A sight no one should ever see

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights

Looks like the coward is not going to Iraq. Hope he has fun in the brig. I find this comical.


So, while thousands of officers go to Iraq, and her son the only officer not going, he is the patriot? I can't blame her because this is her son, but her son is nothing more than a coward that watches too many Michael Moore fairy tales.

This idiot should have joined the Peace Corp instead of the Army. Army is for men an not for people afraid to deploy and earn your pay.
Mike

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Support committee??

Carolyn Ho, is that her real name?

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights

You guys are terrible. It's obvious that there is some small amount of dilusion and extremism going on here and you guys are just baiting him on. Not that I'm against that ;-) Anyone that can write (read: rant) that much on such an insignificant subject is obviously just trying to make noise. I honestly can't even believe this made the news. I'm surprised that someone even printed this on something other than the back of a bubblegum wrapper. An Lt is having a tissy fit? So what? Kick him out and press on. Nobody really gives a crap. It's so much fun to pick on people that stand up for this crap, though. I think I'm going to start a thread titled SpyBushCheneyUFODictators to see if he takes the bait on that one too...

__________________
Joeninpo

The tyrant custom, most grave Senators,
Hath made the flinty and steel couch of war
My thrice-driven bed of down

Good Man!

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights

"Seriously, any website titled 'bushlies' is not going to be respected as a source in any legitimate debate."

That's right, Bear. When you have no answer to the evidence presented, you resort to attcking the messenger - another form of denial. Regardless of the name of the website, the numerous lies of the Bush Administration's justification for war are documented. So, why don't you just stick to the facts concerning three lies of the Bush Administration's justification for war that were posted:

[i]IRAQ WMD’s
LIE: The Bush administration religiously chanted the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as its basis for a war.

For example, in his address to the nation Bush said the intelligence “leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

FACTS: According to the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq:
§ HAD NO WMD’s.

§ “had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended.

§ Iraq failed “to acquire long range Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.”

§ “Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”

§ In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”

This is consistent with pre-war findings:

Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil, who was a member of the National Security Council, indicated that “n the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.”

In January 2004, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on WMDS in Iraq concluded that the evidence prior to the war indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and its chemical weapons had lost most of their lethality. In addition, the report concluded that the administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs”.

This is consistent with other pre-war reports. For example, in September 2002, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency concluded “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

Sources: Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD; Ruben Bannerjee – Al Jazeera 04.06.03, NOW Update 05.22.03, Scheer – AlterNet.org 06.10.03; WMD in Iraq – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 60 Minutes 01.11.14; Dreyfus & Vest – Mother Jones Jan-Feb 04; Suskind – The Price of Loyalty.

IRAQ AS IMMINENT THREAT

LIE: The Bush administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and its allies, although it would later claim:

On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. "the media have chose to use the word imminent" to describe the Iraqi threat. In a February 2004 speech at Georgetown University, CIA Director Tenet revealed that CIA "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.

FACTS: The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research stated that "Iraq possessed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States."

A January 2004 report by the Army War College concluded that Iraq was not an imminent threat and characterized the war as "an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deferred Iraq."

The Carnegie Endowment for Peace's report on WMD's in Iraq also concluded that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the United States or to global security.

Sources: Daily Mis-Lead 02.05.04; Rivers-Pitt – Truthout.org 07.11.03, McGovern –AlterNet 06.30.03, NBC News 07.21.03, Krugman – New York Times 07.22.03; WMD in Iraq – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Bounding the Global War on Terror – Army War College

NEVER SAID IMMINENT THREAT

LIE: On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. "the media have chose to use the word imminent" to describe the Iraqi threat.

FACTS:
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (09.19.02)

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." President Bush (09.26.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." President Bush (10.02.03)

"There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." President Bush (10.16.02)

"There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein." President Bush (10.28.02)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush (11.23.02)

In January 2003, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, when asked “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests”; he replied “Well, of course he is.”

In February 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said “[t]his is about [an] imminent threat.”

In May 2003, Ari Fleisher was asked “Didn’t we go to war because we said WMD’s were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S?” He responded, “Absolutely.”

Sources: Daily Mis-Lead 01.28.04, CAP Daily Progress Report 01.29.04

"'The funnier thing is that your second two sources conflict with your first two and say that Bush didn't lie.'"

