress and that you signed up for is really really stupid.

Is he a complete phony and fraud who lied when he joined the military and did it SOLELY so he could pull this stunt when his unit was deployed?

That was my first thought as well. What are the other options? Ignorance (didn’t know troops were deployed in Iraq)? Kerryism (he supported the war before he didn’t support the war)?

Following in this vein:

• Bakers Against Bread
• Voters Against Democracy
• The Anti-Free-Speech Debate Club
• moveon.com (c’mon, someone has to get that)

And as much as I respect people’s right to object to the resumption of war in Iraq, they sort of lose me when they call it “illegal.” Yeah… illegal to the dictator who was toppled. But not illegal to the UN or the United States. Not illegal to the Clinton administration.

Congress authorized the war, both the first time we went there, and when the ceasefire agreement was breached and went back. The U.N. specifically authorized the initial military action, and also passed resolutions mentioning the use of force for the enforcement of the various resolutions passed since then.

I’ll consider someone’s thoughts on the war being “stupid” or “unnecessary” or “risky.” But “illegal” isn’t even close to being a matter of opinion, in this case.

It is not up to him to decide if a war is legal or not.

Fine with me if he wants to (wrongly) conclude a war is “illegal” (whatever that actually means). Just don’t go and join the frickin’ military AFTER that war begins.

Well, what’s to say that has not been said. My question is, where are our site liberals, riding to save the day by defending this cowardly excuse for a dirtbag.

That’s an awfully good question.

It is up to him to decide if his actions in prosecution of that war are illegal however as witnessed by the numerous service members who have been put on trial for their actions.

And that right there is the most important question and I haven’t even seen anyone bring it up.

Everyone’s talking about this “illegal war”,” but LakeRuins is right: that’s not up to Watada. Ever. Never. His only right (and duty) is to refuse unlawful ORDERS. Whether the war is unlawful is irrelevant, no matter what they say at DU; what matters is whether he received an unlawful order.

I guess he’ll claim that even the order to deploy was unlawful. I wonder if he would have protested orders to Germany or Japan or Korea or Kosovo? After all, if we’re occupying Iraq we’re certainly still occupying those places.

If Watada was a politically smart loony liberal (and if he had a shred of courage), he would have deployed to Iraq and THEN refused an order. At least then he might have had a legal leg to stand on.

Of course, he might have gotten shot for it, too. It’s a little easier to “bravely” refuse an order sitting in an air-condition barracks room in the States.

Now where are those trolls hiding? Somebody’s got to be willing to defend this chump. Better BetterOff will do it.

I totally agree. sounds like he did this so he could have his 15 minutes of anti-war protest fame. I wonder WHO is backing him financially?? move-on, perhaps? soros??

RH

Asking them to actually “get behind” the President is light years beyond my feeble request. Good luck with that.

All I ask is that someone gets behind Watada when his hatriotism lands him in a F.P.M.I.T.A. prison.

The country is in great shape under a good President. All that Liberals are showing the country is why they no longer are of concequence.

Amen and amen. You’d think they’d have figured this out by now, huh?

believe that in a time of war, the entire country should get behind the President, whomever it may be, instead of trying to destroy him and his admin, and frustrate our efforts to protect ourselves.

You know what? I don’t even ask that much of liberals. Not even close. They don’t have to “get behind” the President. I ask only one thing: that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, they ASSUME the President and our country are innocent until proven guilty (whatever the charge or scandal might be). I just ask that they give America the benefit of the doubt. I just ask that they don’t eagerly, anxiously go looking for things to bash our country with. I just ask that they don’t actually work AGAINST us.

That’s all I ask.

But it’s apparently too much.

Asking them to actually “get behind” the President is light years beyond my feeble request. Good luck with that.