Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Blame Bush?

George W. Bush was enjoying a long vacation playing rancher, when on August 6, 2001 these words were put in front of his eyes. “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The messenger was told “You’re ass is covered”, and that was the end of the matter.

We all know what happened less than a month later.

Now in his defense, there were no specifics as to where or when such an attack would occur. This was not actionable intelligence, but an analytical assessment, backed by increased chatter form suspected terrorists. Still measures could have been taken to coordinate our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and to place airports on high alert.

But even that didn’t happen.

(Just for a second, Imagine how the Right would have reacted if that was Obama in the identical situation. Yeah. The attack would clearly have been Obama the Muslim terrorist's fault.)

And no, I’m not blaming 9-11 on the befuddled Decider. But I do blame him for inaction and negligence, and buying into Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and their fellow PNAC (Project for a New American Century) Neocon’s distraction and obsession with invading Iraq. After that attack they spent great efforts to link Saddam with 9-11. They fooled much of the country into that deception as well, and cleared their path for invading a country that didn’t attack us.

Bette Stockbauer presents a good review of PNAC’s vision of US global military dominance.

PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by US global leadership," but claim that "current American armed forces are ill-prepared to execute" these missions.

1. Homeland Defense.

2. Large Wars

3. Constabulary Duties

4. Transform U.S. Armed Forces.

PNAC even expressed their concern that we’d need a “new Pearl Harbor” to kick start their transformation and war-mongering dreams.

Well, good news for the Neocons. They got their new Pearl Harbor and exploited that to advance their agenda. An agenda that ignored the threat of non-state terrorism.

But, we are learning that August Presidential Daily Brief was the last warning, not the first, of an al-Qaeda attack in the US.

Today’s New York Times tells us there were earlier warnings, not yet released.

The Deafness Before the Storm:

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

On May 1, June 22, June 29, July 1, and finally August 6, 2001 the alarms were sounded.

Kurt Eichenwald concludes his report:

Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

So do we blame Bush for 9-11? No, we blame al-Qaeda. But I do blame Bush for his subservience to the Neocons narrow self-serving vision.

And guess who Romney would have as foreign policy advisors?

Yup, the same crew that got it all wrong eleven years ago.

Not the change we need.


FandB said...

Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before Dubya. And if President Bush did round up the terrorists in August you would be railing about how Bush, Cheney, et. al. violated the "civil rights" of non-citizens and you all would be denying that any threat existed. Just as you are now regarding Iraq and Saddam.

That would be a better outcome than what actually happened on 9/11, but at least that is where we are now with Saddam Hussein. Spout all the anti-Bush anti-republican Hate filled venom that you would like. We will never know what catastrophe may have been averted, but whatever it might have been, I'd rather hear puny little know-nothings complain about it than hear them complain that President Bush could have prevented something else but didn't.

Of course, the left-wing wackos never complain that Clinton had no less than five opportunities to stop Obama ... errr ... Osama bin Laden between 1996 and 2000 but chose to let him get away each and every time.

FandB said...

On the other hand, with all the tension in the middle east, with events in Syria and Iran and Egypt among others, Obama decides he doesn't have time to meet with (our best ally in the world) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his trip to the U.S. Of course Obama has plenty of time to travel to New York and go on the Letterman show.

Yeah, that's the kind of leadership we need.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "...Obama decides he doesn't have time to meet with (our best ally in the world) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu"

Our "best ally" in the world?! [LOL]

The Israeli prime minister is a maniac. He's a psychopathic war-monger. I'll glad Obama's snubbing the crazy bastard.

free0352 said...

He didn't have warnings of AQ attacks, he had actual attacks. First there was the first WTC bombing. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are US soil just as much as New York is, and they were bombed in 1998. The USS Cole was attacked in 2000. Our country has gone to war over attacks on US ships in the past many times. Some examples are the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, and WWI.

The fact is, there was no political will to spend the money or the lives on fighting Islamic Terrorism prior to 9-11.

As for warnings of attacks, if the President of the United States responded to every warning of hostile intent, we would be at war with every Islamic country (and many who are not Islamic) on Earth. AQ plans to attack US? Thats like saying water wet, sky blue.

Fact is, had Bush attempted to attack Afghanistan prior to 9-11, we'd be reading your post today about that "war of choice."

As to Iraq, please link or quote one single phrase ever uttered by George Bush that Iraq even participated in 9-11. You can't do that. We didn't invade Iraq because of 9-11, and everyone knew that at the time. We invaded Iraq because it refused to comply with the 1991 cease fire they signed. In a post 9-11 world, nobody was willing to take the risk Saddam's WMD would fall into the hands of the likes of AQ. There was nothing saying that it would, we simply wouldn't even risk it ever happening.

Did Saddam have WMD in 2003? The answer is yes. The massive stockpile he had in the 80s? Nope. But even a small amount of VX -we're talking ounces- can kill 30,000 people. Nobody wanted to take that risk. Was Saddam dealing with AQ? No, and no one wanted to wait around for that relationship to form. Zarqaui had moved to Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan, and no one wanted to chance the lives of thousands on he and Saddam not getting along.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Perhaps you have your timeline wrong.

As we all know there 9/11 was inherited and their was no conservative in Government in the 2000's when massive Defecit exploding bills were passed, and $10 Trillion in unfunded war machine spending was passed, and massive transfer of wealth welfare for the rich tax "cuts" were passed.

Nope after Clinton "gutted" the Military Black Jimmy Carter entered the White House and began apologizing to our enemies and inviting them to attack us.

That the Alternate Conservative Reality and no amount of facts will ever dissaude them.

Dave Dubya said...

Who in their right mind could imagine a meeting with Netenuahu would be a good idea when our embassies are under attack from Islamic rioters?

You want to throw gas on the fire?

And just what the hell has Israel done for us as our “best ally”? I mean besides taking our money and sending jets to kill American sailors on the USS Liberty.

Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before Dubya.

Sure you have. You know everything you need to know. Or should I say believe everything you need to believe. All it takes is one disgruntled money man.

So, Ijaz, one sleazy neocon-friendly money man, while working to get a deal from the corrupt Sudanese, gets pissed off at the Clinton Administration, misrepresents himself as an agent of the US government, sulks and makes unfounded accusations. He’s the same weasel who tried to swindle a vote buying deal in our Congress on the Brown Amendment for the Pakistani military.

Got some proof I’m wrong?

What amazes rational people is that fact you guys completely swallow anything you WANT to believe. Even if it’s from just one unverifiable source.

had no less than five opportunities to stop Obama ... errr ... Osama

The only hate we see here so far is yours, sir. Thanks for validating my parenthetical aside.

I’m just reporting facts. Yeah, I know that’s the same as “hate and communism” to your cult.

We will never know what catastrophe may have been averted....

If Democracy had prevailed in 2000.

By the way, Obama gave the politically risky order that got bin-Laden.

You’re welcome.

So inaction was the best choice?

The massive stockpile he had in the 80s? Nope.

Unaccounted-for scattered depleted remnants, no stockpiles, none deployed for use, nearly all destroyed by Iraqis.

If you want war bad enough, you’ll get it.

There are numerous cases of Bush saying Saddam had not only “connections” to AQ, but was helping them.

"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
- Bush in October 2002.
"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
- Bush in January 2003 State of the Union address.
"Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."
- Bush in February 2003.
"… sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network."
Powell in his U.N. speech prior to the Iraq War.
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda."
Bush in May 2003.
Stated that the Iraqis were "providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."
- Cheney in September 2003.
"Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons."
- Cheney in October 2003.
Cheney said Saddam "had long established ties with Al Qaeda."
- June 14, 2004.
Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
- June 17, 2004.

Get the hint? Wink wink.

“Cult” is really the closest word to describe their authoritarian belief system.

FandB said...

Dubya: "Got some proof I’m wrong?" --- Yes, how about from an Air Force Lt. Col. You'll note from the article in Forbes that Patterson was responsible for carrying the "nuclear football" - a job given only to the most trustworthy individuals.

Hmmm, so you're anti-semitic too, eh Dubya. You're like the energizer bunny, you just keep hating and hating and hating . . .

When Libyans attacked our embassy (sovereign U.S. soil) they declared war on the U.S. If Obama does not retaliate in kind, then he has proven beyond all doubt that he is pro-muslim and anti-U.S.

I give Obama full credit for his role in killing Obama ... errr ... Osama bin Laden. But, since when do you speak for him? Or take credit for what he did?

As far as "throwing gas on the fire" ... Inaction will be worse than action. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. If Ubama can be bullied by a pack of Muslim thugs, bullied so much that he snubs our allies, then he is a coward and does NOT represent the best interests of the United States of America.

Tom Harper said...

What Jefferson's Guardian said. If Israel is our "best ally," we need to start making some friends somewhere.

And our government needs to stop being Israel's Bitch.

Dave Dubya said...

JG and Tom,
You two also dare to criticize our subservience to the Israeli radical Right?

That’s all it takes. Welcome to the “anti-semite club”. ;-)

The groundless accusations keep coming , all because I report the truth that you cannot disprove.

you're anti-semitic too

Don’t forget traitor, racist, thug, and child molester. ;-)

Your accusations never stop, do they? That behavior reflects your hatefulness, not mine, you know. Are you under contract to spew this hatred? Sure seems like it.

you just keep hating and hating and hating . . .

Ah, and this is why I like you so much. Class act, kid.

Wow. That’s one low threshold for proof. Like you, your “trustworthy individual” hates the Democrats and always has.

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Your upcoming book begins with a quote from Cicero about how a nation “cannot survive treason from within.” Surely you’re not calling Democrats traitors. Or are you?
“BUZZ” PATTERSON: I am. They certainly are if their behavior during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is held up to the light of the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 defines treason against the United States as “adhering to (our) enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and John Murtha, amongst others, are guilty of exactly that.
LOPEZ: Is it fair even to say “The Left has declared war on the U.S. military and the global War on Terror”? And your title! The Left doesn’t want to destroy the military, for Pete’s sake.
LT. COL. PATTERSON: Not only do I absolutely believe that Democrats have declared war on an American victory in the War on Terror but that’s generally been the case since 1968

Yeah, this extremist with a grudge is proof?

All I saw was him bitching about an alleged two hour window to launch an attack. That’s fine as long as you like impulsive killing of innocents and don’t need to check the situation and advisors.

I guess by those standards we have proof from Michael Moore that Bush/Cheney are war criminals.

At least there are the dead bodies for proof, along with no connections to al-Qaeda, no “biological labs”, no nukular aluminum tubes. No stockpiles of WMD’s.

That’s the funny thing with you radical fringers. Accusations alone are all the proof you guys need.

But I’ve made that observation before. Yours is a cult of true believers.

So go ahead, make my day. What else ya got for me?

Criminal mastermind with a death ray? Satanist?

Your complete lack of evidence is going to necessitate your further accusations.

I’m going to be disappointed if you don’t have at least two or three new hateful accusations next time.

Don’t ever change. I love you the way you are.

FandB said...

Of course the guy ratting out Clinton would be a conservative, do ya really think a democrat would do it? You said "prove me wrong", so I did.

But of course Clinton gave the "nuclear football" to someone he knew he couldn't trust. Smart man that Bill CLinton.

Yes, I see anti-semitism is rampant among the left-wing wackos. No surprises there.

So, if Ubama is done apologizing to the savage lunatics who killed our Ambassador and dragging his body through the streets, do ya think he's gone do anything else about it?

Dave Dubya said...


Still no proof, I see. Only accusations. (Michael Moore is vindicated and correct with his accusations, by your standards.)

Accusation number one:

Yes, I see anti-semitism is rampant among the left-wing wackos.

Don’t forget to mention liberals are the real racists against blacks too. It’s your job.

What? Only one recycled cult approved accusation?

I’m disappointed, F&B.

Ah, but wait, here comes the hate; along with your typically dishonest and unfounded accusation for Obama.

So, if Ubama is done apologizing to the savage lunatics who killed our Ambassador and dragging his body through the streets, do ya think he's gone do anything else about it?

Well that’s only one and a half new accusations. You failed.

BTW, Obama's sending in the Marines.

But thanks for the lie and hate anyway.

Good little Rightie. Have another swig of the "Obama Apology koolade".

(Glug, glug, urp!)

Atta boy!

free0352 said...

There are numerous cases of Bush saying Saddam had not only “connections” to AQ, but was helping them

Still waiting for the quote where Bush suggested Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, or even connected to the attack.

As for members of Al'Queda being in Iraq, they were. Hell, I shot two of them outside An' Nasiriyah on March 24th, 2003. I looked at their passports and they had been in Afghanistan the previous year and had entered Iraq with the stamped purpose of visit being "Jihad."

Thats not nearly anecdotal, that has been proven numerous times. Zarqaui and his Islamic Jihad crew (RE hundreds of terrorists from Egypt and Lebannon) escaped Afghanistan in mid 2002, traveled through Iran and were hiding in Iraq. That there is enough for war in my book. Hell yeah I wanted war bad, I wanted to finish killing those motherfuckers we missed in Afghanistan in 2002.

free0352 said...

BTW, Obama's sending in the Marines.

To do what? Making headlines in an election year isn't a mission. To me, thats just wasting tax dollars.

Dave Dubya said...

You’re the expert. Tell us what was suggested.

What did “Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.… sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda”....And let’s not forget those nukular aluminum tubes...what did that suggest?

Wink, wink.

AQ in Iraq? When? How did that happen? They hated Saddam and he hated them.

Bush promoted and advertised his crusade, using that very word, and the call was answered with Jihad.

Iraqis are still putting up statues of their glorious liberator, the Decider, out of gratitude for that, no doubt

Military genius at work.

And you verify it. Brilliant. Why aren’t you at least a colonel now?

That there is enough for war in my book

And what isn’t?

“To do what?”

I’d say rescue, protection and security may have something to do with it. But again, you’re the expert, Colonel, sir.

We know for a fact Romney and the Republicans would say Obama did it wrong, either way.

An attempt to diffuse the situation, triggered by American Bible thumpers’ posting an insulting anti-Muslim video by the way, was issued before the violence.

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

“I think it is a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values,” Romney said at his press conference this morning.

“I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values,” Romney said, addressing reporters at his campaign office in Jacksonville. “An apology for America’s values is never the right course.”

Here’s a tweet from Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus:

“Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.”

And here’s one from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich:

“Our embassy in Cairo is attacked and our flag destroyed and Obama apologizes. It's time for better foreign policy.”

No conscience. No decency. And worst of all, no regard for the loss of life. Republican treachery. Just what we need to lead us into their glorious future.
This is from the same hypocrites who called us traitors for calling out Bush’s war lies and not “supporting” the “war president”.

“United we stand”, my ass. Those evil Bible thumpers and Republicans are a real threat, pouring gas on a fire.

At least one Republican summoned a little decency that eludes the aristocratic jerk and his other sociopathic, hot headed, cold blooded minions.

“This is a time for healing. It’s a time for resolve,” Ryan said during a campaign stop in De Pere, Wisconsin. “In the face of such a tragedy, we are reminded that the world needs American leadership, and the best guarantee of peace is American strength.”

just wasting tax dollars

Like on an oedipal complex tinted war based on lies for political gain and crony profit?

At least Cheney, Mitt and Newt don’t have to pay as much for it, thanks to their tax cuts. We can make up the difference, eh?

Yeah, that’s some real “United we stand” spirit from ‘em.

free0352 said...

How did that happen? They hated Saddam and he hated them

Its well established the Zarqawi moved his network to Iraq in 2002, and also well known that Abu Nidal was in Iraq as well. And you admit Saddam had VX gas. Both of these facts are proven. And it would be pretty laughable to argue Iraq even attempted to live up to the conditions of the 1991 cease fire. Saddam Hussein's military fired on US planes enforcing the no-fly zones over 4000 separate times. I mean really, my question is why did it take so long for us to really start shooting back? Clinton sure did in 1999... for the same reasons George Bush invaded.

Truth is, the only people who were looking to profit from this war were Democrats who wanted to use it as a political tool.

Saddam had to go. It was that simple.

And what isn’t?

Ask any member of NATO- they manage to stay off our military radar quite well. Or any country not sponsoring terrorist organizations, trying to have my president assassinated or shooting at planes enforcing the treaty Iraq signed.

No conscience. No decency. And worst of all, no regard for the loss of life

Agreed, Obama has no regard for the loss of life... just the bad optics in an election year his pussificaton of war policy is getting us.

Another Al'Queda attack on our embassies in a country we helped liberate no less. Good job Obama on that Arab Spring. It seems to be bearing some real fruit. Not.

Dave Dubya said...


Zarqawi, Abu Nidal, as I said. Bush promoted and advertised his crusade, using that very word, and the call was answered with Jihad.

4000 times? And not one hit? That was worth a war?

only people who were looking to profit from this war were Democrats who wanted to use it as a political tool

Never the Republicans? Ha. Mighty partisan of you. You are sooo Republican.

AQ always attacks us in countries we “liberate”. See a pattern yet, Colonel?

And the Bible thumpers' video gave the attack some great cover.

Good Republicans they are. Praise the Lord.

I recall you actually supporting Obama’s war making. I guess that was before you turned Republican.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "That's because you have no political sense, and no sense of loyalty to our countries [sic] friends."

As mentioned, he's a right-wing militarist. Israel is nothing but the tail that wags the dog. Under Netanyahu in particular, it's the largest impediment towards achieving peace in the Middle East since...well, since the United States invaded and occupied Iraq.

free0352 said...

4000 times? And not one hit? That was worth a war?

Some were indeed hit. But just because Iraqi equipment was outmoded, doesn't give them a pass.

AQ always attacks us in countries we “liberate”

Yup, like New York and Washington DC.

I recall you actually supporting Obama’s war making

I must have missed our war with Egypt. Oh wait... that never happened my bad.

As for Libya, and Egypt, thats what we have a CIA for. Time for a new puppet government!

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "Jefferson, it sounds like you would like to see Israel removed from the Middle East."

If I had a "wish list", perhaps, but it's not necessary. Removing the militant fascist government would do wonders, though, along with returning the occupied lands stolen in 1967, and the later wars of aggression against the Palestinian people.

"You have aligned yourself with Iran and the other crackpot Muslim nations."

No, I've aligned myself against the militant Israeli government.

By the way, it sounds like you're anti-Islamic.

"...then you just proved my points: (1) That you are anti-Semitic..."

No, you had no points...legitimate or otherwise. As far as being "anti-Semitic, I think I clearly stated what I am against. (see above)

"...(2) that you have no understanding of politics..."

And you do? (Oh, I forgot, you're the "Global Technology Director".)

"...and (3) that you have no loyalty to our best ally in the Middle East."

As I already said, I'm over the tail wagging the dog. I have no loyalty toward murderous and imperialistic governments -- no matter where and who they are.

okjimm said...

I could/would not Blame Bush for 911 anymore than I could blame Obama for what occurred in Libya. I blame Bush for the War and all the subsequent lies and fuck-ups. If Obama invades Libya or Egypt.... I will then blame him.

oh, and why doesn't Free start another blog.... the first one was so filled with astute commentators and information.

free0352 said...

I shut my blog down because having on can be problematic for active duty servicemen.

Comments however, are not considered under the UCMJ as the same as operating your own blog. In short, I took it down because I was ordered to, though not directly.

I would not that George Bush's White House never came down on us for blogging about political matters - only posts which supposedly compromised operational security - even when those blogs were critical of GWB's policy. Obama's White House I suppose doesn't have the same commitment to free speech for the troops as George Bush had.

I was often critical of GWB writing on blogs, however I never had any problems until Obama became President. Now you have to watch yourself, and these days crying whistle blower won't save you. They've policy'ed their way out of that protection.

Its a bad thing when troops can't speak freely.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Its a bad thing when troops can't speak freely."

Just like a sword in a sheath, or a hammer hanging on a carpenter's belt, tools don't have a voice.

free0352 said...

They did when George Bush was President.

Say's a lot for Obama don't it?

Dave Dubya said...

“Americans need to watch what they say.” Ari Fleischer, Bush press secretary.

Dave Dubya said...

"Screw Obama. I will not follow all orders from him."

Bush tolerated that kind of insubordination?


free0352 said...

Sure it was, in the context that comment was made in- which was in reference to a hypothetical Presidential order for door to door gun confiscation. That is a very unlawful order, and that Marine doesn't have an option to disobey such an order, he has a duty to do so. I teach my Soldiers very carefully what constitutes a lawful and unlawful order and make sure they know they are REQUIRED to disobey and resist unlawful orders.
And so did this Marine.

Bush had no problem with it. I guess President Obama doesn't like Soldiers interpreting for themselves what the Uniform Code of Military Justice says and acting on their conscience to protect the American people.

Wonder why?

Dave Dubya said...


The context? Looks like an excuse to disrespect his commander in chief and say “Screw Obama” for no real reason. Creating a fiction, scenario, or false representation and then issuing condemnation, is not real context.

It is disrespect at the very least.

How do you know Bush tolerated that kind of crap?

A conservative Marine who started an armed forces tea party Web page has been given an "other than honorable" discharge for misconduct after declaring on Facebook, "Screw Obama. I will not follow all orders from him."

Why don’t you show us an example of Bush tolerating progressive soldiers organizing active, partisan, political opposition against him.

Please. Cheney would have tossed them in Gitmo.

free0352 said...

How do you know Bush tolerated that kind of crap?

A very certain way. Nobody got kicked out for being critical of George Bush.

show us an example of Bush tolerating progressive soldiers organizing active, partisan, political opposition against him.

I was beating him up about TARP and Medicare Part D on my blog... I never got a memo about it like I did when I beat up Obama on stimulus. So you can use my case if you want to. I've also through the years supported Libertarian candidates on my blog, and no one ever had a problem with this till Barack Obama was President.

Some bloggers got warnings for blogging about Iraq, but not the political side of it - the DOD doesn't want us talking to specifically about actual experiences over there because they could provide intelligence for the enemy. And I absolutely agree with that policy. Its fair that we should not be able to put what amounts to after action reviews on the internet. But political stuff? We didn't sign our constitutional rights away when we enlisted... but Democrats seem to think we did.

Please. Cheney would have tossed them in Gitmo.

Actually when Soldiers used social media to expose the Abu Gareb scandal by contacting journalists, they were granted immunity from prosecution. Quite the opposite. Now an unkind word about the administration gets you an OTH. That is a major shift in policy.

free0352 said...

Oh and I can't believe I forgot how critical I was of the Federal Government on blogs during the Katrina debacle. I actually wrote a 3 page long blog post on it that slammed the 82nd AB, LE and FEMA.

Instead of being punished, when my CO saw it he printed it out and hung it on the Company bulletin board and made it required reading as he felt it reflected our core values as a service.

Now-days, I'd probably go to gitmo.

RedStateFred said...

S.W. Anderson:

"Pure idiocy and a disgusting attempt to depict anyone on the left as not caring about the security of our country or people."

Bradley Manning

Assigned to an army unit based near Baghdad, Manning had access to databases used by the United States government to transmit classified information. He was arrested after Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker, told the FBI that Manning had confided during online chats that he had downloaded material from these databases and passed it to WikiLeaks. The material included videos of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 250,000 United States diplomatic cables; and 500,000 army reports that came to be known as the Iraq War logs and Afghan War logs. It was the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. Much of it was published by WikiLeaks or its media partners between April and November 2010.

Julian Paul Assange

Julian Paul Assange is an Australian editor, activist, publisher and journalist. He is best known as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks, which publishes submissions of secret information,news leaks, and classified media from anonymous news sources and whistleblowers.

How many here support Bradley and Julian?

These leftwing vermin, Bradley and Julian, each need a Luca Brasi style piano wire necklace without a trial.

How is the Middle Eastern policy by the flip flopping Christian/Muslim with the Nobel Peace Prize workin out fer ya now?

Dave Dubya said...

Nobody got kicked out for being critical of George Bush.

What? Because you say so? Again, how do you know? Plenty got kicked out for being gay. Arabic interpreters at that.

There’s a huge difference between "being critical" and being disrespectful, insubordinate, and forming political opposition.


During a hearing, a military prosecutor submitted screen grabs of Stein's postings on one Facebook page he created called Armed Forces Tea Party, which the prosecutor said included the image of Obama on a "Jackass" movie poster. Stein also superimposed Obama's image on a poster for "The Incredibles" movie that he changed to "The Horribles," military prosecutor Capt. John Torresala said.

At the hearing this month at Camp Pendleton, Torresala argued that Stein's behavior repeatedly violated Pentagon policy and he should be dismissed after ignoring warnings from his superiors about his postings.

Brig. Gen. Daniel Yoo, the commanding general of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, said in a brief statement Wednesday that evidence supported an administrative board's recommendation to discharge Stein.

Saying “I will not follow orders” is not being critical. That is insubordination. You want us to believe that was acceptable under Bush? Come on, show us some where this was tolerated.

Typical Tea Party right wing double standards.

Shinseki was punished for disagreeing with the Neocons and being correct about the numbers needed in Iraq.

1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders. I stand before you today, because it is my job to serve and protect America’s soldiers, its people and innocent Iraqis who have no voice. It is my conclusion, as an officer of the Armed Forces, that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong, but a horrible breach of American law.

Bye bye. Discharged. For doing what you claim you’d do. Refusing an unlawful order.

I notice you’re quick to blame Obama. Did he write you that memo? Who did, and what reasons were given? Show us the connection to the White House.

Accusations and assumptions are all we see from you.

S.W. Anderson said...

Rightsaid . . . No, I guess it's Redstatefred now, said, "How many here support Bradley and Julian?

These leftwing vermin, Bradley and Julian . . ."

How do you know they're left wing? What do you base that on? They could be apolitical anarchist or pacifist types.

I'm left wing and think the two of them violated regulations and laws, and should be held to account in court.

Nazis used piano wire hangings as a means not only of disposing of people they deemed traitors to Germany and disloyal to Hitler, but as a means of terrorizing others who might be tempted to stray off the Nazi path. I prefer the rule of law. Looks as though you prefer the Nazi approach.

free0352 said...

Bradley Manning- Downloaded classified data and put it on the internet. That isn't speech critical of the President, that is espionage.

Ehren Watada- Was not punished for free speech, he was punished for refusing to deploy to Iraq, which wasa lawful order per Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114
which granted the CIC the authorization to use whatever military force he deemed necessary to oust Saddam Hussein and to conduct security and stability operations after Saddam was ousted. Refusing to fight is cowardice, not free speech.

Asange isn't in the military, so the point is moot to this discussion.

free0352 said...

You should also notice as a pattern in my posts, that I never discuss the capabilities of US hardware -even hardware I do not have access to- or capabilities of weapons systems, specific tactics, or procedures, and I only rarely discuss personal experiences that happened to me over seas. That is quite deliberate. To do otherwise, would cause me to violate operational security regulations which I fall under. I would add, I agree 100% with those regulations and have zero problem following them to the letter.

Some things I know just don't belong on the internet.

However, my opinion on the President's handling of say- Stimulus- is hardly a matter of national security.

And yet I was told to take my post down. I'm not alone in that situation. This has only happened since Obama has been President. His policy is, his Soldiers don't deserve the free speech they fight for. Bottom line.

FandB said...

S.W.: "attempt to depict anyone on the left as not caring about the security".

Not at all, I am pointing out the typical left-wing double standard . . . Y'all would have said President Bush was wrong no matter which course of action he chose. Your comments prove my point.

I know that the left does believe in security, if anything they believe in it too much. In fact, it looks like they are willing to trade their freedom for security. As a wise man once said (often attributed to Benjamin Franklin), if you trade your freedom for security, you will end up with neither.

okjimm: If Obama invades Libya or Egypt..."

An attack on a U.S. Embassy is technically an attack on sovereign U.S. soil. What do you think an appropriate response would be to an attack on our soil? Just curious.

Jefferson: tools don't have a voice

Well, looks like we have another trait to add to Jefferson's bio - he hates American servicemen and servicewomen.

So now it's: Libtard, anti-semitic, Hates Israel, No understanding of politics, No loyalty to our allies, Hates American military and servicepeople. That is quite list, you really do appear to be a typical left-wing wacko.

Dave Dubya said...

OK you have an isolated anecdote that no more supports your broad claim than my saying the stimulus was a success; that my road was paved and jobs were provided by the stimulus.

No matter, it was insubordination and flagrant disrespect of his commander. He was warned. To hell with him. Let him go on wing nut talk radio. That sounds like his place, not in our military.

Refusing to fight is cowardice, not free speech.

It was conscience not cowardice. He volunteered for Afghanistan.

Inaccurate and intentionally false premises for war are factors here. A reasonable case, in the light of international law and the Constitution, can be made that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was obtained by fraud and would be unconstitutional, null and void.

Examples of WMD and “connections to al-Qaeda” falsehoods and presumptions within the Authorization:

“Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;”

“...the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,...”

“Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;"

“Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;”

“the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons (WMD’s) to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces”

Dave Dubya said...

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.

The bottom line is the invasion of Iraq was clearly not an action of self-defense. It was an act of “pre-emption”, for regime change, falsely stated threats, or mere opinion of such threats.
If they had limited this to enforcement of UN resolutions, with UN sanctioning, it could have been more legal. But that wasn’t good enough for the Neocons. Instead the resolution included fear-mongering and falsehoods promoted by the Bush Administration.

A soldier has a right to his conscience after that deceptive leadership.

Dave Dubya said...

There you go again:

“would have said”

”they are willing to trade their freedom for security”

Projection. Who pushed the abuses of freedom in the Patriot Act? Who pushed for torture and indefinite detention without charges or counsel? Who instituted warrantless surveillance of Americans? The Bushies, pal.

“Accusations, hate, hate, yadda yadda, hate hate, accusations”

More projection.

Feel better after letting that hatred and bile out?

Its eating you from within, you know.

free0352 said...

OK you have an isolated anecdote

Accept its not so isolated. Just ask the Marine I mentioned.

But just so I don't have to hear you whine about me putting words in your mouth for 16 posts- let me get this strait.

Bradley Manning puts classified documents and video on internet, gets Soldiers and Afghan allies killed: Hero. Marine says he will not follow unconstitutional orders: Disrespectful Traitor.

Got it.

You see, I happen to think Soldiers should get to exercise the freedoms we fight for. I think a military that doesn't question orders is a dangerous thing, and a military who doesn't let its troops speak their minds breeds cronyism, blind obedience, and institutional inertia. All very troubling when you consider we have our finger on the trigger of nuclear weapons- among other things nearly as horrible. If you're going to be the most ethical military in the world... and I think we are... you're going to have to have thinkers, not just shooters, and they are going to have to be able to speak their minds. Even when it hurts poor Barry's feelings.

It was conscience not cowardice

His conscience is irrelevant. Was the order lawful? That is the only question. When it comes to orders, if they are lawful we have no option but to follow them, and our choices are subject to the needs of the service. Period.

in the light of international law and the Constitution, can be made that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was obtained by fraud and would be unconstitutional, null and void

Firstly, that's laughable. Secondly, you nor anyone else nor Soldiers or Marines get to decide on personal whim what laws we follow or don't. Servicemen don't get to choose what orders to follow or not. We either have a duty to follow them or a duty to disobey. Our personal feelings and interpretations are not a factor.

Two great examples from my own experience. I was once ordered to break into a neighboring units motorpool by my platoon sergeant when I was a Lance Corporal in the Marines to steal camo netting. I refused, because the order was unlawful. Another time, I was ordered to lead my squad in front of vehicles on foot on a street WE KNEW was heavily IED'ed. I won't get into the consequences of that order. I will tell you it had no meaningful military objective, and violated every ounce of common sense any person would have. But I did it, because as stupid as it was the order was lawful- my feelings on the subject didn't count for shit, nor I suppose the lives of myself or my Soldiers. But again, that is irrelevant. When they say go, you go.

A soldier has a right to his conscience after that deceptive leadership.

No, actually he doesn't. But he does have a right to bitch about it on the internet, provided he doesn't violate operation security.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

FandB: "...looks like we have another trait to add to Jefferson's bio - he hates American servicemen and servicewomen."

No...but, I do hate that they're used as a tool to further the cause of American corporate interests and imperialism around the globe.

"So now it's: Libtard, anti-semitic, Hates Israel, No understanding of politics, No loyalty to our allies..."

Anti-Semitic? I thought I explained my thoughts thoroughly and satisfactorily above. Please take a moment to reread and let it sink in. I know it's tough for you, comprehension skills being a little challenged and all.

Loyalty to allies? Again, please reread my posted comment above. (You know, you really ought to be tested for that reading dysfunction.)

Dave Dubya said...

Yours and one other are called isolated anecdotes.

I asked for examples of similar case of soldiers’ active political opposition and intentions to disobey and mock Bush, after warnings yet, being tolerated.

None given.

The asshole wanted to be Glenn Beck. I don’t want Glenn Becks in our military, who want to serve, respect and obey only one party.

You have nothing to compare to that.

Fine, we know you think it’s good to hate Obama.

“United we Stand” has gone out the window now that we have a Black Democratic President and a military wing of the tea party and at least one Right Wing cell of militia thugs at Fort Stewart plotting within our military.

How’s that for context?

I suppose Bush tolerated that too.

His conscience is irrelevant. Was the order lawful? That is the only question

You would’ve made a Good German with your Nuremburg Defense. The SS operated under "lawful" orders too.

We can't expect anything but hate and willful ignorance from a cult that says Obama "apologized" to, and "sympathized" with, rioters... before they rioted.

We can't expect anything but hate and willful ignorance from a cult that says Obama said, "You didn't build your business".

This is a clear vision how fascism works. It'a all about fusing hate and lies.