However, Bear, THAT statement is a lie. Lying isn't just an outright untrue statement. Deception is also considered a form of lying. The second two sources expose the deceptions used by the Bush Administration when it made its case for war.

By the way, the farsical dog-and-pony-show that Colin Powell put on at the U.N. to justify the invasion of Iraq was based on a number of known lies at the time.

If you'd like, I can enumerate those specifically.

If the original premise wasn't based on a lie, why do you think the Bush neocons have repeatedly changed the justification in orwellian fashion? Every time one justification is shown to be false, a new one pops up. It's all rationalizations after the fact, and most of the American public and military willingly eat it up with their expressions of false bravado. They're so afraid of another "Vietnam." Notice this board - how every reaction is so defensive - without anyone addressing specific, documented facts. It's a sign of denial and brainwashing.

To Refuse To Serve
Ret. Col. Ann Wright
June 27, 2006

(Col. Ann Wright served in the U.S. Army for 13 years and in the U.S. Army Reserves for 16 years. She also served for 16 years in the U.S. diplomatic corps, and in that capacity helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001. She received the State Department’s Award for Heroism as the acting U.S. ambassador during the rebel takeover of Freetown, Sierra Leone in 1997.)

Today, is the National Day of Action in support of U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who, on June 22, refused an order to deploy with his unit to Iraq.

Watada said he could not participate in an “illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. My oath of office is to protect and defend America’s laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath.”

Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq raises ethical, moral and legal questions, not only for him, but for other military personnel as well as for civilians. He believes the war on Iraq is a violation of international and domestic law and is therefore illegal. Watada says that as a military officer of honor and integrity he must refuse an order to participate in an illegal act.

Watada joins 10 other members of the U.S. military who—as a matter of conscience—have refused to either go to Iraq or to return there and have been court-martialed for their actions. Two are currently in prison for their stands. In addition, over 200 U.S. military personnel have gone to Canada to avoid being sent to Iraq, nine of whom have gone public with their war resistance. There are over 6,400 U.S. military are absent without leave (AWOL), while thousands who have returned from AWOL have been given administrative discharges instead of courts-martial. The military has not provided information on whether those who have turned themselves in were AWOL due to opposition to the war.

For Watada and those other military volunteers who have chosen to go public with their dissent from the war on Iraq, the path of conscience is not easy. By their actions, they challenge an administration whose policy of aggressive, pre-emptive war has placed those volunteers, the institution of the U.S. military and the nation itself in danger.

Refusing to obey an illegal order is a time-honored tradition in the U.S. military, but that refusal carries incredible risk. If the order is found by a military board of inquiry to be lawful, then the soldier is will be brought before a military court for trial.

Watada’s public refusal to deploy to Iraq puts the military panel who will sit in judgment of his actions in a dilemma. The military has extraordinarily talented military lawyers who are well-versed in the laws of land warfare, the Geneva and Hague conventions and the Nuremberg principles. Indeed, military lawyers were the strongest opponents of the decision by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to throw out internationally agreed to protections for prisoners of war and instead create a new, illegal term called “enemy combatants.” This legally meaningless phrase provides no protections for those detained on the battlefield and jeopardizes U.S. military personnel who end up in the hands of opponents. Now, these military lawyers must decide whether protection of an administration’s illegal war of aggression is more important to the national security of the United States than recognition that, by the Nuremberg principles, military and civilians have a responsibility to stop their governments from committing illegal acts.

As a retired colonel with 29 years in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves, and as a U.S. diplomat for 16 years who resigned in March 2003 from the State Department in opposition to the war in Iraq, I strongly support Watada’s decision to publicly challenge the illegality of the war.

I hope that on June 27, as part of this National Day of Action, Americans will find ways in their communities to “Stand Up with Lt. Watada.” We should discuss the important moral and ethical issues that he and the other brave and courageous men and women have raised in their refusal to participate in the illegal war on Iraq. See www.ThankyouLt.org for a list of communities and activities scheduled for June 27.

As civilians, we also have a moral responsibility when we see an administration committing illegal acts. We cannot be silent and let this illegal war continue. Stand up for Watada and our country.

zzzzzz zzz

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

$75 dude and I'll open a MySpace.com group! Paypal only. I'll make you the moderator afterwards. Sorry Mike but with a potential 82+ million subscribers I have to under bid you

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights