Special Comment: Keith asks Levin and Ingraham: "Why do you hate our troops?"
By SilentPatriot Monday May 19, 2008 11:00am
On Monday, Keith Olbermann delivered a post-script to his Special Comment from last week in which he told President Bush to "shut the hell up." Since some lunatic fringe commentators were deliberately twisting Keith's words and implying that he called American soldiers -- and not Bush administration officials, to whom he was clearly referring -- "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives," he felt compelled to clarify his remarks.
Download | play 
Download | play
It seems to me that these right-wingers have inadvertently shown their true colors, their instinctive hatred of and contempt for, these self-sacrificing Americans, who have been needlessly placed in harm's way by these very commentators and the politicians they support.
They hear criticism of our nation's collective conduct in Iraq, and immediately assume it's the fault of the soldiers.
In the wake of an insult that exists only in their minds and never in my words nor in my heart, there remains, I think, only one question to ask: Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin: Why do you hate our troops?
Full transcripts below the fold:
And, finally, as promised a reiteration tonight regarding last week's Special Comment.
You may remember Mr. Bush had used a cumbersome phrase to describe insurgents in Iraq: "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."
Last Wednesday, I quoted the phrase to say that Mr. Bush had now also given America "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."
I identified them as Mr. Bush's personnel -- quote "those in - or formerly in - your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes." I also described the chaos of post-invasion Iraq, with "an American viceroy, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind" Mr. Bush's skirts.
No writer nor broadcaster is ever as clear and precise as he thinks he is.
Television goes by quickly and the viewer is not provided a copy of a script.
So it is possible that reasonable viewers might have been confused by exactly to whom I referred, especially considering I edited the original line: "Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives? They are called your Cabinet. And your Pentagon."
During the editing process it seemed that was a little broad -- that there appear to be men in both places -- General Ricardo Sanchez, former Secretary of State Powell, perhaps even Secretary of Defense Gates -- who did not merit inclusion in that list.
Obviously, my use of Mr. Bush's phrase "cold-blooded killers" did not refer to U.S. troops.
I have never had anything but the highest respect for them and their sacrifice.
This newscast constantly advocates their causes, their needs, our collective debt to them. And we constantly call out the administration's failure to honor them, to protect them, to stop the Pentagon from sticking a band-aid on those whose hearts and minds are broken and send them back for another tour.
The U.S. troops in Iraq, even those few who have done bad things, are victims in this equation.
And most are the proverbial innocent bystanders.
My use of Mr. Bush's phrase "cold-blooded killers" referred not to them, but rather those former and current members of Mr. Bush's administration and Pentagon who so irresponsibly unleashed the hounds of war, and may indeed some day face war crimes trials.
And that phrase "merciless mercenaries" seemed to be self-explanatory.
Neither are these U.S. troops, not when there are literally mercenaries in Mr. Bush's employ, principally from Blackwater-USA, who literally shot unarmed Iraqis, most infamously in a massacre in Baghdad last September.
But strangely, when the terms "cold-blooded killers" and "mercenaries" were used in a public forum, my critics in the lunatic fringe, rather than even considering that the criticism even might be directed at the Pentagon or the administration or Blackwater-USA, immediately decided that these were descriptions of our American heroes fighting in Iraq.
It is perhaps instructive, that to the right-wing commentators, and the right-wing blogs, those terms should first evoke not the war-mongers of the Pentagon or the gun-men from Blackwater... but U.S. troops.
I cannot imagine that kind of evil knee-jerk reflex.
I feel very sorry for those who have shown it.
It seems to me that these right-wingers have inadvertently shown their true colors, their instinctive hatred of and contempt for, these self-sacrificing Americans, who have been needlessly placed in harm's way by these very commentators and the politicians they support.
They hear criticism of our nation's collective conduct in Iraq, and immediately assume it's the fault of the soldiers.
In the wake of an insult that exists only in their minds and never in my words nor in my heart, there remains, I think, only one question to ask:
Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin: why do you hate our troops?
Login or Register to post comments.
Thank god for people like Keith Olbermann.
Way to turn it back on them.
Olbermann was on last night! I loved his special comment and it was great how he cited Rachel Maddow for beating Billo in the ratings!
He looks pretty crispy in that screengrab though. Almost Oompa Loompa-like, or even worse... Lou Dobbs-like.
theWalrus @ 1:
Amen.
I sent under-equipped troops into an unnecessary war.
I am a war criminal who is resposible and liable for their deaths and injuries.
I am George W Bush and every right-wing radio tool.
They hate our troops because they haven't got the guts to go fight the wars they celebrate and push for.
They hate the troops because the troops don't kill fast enough. There hasn't been enough bloodshed of the Arab peoples yet and there needs to be more. Blackwater did it, but so far no one else has. So they hate, they hate some more, and they hate a lot.
I think Laura Ingrate and Anne Coultergeist are actually the same guy, just a different wig.
I was in Houston last week and missed the SC then.
It was the first hotel that had actually had msnbc-usually it is just CNN and Fox.
I heard some bad anti-democrat jokes and our waiter was enlisting saying I am fighting them there so....
Otherwise it was very pleasant trip and KO Rocks.
Right on, Keith!!! Another home run for the man who speaks truth to power (okay, albeit resident and stolen power). Nevertheless, the right question to the right. The right having such convoluted logic that up to them is actually down or sideways, hopefully there is nothing in Keith's words to them they can misconstrue.
What about Keith's earlier piece showing Richard Engel's interview of Busholini which, as shown in its entirety as the WH demanded, displays all the petulance, scheming and smirking of the chimperor? A sitting (p)resident who doesn't look someone in the eye when answering a question.
He (Busholini) is unquestionably a FUCKING LIAR. And a bad one at that!
emphasa @ 7:
Right Wing Hate Radio at its best.
For years most right wing politicians, and some left wing, have been using the flag, the bible, and children to shut up critics and distort thier message.
Now they're using the "troops."
Why do you hate our troops?
because the troops are from lower and lower middle class families, because the troops are of the "minority" persuasion, because a
tool is a tool is a tool is a tool!!
To be fair, right wingers only hate the troops who don't have the decency to just shut up and get shot at, so that said wingers can pat each other on the back and breathlessly compliment each other on how patriotic they are. The troops who disagree with right wingers and who ask for medical services for their lost limbs are the only troops they actually hate.
Whenever I hear Mark Levin, all I can picture is a 93-year old man waving his walking cane in the air screaming at some kids to get off his lawn.
He may not be 93-years old, but he sure sounds like he is.
Legalize @ 14:
QFT
Chico Hussein @ 15:
Levin-McCain, separated at birth?
There is Liberal and there is Conservative. The President has his own ground. He's staked out "Stupid", and he a his followers have a firm grasp on it.
Chico Hussein @ 16:
I think Levin sounds like Fire Marshall Bill from In Living Color. In a long list of right wing radio whack jobs, Levin is among the worst of the worst.
Another factor in their hatred is fear. Fear that they may be asked to enlist and put their lives on the line in this war they've been cheering on.
Wow....Olbermann!!! You sir, kick ass!
I will listen to lunatic Mark Levin on night time drive, but only in small snippets. No one with a real brain or conscience can tolerate the kind of half truthed, half baked, intellectually dishonest nonsense that this bloated gasbag emits under the guise of commentary, for more than several minutes at a time.
While entertaining at times, in a watching a train wreck kind of way, the show is of course tiresome. Hour after hour, day after day spewing the same mindless talking points, with not a breath taken for the purpose of actually discussing an issue. It's obvious that without his talking points, Mark Levin would have nothing to say. He only believes what he's been told to believe, and believe it wholeheartedly he does, he just doesn't know why. Of course the endless talking points are broken up and intertwined with "live calls" with Sheila from St. Louis who sounds an awful lot like Marge from Indiana, Kathy from Illinois, Debbie from Ct and Rosemarie from Long Island.
Personally, I don't think Keith should have responded, but I understand why he did. The fact is that the bottom is falling out on the lunatic fringe and they know it. They had their day in the sun, and too long a day if you ask me, but now, it's back in the basement, back onto the fringe where they belong. The election is over. John McCain will not make it through the summer in terms of his candidacy. He'll get lit up in the first debate, stammering nonsense about how the economy is strong while gas is $5, and carrots have become a delicacy. The election is going to be a bloodbath for the GOP. There will be supermajorities in both the House and Senate. Count on it. There will be a Democratic President in the White House. The GOP will be back in the political wilderness and its going to take two generations before they recover. No recovery will occur into the wingnut fringe that was created in the '80s has been purged from their ranks by retirement, political suicide or marginalization. Until that time, they will beat the same old drums about gays, prayer and "moral decay", and they will lose...election after election...except in those areas of the country either too dumb or too blind to see how they are being played.
There was a time that I felt some sense sympathy for those in the lunatic fringe of the right. I no longer do. I have great respect for true conservatives, and in fact share many of their values. I have nothing but contempt for those who have over these last two+ decades have set themselves up as "super patriots" and done nothing but level personal attacks against liberals, Democrats and anyone else they viewed as somehow different and "less American" then themselves. A pox on them all. Their pathetic, closed minded view of the world has caused the world to close in on them. They will see their ideology collapse and their twisted values revealed for what they are. Xynophobia, racism, bigotry and sexism.
They are deserving of the contempt and hatred they receive. Perhaps whatever god they pray to will forgive them for what they have done to our people and our natoin. I never will.
Yes I have to say that when I think of evil and mercenary I immediately think of shrub co.
Joe Tseng @ 13:
NOW??!?
Gad I've watched them do this all along!!
It's amazingly effective conditioning that they have done on the American people.
They took the sentiment from Vietnam and the vets returning home to an unwelcoming populace that was later seen as unfounded when it was the leadership the created such a situation so why blame the poor troops ... and they wrapped themselves in it stating that any disagreements with the president, his policies, his wars or the neocon agenda amounts to hating the poor troops that are just trying to defend your freedoms.
And it's worked.
Blue Lensman @ 21:
I've been wondering for months why right wing hate radio has not started up a coordinated campaign to get people to ENLIST in the war. Given that our troops are being asked to do 3, 4 even FIVE tours in Iraq/Afghanistan (same thing), it seems the only logical way to 'support the troops' is to simply enlist !
Hate Radio has all the ratings, or so they tell us over and over. Why not put this to good use ? McSame wants a least another 100-10,000 years of war with Iraq and the military is falling dangerously short in recruiting goals, even after they changed the rules and are now accepting basically anyone with a PULSE.
This should be a no-brainer for warmongers on the airwaves.
I just wonder what's taking so long.
Obviously Keith is usually on the mark, but not this time.
Sorry, but ANY troop who has murdered an innocent Iraqi, is a murderer.
What sacrifice have the troops made? Being sheep following orders to destroy a country that did nothing to us?
Sorry, don't buy it.
I don't support the troops. I support those who refuse to fight in this mess. THOSE are true American heroes, not every single moron who decides to sign up.
Jim @ 27:
Did anyone tell you that 'War Is Hell'? Think about it.
Why even bother refuting Mark Levin. He's a right wing tourette-syndrome nitwit.
When I hear Levin, I picture that pedophile neighbor from Family Guy.
it appears to me that the time has finally arrived for calling out the right wing hate mongers and bring the light of day to their ways. thankfully there is a man like K.O. to lead the way. this country is ripe for change and certainly tired of the repube hate and fear machine. obama has taken his shots at calling them out for what they are, and the reaction from the people i meet in my part of the world are saying "right on". repube fear, smear and hate has run its course and the majority of americans see it for what it is and where they have taken us. so when you hear it, call it out. make your objections known. make the days of say anything as long as it agrees with bush co. a thing of the past and a liability for anyone supporting it. i have been in stores waiting for service and have heard comments from wingnuts on t.v.. i have started speaking my objections and have been pleased to hear others offer opinions against the ignorance of the few remaing bush believers. and i live in the heavily republican area of Pa..
to any repube that thinks my humble opinion is wrong, ask yourself this, when was the last time 70+ thousand americans gathered to hear any repube speak their message of hate, fear and talking points? the winds of change are blowing and it is building into a mighty wind indeed.
L AND P #23:
I dont listen to Levin much, but your analysis of his show is exactly how I would define Hannity's radio show which I listen to ocassionaly. You hear ONE right wing hate radio show, you've heard them ALL.
I too 'used' to have respect for conservatives, but no more. This current group has fallen off the edge of the flat Earth they live in and they will indeed pay the price. The sad part is that their blind loyalty, which used to be their strong attribute, is now their deathwish.
It sure will take years before America even considers forgiving them, but America will surely never forget the damage a runway party like that can cause.
Jim @ 27:
Come on. The troops you're talking about are the most marginalized people in our society. People who barely make it out of high school. They're children, most of them.
It's easy for grown-ups to disagree with incredibly complex world problems, but a 17 or 18 year old kid from a poor family? Jeez. Give 'em a break.
Jim @ 27:
"We dont support this war or anyone in it"
-StarBucks-
But, but, but O'Racist has super duper ratings!!!
As much as I agree with Mr. Oberman's commentaries, I cannot help but wonder if his views are merely a networks attempt at manipulating the people with a voice that appears we are being heard and thereby quiets the maddening crowds of the majority of Americans who disagree with this current Bush administration and their atrocious warmongering ways.
I cannot believe the American people are letting this happen- every day it grows worse and eventually Bush will have his state of emergency and declare martial law and cancel the 2008 election. I said this over three years ago and got kicked off of Alternet after three top posters agreed with me and we began to comment similarly.
This is happening and sane good people are beginning to see this. I wonder if anything will ever happen to counter this bullshit?
Adolph Hitler became Chancellor and dictator of Germany the exact same way- only quicker- and we all know how this shit turned out!
Think about it.
Olbermann is genius.
Mark Levin is a hybrid Walmart version of Weiner-Savage/Vannity. He really, really tries to be hateful and vile, but he just comes off as a complete and utter idiot.
In the wake of an insult that exists only in their minds and never in my words nor in my heart, there remains, I think, only one question to ask: Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin: Why do you hate our troops?
Because their color coordination is simply soooo fabulous!
Cracker's for Christ @ 19:
I got something I keep a firm grasp on too.
Don't ask.
Jim @ 27:
Hahaha! good one. This is similar to that old Bill Hicks joke, "I'm for the war, but against the troops." But he was kidding.
Keith and Rachel for co-presidents...
Seriously, Great Job to Keith and Rachel. Please keep it up. We need more truth tellers like you two.
I think he understated it. They despise our troops. They have nothing for disdain for the peons who join our 'volunteer' force. If required to actually pony up and fight for their country, they would all find an excuse, get a favor done, or pretend to have bad feet.
These people are truly scum and its a shame that so many of my countrymen see fit to give them a voice.
Jim @ 27:
As a former soldier I completely disagree with your comments. Soldiers are not in a position to disobey orders (even if it goes against what they believe) as their commanding officers may (and usually do) have more information than the soldiers. You obey an order as it may cost lives if you don’t. Accepting disobedience in the military ranks sets a dangerous precedent. The soldiers are (as Keith so appropriately reminds us) victims as well.
Excellent Keith!!! I wish he would do a SC on the Bush Family and their Nazi ties....
43
Snarf Says:
"Soldiers are not in a position to disobey orders"..."Accepting disobedience in the military ranks sets a dangerous precedent"
Period!!!
yes Jim @ 27: it's a hard concept to get your head around, but that's how it is, especially during engagement...if i'm not mistaken and please Snarf correct me if i'm wrong but the repercussions of this can be deadly for the decenter as well as his/hers fellow soldiers...
lay off the troops...go after the politicians that put them in this place...it's unfair to assume you know how much they actually know about this "war" and their "enemy"....unless you've been there!!!
As a former soldier I completely disagree with your comments. Soldiers are not in a position to disobey orders (even if it goes against what they believe) as their commanding officers may (and usually do) have more information than the soldiers. You obey an order as it may cost lives if you don’t. Accepting disobedience in the military ranks sets a dangerous precedent. The soldiers are (as Keith so appropriately reminds us) victims as well.
I thought soldiers were supposed to disobey illegal orders?
I guess the "I was just obeying orders" excuse IS valid after all.
I wouldn't go so far as the original poster did in calling soldiers murderers, etc... I understand that soldiers have all the different opinions and motivations that the general populace has.
I also know how screwed over soldiers often are, I have a disabled Vietnam vet for a brother-in-law.
But I do wonder what would ever make a person willfully and totally surrender personal moral autonomy to someone else or some power structure. I personally would simply not be able to follow an order I found immoral, regardless of the consequences to myself. Of course, that aspect of my character means I would never make myself subject to such orders in the first place. I'd go to prison before I'd carry a gun for this country's military.
It's strange though. Perhaps the willingness to surrender that moral authority is a survival advantage, is selected for by nature somehow... because the fact that I don't have it actually has cost me significantly and at times jeopardized my own safety.
Liberal AND Proud @ 23:
i wished i shared your optimism...somehow i think it will be stolen away...
This I like. Let the Republican right-wingers spew whatever lies/hatred/bs, they like, they'll be called out on it. If this happens enough, they'll learn to keep their traps shut, out of fear of a good old-fashioned tongue lashing.
This is why Obama drawing a line in the sand (so to speak) about dragging his wife into the fray and Keith Olberman's Special Comments are so crucial; they show that there are people that will stand up and fight back when the disinformation agents and professional liars hold court.
If Democrats and progressive types (not always the same thing) keep this up there might be hope for us yet.
I've seen two despicable theories on the web recently that illustrate just how very little the right-wingers respect the sacrifices of our soldiers. Both of them have that unmistakable "talking points" feel to them.
#1. They Volunteered. It's an all-volunteer army, so everyone who joined did so with the understanding that they might see combat and that they might well die, so what's the big deal if they do? After all, they volunteered. Mistakes may have been made, the WMD evidence might not have been as strong as we were told, the whole thing might just be about oil, but why make a big thing about 4000+ dead and countless wounded young Americans? THEY VOLUNTEERED, DUDE! Oh, you libs just don't understand logic. (Sigh).
#2. 4000 Isn't Very Many. In 2006, over 17,000 Americans died as a result of homicide. That's more than FOUR times as many Americans as have been killed in Iraq. And that's in ONE year while the Iraq casualties take place over FIVE years. Shouldn't we as Americans be more concerned about bringing down our very high homicide rate? After all, with the soldiers it's different: they volunteered. I tried arguing with a guy who posted this nonsense. I told him the U.S. population of 300 MILLION was over 2100 times the average U.S troop level in Iraq (140,000), and that that made comparisons between the 2 populations like apples and oranges. I went on to tell him that 4000 deaths among 140,000 troops over 5 years gives a combat death rate of 570+ per 100,000 vs. the U.S. homicide rate of 5.7 per 100,000: or 100 times greater.
He posted back that I was a silly liberal who just didn't understand logic because 17,000 is over FOUR times as many as 4000. It's FOUR times as many! (Sigh).
"i wished i shared your optimism…somehow i think it will be stolen away…"
They probably won't need to. This will be the most disgusting race in history. The attacks against (presumably) Obama will be relentless, vile and disgusting and racist, and the media will dutifully report and dissect and analyze every unfounded smear and rumor for weeks on end.
And people will be so bludgeoned by it that they will be too uneasy to vote for Obama even if they don't really believe the smears. The media will convince millions that McCain is the "safe" choice.
david @ 45:
David, you are absolutely correct. One example is if you see a mother with a child warped up and she approaches you, that child who is wrapped up could be a bomb and if you are ordered to shoot … you shoot… or you could be responsible of the death of your fellow soldiers and innocent civilians (and there are plenty more examples to site). This is what soldiers have to deal on a day to day basis ... So Jim, before you start talking out of your butt, become a soldier and put yourself in their shoes. To place any blame on soldiers for decisions made others (that they are required to follow) is cowardly after all they are the ones dying, not us.
Jim@27:
No Jim, YOU are the true American hero. Your moral clarity inspires us all. Someday YOUR face - the face of JIM - will adorn Mt. Rushmore, replacing the faces of less deserving Americans.
But that will not be until after Mt. Rushmore has been renamed Asshole Mountain. What say to Jim, Rush, O.J. and Dubya - all in a row.
If you haven't stood up FOR Keith and help defend him from those attacking him and trying to get him to tone it down OR take him off the air. PLEASE do so!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/19/22729/2397
If you haven't stood up FOR Keith and against those who are attacking him and want to take him off the air. Please! do so!
joeedugan @ 52:
LOL!
craig @ 50:
I disagree. There are too many things going on in America right now that have people at the "breaking point" in their lives and beliefs (healthcare, gas prices, housing crisis, the war, etc.). 81% of the electorate believes we are on the wrong path. Notice we're just now getting to that high percentage, and see that it's coinciding with all these crises coming to a head and directly effecting each voter. Not "if", but "when" the GOP decides to run like it always has people will be so utterly bludgeoned and disgusted by it, they will flock to (presumably) Obama.
craig @ 46:
With that type of reasoning you have to prove the soldiers committed a crime. This is an illegal war and the responsibility is the to the government and superior officers executing the war, not the soldiers sent to fight it. As long as soldiers don’t commit a crime in the execution of the war they are not guilty as long as the orders they follow in the engagement of the war are not unlawful in nature (this is different than the war itself). You need to hold the RIGHT people responsible.
For example (regardless if the war is lawful or not), a soldier shooting an unarmed civilian is a crime; a soldier shooting at a speeding car headed towards them (who has not identified themselves) is not a crime.
This is very easy....
Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin = making a fortune off of the stupidity of the right wingnuts
They are on the gravy train that is the right wingnut noise machine....
They support....err...at least want their mealticket, right wingnut believers to believe that they (Ingraham & Levin) think Bush is the best thing to ever happen to this country...and they snicker all the way to the bank...
They are defending Bush...who as Jim Webb reminds us (not that we need reminding in the realm of reality): Bush Would Be First President In History To Veto Benefits For Vets
Right wingnut noise machine mantra: There's no shame, where this money to be made, no exceptions...
Hard to believe Kieth, Ann and I went to the same school.
Craig@46: You say that "I'd go to prison before I'd carry a gun for this country's military." For which country's military would you carry a gun? What, civilian leadership aside, do you find PARTICULARLY distasteful about this country or it's military?
Snarf @ 56:
With that type of reasoning you have to prove the soldiers committed a crime. This is an illegal war and the responsibility is the to the government and superior officers executing the war, not the soldiers sent to fight it. As long as soldiers don’t commit a crime in the execution of the war they are not guilty as long as the orders they follow in the engagement of the war are not unlawful in nature (this is different than the war itself). You need to hold the RIGHT people responsible.
For example (regardless if the war is lawful or not), a soldier shooting an unarmed civilian is a crime; a soldier shooting at a speeding car headed towards them (who has not identified themselves) is not a crime.
Soldiers do have it hard. My father was in Vietnam as well. He gets furious when he sees the troops feel the brunt of the illegal actions of their superiors. Can someone also explain to me: How does stop loss continue to occur? I understand soldiers are beholden to the contracts they sign, but doesn't an illegal war *technically* anull that contract? Congress didn't declare war, and their charge would also be to protect the troops and take care of them through legislation. Couldn't that even be a "breach of contract"? I mean, most volunteers don't just sign up for the hell of it. They need/want something in return. At the very least the promise that they'll be taken care of for their sacrifices.
And @ 59:
Two out of three aint bad
Liberal AND Proud @ 23:
Thank you, so much. My sentiments exactly.
Darrell Kern @ 35:
You know, on the day...on 9/11 2 weeks into my freshman year and just moved to DC, my roomate and I attempting to settle down smoked a jay in a park across from campus. We both predicted "The War on Terror" to the T! That Bush would label it as such and provide him with an ambiguous enemy to fight indefinitely. Years later after the start of the Iraq war and reelection of Bush - many times has the fear flashed through my mind that Bush/Cheney would permit/engineer/fabricate another attack, establish marshal law and suspend elections...
I still have faith that the masses would revolt...you'd revolt, right?
david @ 45:
Sorry Jim, I did not completely answer your question. In a time of war a soldier can be executed for disobeying a direct order.
GMO @ 64:
Hell no! I might get shot! I've got two words for you: Dual Citizenship. If it comes down to a revolt/civil war, I'm outta here. If the Cheney Imperial Army follows me then I'll gladly die in their concentration camps, cuz I'd rather not live in a world where THEY rule.
Snarf @ 57:
Snarf
"... you have to prove the soldiers committed a crime." One looks at that statement in amazement, even more so that it is written on a liberal web site. You admit that this is an illegal war [though it should more accurately be thought as an occupation] and yet you believe that soldiers should somehow be exonerated from obeying illegal orders. You may want to rent or buy the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!, which told the story of the GI resistance during the Vietnam conflict or read the classic work Soldiers In Revolt by David Cortright, which also told about the GI movement in print. As one of the soldiers [or perhaps a former soldier]in Sir! No Sir! says to other soldiers in a GI coffeehouse, do not think that being a clerk typist will get you off the hook, as you are still a part of an organization that, as in Iraq, is engaged in the illegal suppression and brutalization of a people that were never a threat to anyone in these United States. As David Cline, who was severely wounded in Vietnam, correctly pointed out in the film: "Your silence [referring to the soldiers] is keeping that lie going." Or former Green Beret Donald Duncan, who eloquently stated: "I was doing it right but I wasn't right."
Americans like Keith Olbermann and even liberals love to proclaim that American soldiers are "heroes." What they always refuse to do is engage in any kind of introspection as to why soldiers who are engaged in occupying another country should somehow be considered heroic. What so many Americans seem to lack are traits like empathy and imagination. It would seem that if they actually possessed these traits, then they would be able to imagine what the Iraqis and the Afghanis are going through at the hands of the Americans, such as what happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, being shot at checkpoints, experiencing atrocities that have happened not only at Haditha and Fallujah but also to many Iraqis and Afghanis on a daily basis.
One wonders if foreign soldiers were to occupy the United States, would Americans and liberals believe those soldiers to be heroic? It an American were to see a tank in front of their street and a foreign soldier wearing battle fatigues and especially carrying an assault rifle, would liberals believe that those soldiers should somehow be considered heroes? I suspect they would not but yet liberals, like their rabid superpatriotic conservative colleagues, think that American soldiers should still obey orders, even if those orders are clearly illegal.
The true heroes of this country are those soldiers who have said no to illegally occupying another country, such as Lt. Ehren Watada and Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman. They said that they could no longer in good conscience be a part of the war machine and as a consequence the latter two, like many in Sir! No Sir!, were thrown in prison for their actions. These people, along with the IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War] are the ones who should be admired and revered. Instead, very few liberals even know who Camilo Mejia and Kevin Bendernan are while they are quick to proclaim the alleged heroism of American soldiers, whose sense of morality seems to have eluded them while occupying countries [again illegally] in the Middle East.
The American soldier probably believes that he is fighting to protect Americans for our freedoms. Dupes would be a much more appropriate word to describe these alleged patriots, rather than the overused word hero.
Correction to comment #67. Donald Duncan's statement in the last paragraph should read:"I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."
Duuuude
Lay off the QT lotion.
Keith Olbermann is the very best reporter in the biz. He stands up for what he believes in, and is not afraid to call out those who criticize him or try to spin his words. You're the man, Keith!! Keep it up!!!
The Champ is out.
Erroll,
This war IS an illegal war (you will get no argument from me there) but only the government can declare war therefore the government is responsible for the illegality of it, not the soldiers (I say government instead of congress because it depends on which country you live in regards to who declares war…we know the semantics about who declared war in the US). Remember that the reasons for the war were a fabrication so America was lied into it. Again this is not the fault of the soldiers. The pResident and its administration are responsible for this.
According to the Geneva Convention the ultimate responsibility of illegal orders lay at the feet of the superiors. This is called "command responsibility" or "superior responsibility". Military law and international law require subordinate soldiers to obey the "lawful orders" of their superiors so if the order itself is lawful no crime is committed therefore blame cannot be placed at the feet of the soldiers (if the order itself is indeed lawful). In a time of war disobeying a direct order is punishable by death so a soldier that disobeys a direct order does so at their own risk (you can’t appreciate the situation unless you are in it). Furth more commanders and superiors have obligations to those who server under them. Commanders and superiors have a number of obligations
1) The duty to prevent: a commander has an absolute duty to prevent crimes. A commander may be guilty of negligence if he realizes that a lack of training may mean that soldiers under his command could commit crimes.
2) The duty to control: a commander has the duty to control and discipline his forces to prevent the commission of crimes.
3) The duty to act: a commander must take action when a crime is discovered. There are four choices:
• Take no action.
• Take administrative action against the perpetrator.
• Administer "non-judicial" punishment.
• Trial by court martial.
4) The duty to punish: The commander has a duty to punish those found guilty of committing crimes.
Make no mistake... Responsibilty of an illegal war does not lie at the feet of the soldiers, only illegal orders that are obeyed.
And believe me I am as liberal as they come....I just know where to place blame
Erroll@67: I suspect that the soldiers you cite in your argument - Watada, Mejia and Benderman - have a respect for their fellow soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that you do not seem to share.
I can understand why you personally would choose not to fight overseas: your high horse would no doubt make you a target.
elchupacabra arbusto @ 29:
The great thing is, Keith always refers to him as Mark LEVin. He HATES being called LEVin. He always makes a point of it on his show -- "You know how to pronounce my name! It's LevIN!"
#71-Snarf states that "Make no mistake... Responsibility of an illegal war does not lie at the feet of the soldiers, only illegal orders that are obeyed." On the contrary, I have not made the mistake. Rather, I submit that you have. Sections 809, 891, 892, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ] center upon the idea that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer", the lawful order of a warrant officer" and the "lawful general order". That being the case, your argument makes absolutely no sense that soldiers who are taking part in the illegal occupation and brutalization and terrorization of the Iraqi and Afghani people have absolutely no moral or legal obligations to consider when given those orders, which you yourself admit to being illegal. I will refer again to what I said at comment #67, concerning the soldier in Sir! No Sir!, who reminded his fellow soldiers that if they are even clerk typists, that does not get them off the hook, because they are still part of an organization that has taken part in illegally invading another country [Vietnam, which could also apply to Iraq and Afghanistan]. Also, again, to the words of former Green Beret Donald Duncan, who wisely noted in Sir! Sir! that: "I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right." And what David Cline said in Sir! No Sir: "Your silence [referring to the soldiers] is keeping that lie going."
You state "I just know where to place blame." You may want to try explaining that bit of illogic to Iraqis who have had their doors kicked in by American soldiers or Afghans who have had their houses blown up by American bombs and see how far that argument will get you. As I tried to state at comment #67, even liberals, like their conservative brethren, can allow their emotions to be overcome by patriotic drivel. Even liberals apparently, have no trouble succumbing to the mistaken principle of American Exceptionalism. You did an admirable job of not responding to my reference to the GI resistance that took place in Sir! No Sir! and the members of the IVAW. Again, as I mentioned before, those people are the true heroes, certainly not those soldiers who blindly obey the illegal orders that they are given. As I stated, at comment # 67, would you consider foreign soldiers who would take over this country to be heroes? Would you not want them to disobey those orders that they are given? As I said before, a distinct lack of empathy for those people who are under the thumb of American imperialism. It is long past the point that American soldiers realize that they actually have a brain and that they should use it by saying NO to illegally occupying and terrorizing Iraqis and Afghanis.
joeedugan @ 72:
"I can understand why you personally would choose not to fight overseas:..." I must admit, that is one of the more unenlightened and emotionally charged comments that I can remember seeing. If only it were true, because if it were, it would mean that I would not have to deal with PTSD and the nightmares of what I went through while being in a place called Vietnam.
Regarding the bizarre statement that Watada, Mejia, and Benderman would "have a respect for their fellow soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that you do not seem to share", perhaps, pray tell, you can explain to myself and others why those GI resisters should have any respect for soldiers who are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and thereby breaking down doors of innocent Iraqis and drooping five hundred pound bombs on Afghan villages and homes and shooting at Iraqis at checkpoints and committing atrocities at Haditha and Fallujah and in Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis? As I attempted to explain at comment #67, apparently to no avail, your thinking simply reinforces the notion that you, like so many Americans, seem to be bereft of the word empathy in your DNA. If you actually possessed that trait, you would realize that the Iraqis and Afghanis feel very little, if any, respect for what the Americans have done to their countries. But like your conservative colleagues, you are loath to admit that those in the U.S. military should be considered anything but "heroes". Naturally, the last persons you would want to ask to confirm your theory would be an Iraqi or an Afghani. After all, the last thing an American would want to admit is that Americans could possibly be the bad guys.
Support the troops. Bring them home-NOW.
These people on the left are trying so hard to show how right-wing and patriotic they are.
Support the troops? What hogwash.
Nobody is supporting the troops.
People who care should be talking every day about ending the war NOW.
Mark Levin is an UNAMERICAN SOB who does not give a hit about reality.
This developing exchange is perhaps the best so engaged on what has become mostly a worship Obamma and slam Hillary bog. Keith obviously wasn't going to be swiftboated over his messy statements but he ended up mostly being clever and heaping more hollow praise on "the troops" who are certainly NOT protecting us/US from anything. Alice was right "a soldier's life is terrible hard" but cloaking each and every one in some mantle of patriotic dribble undercuts the entire sorry nature of Bush's unconstitutional and stupid war. The 6th Michigan and the 13 SS were brave troops but hardly heroic in the long run.
TM @ 55:
Erroll@74: Sir, you are tiresome and you surely have your cranium wedged as tightly up your posterior cavity as any dittohead or freeper out there. The patience and kindness exhibited by Snarf@71 make him a candidate for sainthood in my book.
What reward do you desire for your pompous and self-righteous lecture? A cookie? Does wittel Eh-woll want a great big cookie for so bravely holding forth on the correct way to behave in a situation that he does not even remotely begin to comprehend? Sorry Erroll, no cookie for you: O.J. is coming off the Mountain and you are going up. He may have murdered two people, but at least he has the good sense to know when to shut up.
Cracker's for Christ @ 19:
REPUBLICANS ARE REPUBLICANS................there is NOTHING CONSERVATIVE about any of them. 'Cept David Vitter may reuse an occasional diaper.
joeedugan @ 79:
You claim that I am "... bravely holding forth on the correct way to behave in a situation that he does not even remotely begin to comprehend." You sound absolutely sure that I cannot "comprehend" the "situation." Have you been in a combat zone? I suspect like most superpatriots, that you have not. But I have and I am not proud of that fact at all. Have you seen the film Sr! No Sir!? I suspect not again, since your debating skills, such as they are, are limited to telling anyone who does not believe that American soldiers are "heroes" should simply "shut up."
I will throw your words right back at you. You. sir, are tiresome. Worse, you are wrong by your insinuation that anyone who does not proclaim American soldiers to be "heroes" should then "shut up". Bravo! for being able to do attempt to duplicate what the rabid conservatives try to do, which is to denigrate those who wish to point an obvious truth, which is that U.S, armed forces should be speaking out against the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of blindly obeying the orders that they are given. Most egregiously, your comments are not coming from a neoconservative web site but from a liberal blog, proving, apparently, that some liberals can be just as non tolerant as those on the far right.
Erroll @ 74:
Unless you realize WHY the soldiers are doing it (i.e. what they are being told by their superiors) you are really not in a point to argue (this goes back to “command responsibility”). They don’t do it for the fun of it, they do it because they are ordered to and a soldier has to assume their commanding officer knows more than they do about the situation. You have to put yourself in their shoes and know what THEY are being told before they can be declared heroes, villains or somewhere in between. Anything else is presumptuous.
Erroll @ 81:
Never been in a combat zone. Never served in the military. Never claimed to. Not a "superpatriot". Pretty leery of patriotism in general. I think the vast majority of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are trying their best to do the right thing under very difficult circumstances. Does that make them heroes? No, it's admirable but not necessarily heroic. However, given the choice between "heroes" and your characterization that they are "dupes who "blindly follow illegal orders", I would definitely go with heroes.
I'm sorry you had to serve in Vietnam. I have no idea how horrible that place was. What I do know is that Vietnam is not Iraq, as surely as Korea was not Vietnam, or WW1 was not WW2. All terrible in their own way, no doubt, but different wars. I think you let your experience in Vietnam color your perspective on the current situation. You are, I am sure, familiar with the concept of "always fighting the last war"?I don't think you are being honest with yourself. I don't think you are writing about your anger at Iraq and Afghanistan: I think you are opposed to ALL war. A very admirable position to take, so why don't you just take it? I'll see if I can locate a copy of your movie: it sounds interesting.
Snarf @ 82:
You state "You have to put yourself in their shoes..." It is hardly "presumptuous" of me to declare that they are heroes or villains since I was in shoes very similar to theirs almost forty years ago in a place called Vietnam, as were the GI resisters in the film Sir! No Sir!, so I seriously doubt if you can tell me that I am in no position to judge. You keep offering excuses as to why these soldiers should continue to subjugate the Iraqi and Afghani people without drawing a comparison to people like Camilo Mejia, Kevin Benderman, and others, such as those who were mentioned in the book Mission Rejected subtitled, Soldiers Who Say NO to Iraq, by Peter Laufer. They did not obey orders because "they are ordered to." As Lt. Watada said to myself and other veterans at the Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle in 2006:
"The American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed."
The lieutenant went on to recall the words of an American icon when he said "Mark Twain once remarked, 'Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified traitor, both to yourself and to your country...' By this, each and every American soldier, marine, airman, and sailor is responsible for their choices and their actions. The freedom to choose is only one that we can deny ourselves."
Watada reminded the veterans that "The oath we take swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people. Enlisting in the military does not relinquish one's right to seek the truth-neither does it excuse one from rational thought nor the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. 'I was only following orders' is never an excuse."
You make absolutely no moral distinction between those who willingly go along with the orders that they are given and those soldiers who have had the courage to listen to their consciences by saying NO to the U.S. war machine. Until you do this, your argument remains morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Erroll @ 84:
Evening Erroll.
I've been keeping an eye on this one.
This doesn't surprise me.
Erroll @ 84:
Errol, when you are in a hole… stop digging….I am aware of GI resistance (like everyone else) but to introduce that into the discussion is like saying “Hey Everyone, look at the flying pig”. These after all are the few exceptions and not the general rule. As you are aware (seeing your military experience) these individuals are Sergeants therefore do not represent the view of the overall military command. Watada is a Lieutenant therefore a “Junior Officer” and as such a relatively low rank for a commissioned officer, if it was a Colonel or Chief it would be far more impressive as it would more closely indicate the position of the military. Commenting on the very very few exceptions really does not get you anywhere and it is beside the point as derails the overall discussion of the soldiers who are in harm’s way.
I do have the utmost empathy for what Iraqis and Afghanis are suffering (and I am very aware of what they are going through – would be ignorant if I didn’t) through this war but I am not going to insult these people by pretending that I understand their suffering. Do I think this war is wrong? Absolutely (just as it apears that you do) …But situations like this are not understood on emotional ploys and insults such as the ones you are offering when you find it convenient to offer them (I refuse to fall into these traps). Painting the troops as a bunch of barbaric Neanderthals recklessly following orders gets you nowhere. Reason and compassion will get you much further than accusations.
It is quite clear you are not interested in a reasonable discussion but would rather stoop to insults, emotional ploys and the patronizing of bloggers.
GMO @ 64:
I have revolted by not getting involved in the elections as they really are about mass distraction anyway. All this voter fraud and Diebold scamming has proven that the elections have likely been rigged the day they went electronic and before that who knows how its been done.
I agree as you do that our government officials do all kinds of seemingly stupid things which makes them look incompetent so the people would never suspect a highly organized and sinister plan is about to unfold which has been in the works for a very long time. And whatever 9/11 really was- it certainly was not a sudden attack- that scam was probably decades in the making which would also serve to confirm they have it all laid out decades of the future and they simply want to execute their evil plans within their own time frame and the only thing which hinder that is a public revolt- which would simply make it all happen sooner rather than later.
I believe its a little late for any kind of organized revolt and we would have to wait until the big plan was falling apart and soldiers stopped following orders and turned on their masters.
To answer your question- I will protect my loved ones and family as best I could from what's coming no doubt- but to prepare any kind of retaliation would only cause an absence in my being able to help my loved ones.
We are each on our own.
#83-Joeeddugan
I am not attempting to sound condescending but I think that if you did rent or buy Sir! No Sir!, as you mentioned that you might do, you might then be able to see what I am saying. You believe that "... my experience in Vietnam" has affected my "perspective on the current situation." Of course it has. You claim that "Vietnam is not Iraq. "But what happened in Southeast Asia and what is happening in the Middle East is quite similar. Both were wars of aggression started for the most specious of reasons against countries which never even remotely threatened the world's largest superpower. Veterans groups have been handing out, whenever they can, copies of Sir! No Sir! to members of the military so that they can realize that they do not have to simply go along with whatever the military and the government tells them to do.
You believe that I am "opposed to ALL war." How amazing of you to know what I believe. What you have to try and keep in mind about Iraq and Afghanistan is that, as in Vietnam, neither the Iraqis nor the Afghanis invaded this country. On the contrary, the United States, without provocation, attacked those two countries, reining death and destruction upon its citizens. From two to four Vietnamese people were killed by the United States military. Over a million Iraqis have died since their country was illegally invaded by the United States. Two million have been displaced from their homes and two million more have fled to other countries.
You think that choosing if American soldiers are either dupes or heroes, that you will pick the latter. That morally blind statement reminds me of Tennyson's poem, The Charge of the Light Brigade, when he writes: "into the valley of death rode the six hundred." What in the world is supposed to be so heroic about soldiers being chopped up into a meat grinder and used as cannon fodder? That is not heroic; on the contrary, that is idiotic as well as suicidal.
It is long overdue that American soldiers realize, as Watada stated to the veterans in Seattle at the VFP convention in 2006, that they have been lied to and that each of them has a right, as well as a duty and an obligation, to say NO to illegal orders. Their duty is the the same oath that I took, which is not to the military or to the President but to the U.S. Constitution. If and when you ever see Sir! No Sir!, you might then know what I am talking about. Lt Watada and the members of the IVAW certainly do.
the right wing pundits always seem to struggle with those twitchy impulses don't they? go keith!
#86-Snarf
You claim that I am "... stoop[ing] to insults. I do not believe that I have launched any ad hominem attacks upon, unless you do not believe that I should have stated that you argument is "morally and intellectually bankrupt" which, I would hazard to say, hardly qualifies as a personal insult. You believe that "reason and compassion will get you much further than accusations." Is this another way of saying that no criticism of U.S. troops are ever to be allowed? That certainly seems to be what you are saying.
You claim, apparently with a straight face, that you have " ... the utmost empathy for what the Iraqis and Afghanis are suffering..." Yet when I dare to point out the obvious, i.e. how the Americans have committed atrocities against the Iraqis and Afghanis, you say how impolite it is to mention these things, since it would impede the necessity of having a "reasonable discussion." It would appear to me that if you actually had empathy for the Iraqis and the Afghanis, you would recognize that the U.S. has absolutely no right in imposing its will upon Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would like to suggest a film to you, if I may, entitled Hearts and Minds, which won an Oscar for Best Documentary in 1974. What makes this film unique is that it actually had voices of the victims of the United States, the Vietnamese and what they suffered at the hands of the U.S. You claim that I am engaging in "emotional ploys." As I tried to state before on other comments, you may want to ask the Iraqis and the Afghanis what they think of the Americans and of their families who have been torn asunder by American bombs and bullets. As I also said before, try to imagine how you would feel if another country occupied the U.S. But apparently to dare to do this is to be accused of engaging in an "emotional ploy."
This is a situation in which U.S. troops are exacerbating the insurgency, which in reality should be called the resistance fighters. Why? Because, as any country would do, they are attempting, as the Vietnamese did against the French and the United States, the Algerians against the French, the Irish against the British, the Iraqis against the British in 1920 on, to drive the invader from their soil. As any student of history knows, or should know, the occupied country will keep fighting until its dying breath until the occupying power has finally left its country. But, as Gore Vidal has said in the past, this is the United States of Amnesia, with America continuing stubbornly to invade and occupy other countries, no matter how many people they will kill and maim and cripple.
GMO @ 64:
Page:"Sire, the peasants are revolting!"
King Louis:"They certainly are!"
And we certainly will. ;-)
Mudshark
It never fails to surprise me how any criticism of the United States, especially of its soldiers, is never to be tolerated. What makes this ironic, of course, is that this criticism is not occurring on a far right wing site but on a liberal blog. I keep expecting someone to accuse me of being unpatriotic or un american. despite the fact that I had the bad misfortune to end up in Vietnam. Apparently Howard Zinn's admonition that "Dissent Is The Highest Form of Patriotism" is not something that is looked upon too favorably by too many commenters on this thread.
Eroll
You don't seem to realize I agree with you that this war is WRONG (something I have mentioned a few times but you have not acknowledged) and illegal.....I also agree with you about Vietnam...
I have already made it clear WHY soldiers act as ordered. I have also made it clear the responsibilities of the commanders. Please read my previous posts if this has not been made clear yet.
Responsibility lies at the feet of the Bush Administration and I am tiring of this. ....
That was a brilliant commentary by Keith. Brilliant in that it indeed illustrates the true depravity here -- that of Ingraham and Levin jumping to the conclusion that our troops must have been the cold-blooded killers referred to.
If only we could clone Olbermann...and Rachel Maddow while we're at it.
Erroll @ 92:
Dissent, in and of itself, does not speak to the rightness of your cause. In other words, just because you dissent doesn't make you right. You have been making points with a meat cleaver that required a scalpel.
ingraham is a vile, fish smelling skank for whom Karma will be a bitch.
Erroll @ 92:
Erroll writes that he "keep(s) expecting someone to accuse me of being unpatriotic"? Did you mean to write "keep hoping", Erroll? Get over yourself. You didn't suffer on your cross in Vietnam for the sins of anyone on this blog. Maybe try your act Friday - That's when McNamara and Gen. Giap log in.
KO asks "..there remains, I think, only one question to ask: Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin: Why do you hate our troops?"
I think the real question is, "why are they so hateful, period." They just are hateful people. It's really quite sorry to see.
joeedugan @ 97:
Actually Joe, despite what you seem to believe, I am not "hoping" that I will be accused of being unpatriotic. Rather, I perhaps have the misguided notion that the many neoliberals here might admit that U.S. policy, done at the behest of its obedient U.S. soldiers, is wrong. You then bizarrely mention McNamara and General
Giap. What that has to do with Iraq and U.S. soldiers fighting for a lost cause is beyond my grasp. American exceptionalism at its finest [or worst].
TM @ 95:
Your argument, such as it is, is less than persuasive. Perhaps you can break it down for me, since everyone else seems unable to, why one should consider American soldiers, who are illegally occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorizing the citizens of those countries, to be heroes. As I mentioned previously, you may wish to ask the Iraqis and Afghanis if they believe the Americans to be heroes. Or is that too blunt a question to ask?
"Your argument, such as it is, is less than persuasive. Perhaps you can break it down for me, since everyone else seems unable to, why one should consider American soldiers, who are illegally occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorizing the citizens of those countries, to be heroes. As I mentioned previously, you may wish to ask the Iraqis and Afghanis if they believe the Americans to be heroes. Or is that too blunt a question to ask?"
*smacks face* How many times do we have to go over it - SOLDIERS DO NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR! ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE THAT DECISION!
I swear, some days it's like trying to explain Shakespeare to a Hershey Bar...
An order to deploy is not one you can legally refuse
It's an order like, "Execute that village," or "Shoot that man in the back," or "Tie them in a nekkid heap while laughing, smoking and pointing at their genitals," one can refuse.
But when the government is both giving the orders and trying you for your refusal, expect no justice.
Trekkie @ 101:
You managed to not so adroitly avoid answering the question. Or are you saying that soldiers who blindly obey illegal orders are to be considered heroic? I would submit that those who would merit the words honor and respect are the members of the IVAW who have said that they will no longer participate in the subjugation and occupation of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to suggest that you engage in a little less flag waving and to instead undertake in a bit more critical thinking. If you did, you would realize that the members of the IVAW have a hell of a lot more integrity than those soldiers who have decided to simply go along with the program.
ysbaddaden @ 102:
"An order to deploy is not one you can legally refuse." That statement is simply untrue. The army went after Lt. Ehren Watada because he did exactly that and it has gotten them nowhere. The UCMJ says that a member of the military has not only a right but a duty and an obligation not to obey what he believes are illegal orders [sections 809, 891, 892]. Thankfully, there are members of the military [such as Camilo Mejia, Kevin Benderman, Watada, et al] who have had the courage to say no to illegal orders by saying that they will no longer be a part of a military that occupies and brutalizes those citizens who were never a threat to anyone in these United States.
This country needs more people like Ehren Watada, Camilo Mejia, and Kevin Benderman who have come out and resisted the conventional thinking that says that the military must be automatically obeyed, no matter what those orders may be. These people exemplify the closing lines of Bertolt Brecht's poem General, Your Tank Is A Powerful Vehicle:
General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.
What kind of super-powers does an OLBERMANN have?
Actually this thread is about Olbermann, Levin and Ingraham, so I'll leave it at this,
I suspect you got your information from a link like this:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/ehren_watada_free_spee...
I'm also ex-Airforce and know something about the UCMJ.
Oopsie
Air Force
And I got the hangover to prove it.
ysbaddaden @ 106:
That article that you linked to was written before the army tried Watada for missing movement. As I attempted to explain at comment #104, the army failed to convict Watada for not deploying to Iraq. What had happened was that the judge in the case bizarrely declared a mistrail, trying to claim that Watada did not understand an agreement that he had signed with the prosecution, even though the judge had gone over that agreement with Watada line by line a week before the trial began. One suspects that the judge decided to declare that mistrial, over the objections of the defense counsel no less, because Watada was going to take the stand and in all probability was terrified that Watad would point out under oath the illegality and immorality of the Iraq invasion and occupation.
I simply find it stunning that one finds these comments being made not be the far right but by those who apparently consider themselves to be liberals. One would think that those who are supposed to be against the illegal and unnecessary occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would be singing the praises of someone like Watada who has had the courage to say NO to the illegal orders that he had been given. Instead, one finds so-called liberals trying to make excuses as to why soldiers should not be speaking out against the propaganda that they have been given by the military and the government. The mind reels at such adherence to having those in the military automatically obeying what they are told by their superior officers.
Liberals would do well to recall what Watada had said at the Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle in 2006:
"The American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed."
Special Comment: Keith asks Levin, Ingraham and Erroll: “Why do you hate our troops?”
ysbaddaden @ 109:
I do not know whether to laugh or cry at that statement. Among the buttons that I picked up at the Veterans for Peace convention that I wear every day is one that has a picture of a soldier kneeling down in anguish. Another soldier is putting his hand on that soldier to comfort him. Above the image are the words Support the Troops. Below the image are the words Bring Them Home Now!.
This image will continue to be played out in Iraq and Afghanistan until the soldiers wise up and realize, as Watada said at the VFP convention, that they are being used for ill-gain. Like Tennyson's soldiers from the Charge of The Light Brigade, American troops are sent into "the valley of death" by their commanding officers and the overwhelming majority of them do not even bother to challenge the fact that they are being used as cannon fodder for the lies that they are given by their government, just as I was while stationed in Vietnam. One longs to see those in the infantry duplicate that opening scene in the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir! which showed a picture of a GI and as the camera stepped back it revealed what was written on the outside of his helmet: ARMY SUCKS. It is long past the point that those in the military today finally realize that they have a brain and that they should use it to say NO to the American military. Rest assured that the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would be eternally grateful to those soldiers for having listened to their consciences instead of the propaganda handed to them by the military and the government.
It's the job of civilians to pull the troops out through democratic channels, not the troops to extricate themselves.
No need to pat yourself on the back.
ysbaddaden @ 111:
"... not the troops to extricate themselves." Have you actually taken the time to see the documentary Sir! No Sir!? If you have, you would realize that those soldiers decided to use their brains by saying that they were no longer going to be part of the war machine of the United States and refused to be used as justification for the military's lies. The IVAW is doing the same thing today.
It appears that liberals have no hesitation about challenging authority except, for some bizarre reason, when it comes to the military. Then they seem to believe, like those on the far right, that military personnel must obey without question whatever the military tells them proving, apparently, that liberals can be just as misguided and just as wrong headed as those on the right. Again, if you are actually seeking out who true heroes are, check out Sir! No Sir! to see those soldiers who had the courage to say that they were no longer going to be a part of a military that bombs and kills innocent people. Those people are the ones who deserve our praise. But instead they are ignored by the media and those who consider themselves to be liberal.
Okay then, using that rationale, couldn't other troops decide WHO to attack, including ourselves?
Login or Register to post comments.