Military Families Urge Censure for Bush as Congress Marks Iraq Anniversary

[Tony]

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...2129977&EDATE= ..full article

Quote:

WASHINGTON, March 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Families of soldiers serving, as well as of those who have been casualties, in the occupation of Iraq came to Capitol Hill today with other volunteers, urging Congress to censure PresidentGeorge W. Bush.

Meanwhile, volunteers carried petitions that filled 18 large boxes, signed so far by 560,340 members of MoveOn.org from every congressional district, to each office in the House of Representatives, reinforcing the demand for a censure resolution. The groups also displayed print and TV ads that will begin running this week.

"My son, Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, who died last month while serving in Iraq,met his responsibility to the nation he loved," said Sue Niederer of Pennington, NJ. "As his mother, I am joining hundreds of thousands of Americans today in asking that the Congress of the United States meet its responsibility, as well."

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, I think we can all agree that this has the potential to bring accountability back into the government. But the cynic in me says this is driven by partisan politics.

[Mr Manifesto]

I've used up my thread-starting quota today. Can anyone tell me if this is Thomas Friedman hassling Rumsfled in this video? If so, may I take this opportunity to say:

[Marc]

Busted!!!

[Crossbow]

Well, since the US Congress actually gave Bush the approval and the money to fight the war, I doubt that they would take such a petition very seriously.

However, such a petition does show that there is at least one very vocal anti-war group that is determined not to let the public forget about the bad justifications for the war.

[subgenius]

President Bush told our nation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now that the chief weapons inspector has revealed that that simply is not true, President Bush seeks to avoid responsibility by creating an investigation that will focus on the CIA. That's why we believe:
"Congress must censure President Bush
for misleading the country
about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
You can join the call by sending an email with this message to your representatives in Congress. Please enter your name, email address, zip code, and personal comment below. We'll deliver these messages by to your member of Congress and other political leaders.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=-3...Uf.AIbOFA1UUOA

[clk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I've used up my thread-starting quota today. Can anyone tell me if this is Thomas Friedman hassling Rumsfled in this video? If so, may I take this opportunity to say:

Yes, it was Friedman. The transcript can be found here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf

BTW, your link was hilarious. I wonder what kind of lies Rumsfeld and Bush would have to tell before other Republicans actually objected.
Which lie is bigger:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
or
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." ?

[subgenius]

"Which lie is bigger:"

Depends on how big a hypocritcal gullible fool you are.

[corplinx]

Wasn't moveon started because of backlash against manufactured political scandals?

So much for that group's credibility.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow
However, such a petition does show that there is at least one very vocal anti-war group that is determined not to let the public forget about the bad justifications for the war.

No, what they are doing is trying revise history. If they keep saying "WMD were the only justification of the war, and so far there are no WMD, so Bush misled us into war" enough times people will believe it.

Its a simple political tactic and it is effective. They keep putting the Bush admin on the defensive on the WMD issue and it keeps the administration bogged down.

The censure movement is just more grandstanding. They are attempting to make the news just for the purpose of having it mentioned on the nightly news "there is a censure effort underway".

I'm suprised some of you haven't seen through this groups smoke and mirrors.

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
Wasn't moveon started because of backlash against manufactured political scandals?

So much for that group's credibility.

Just another "botched attempt at witty nonchallance".

[subgenius]

"I'm suprised some of yuo (sic) haven't seen through this groups smoke and mirrors."

Not everyone is as brilliantly perceptive as you. Please have some pity for the stupid.
Don't know why you would be surprised. You, of all people should understand that we plebians can't hope to measure up to your level of witty nonchallance.
No one ever went broke underestimated (or is that misunderestimating?) the intelligence of the American people.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
No one ever went broke underestimated (or is that misunderestimating?) the intelligence of the American people.

Yet another "botched attempt at witty nonchallance".

[Blue Monk]

I think those that would like to have Bush censored for what they perceive as his ‘misleading’ Congress and the public with his reasons for war are going to find themselves lacking the smoking gun that would be needed to take such a drastic measure against a sitting President.

Intelligence, by it’s very nature, can be quite self-contradictory and determining what is credible and what is not can be quite subjective. Even the introduction of evidence that the administration could have/would have/should have known to be erroneous will probably have little impact. It would be very difficult to prove any inclusion was deliberate and intended to mislead.

Even information that was totally fabricated will have little impact if it was not fabricated by the administration and to my knowledge, as this has already been looked into to some degree, all information presented did arrive at the White House via the Intelligence Community.

This is certainly not to say the data-mining did not take place, unintentionally or otherwise, but considering the stern nature of the proposal and barring any evidence of direct fabrication by this Administration I feel this group is chasing a windmill.

One must remember that of members of Congress that viewed this information there was one with a particular insight into it’s veracity and that is Hilary Clinton. She voted for action against Iraq and in an interview she gave when promoting her book she stated that she had no problem with the information provided as it was the same picture that was painted by the Intelligence community for the Clinton Whitehouse.

This is certainly not to say the Bush administration is necessarily innocent of creative manipulation of these reports to achieve a specific goal, only that with the presence of such strong evidence of a true Intelligence failure it would be nearly impossible to prove that that was the administration’s intent.

They probably have little hope of discovering secret Whitehouse tapes.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk
They probably have little hope of discovering secret White house tapes.

Two words. Plausible deniability.

So, when did we first become jaded? With Nixon or did we figure that he was and aberration and it took Clinton to clinch the deal?

Yeah, depends on who you talk to. Some would say it was with Reagan and Iran Contra. Still, no one could parse like Willie.

Every man must believe in something, I belive I'll have another drink. Is 12:00 am Thursday too early or too late to drink?

[Blue Monk]

Bingo. Plausible Deniability.

I would say that Nixon was the start for sure. It was such a long a tortuous affair that it must have been hell for those who supported him when the truth came out. Whether one believed it an aberration or business as usual no would could ever again think with 100% certainty, “Well, a President wouldn’t do that.”

I don’t think Iran-Contra affected people the same way. Both Reagan and Clinton were Teflon coated. Reagan remained a hero to his supporters and one’s view of Clinton seems very much a product of one’s general view of life.

Personally, I don’t trust this administration at all but you can’t censure a sitting President with suspicions and what one thinks their intentions were.

[subgenius]

Well here's 236 other reasons.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs...record_rep.pdf

[zenith-nadir]

Here's my 2 cents.

What the #$@&* do these families think the military is for?

Yes there may be 'conflicts' that soldiers don't agree with, but the moment their "loved ones" volunteered! to join the military that was a conscious decision to defend their country and lay their lives on the line. No questions asked.

If the families can't deal with that then they should have stopped their loved ones from joining the military. But to come after the fact and urge congress to censure President Bush and act all horrified and surprised when soldiers start dying is liberal hypocrisy.

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Here's my 2 cents.

What the #$@&* do these families think the military is for?

Yes there may be 'conflicts' that soldiers don't agree with, but the moment their "loved ones" volunteered! to join the military that was a conscious decision to defend their country and lay their lives on the line. No questions asked.

If the families can't deal with that then they should have stopped their loved ones from joining the military. But to come after the fact and urge congress to censure President Bush and act all horrified and surprised when soldiers start dying is liberal hypocrisy.

I think the important part is "DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY". Many people dont see the invasion of Iraq as "defending"the US. Defending from what???

Just cause you join the military doesnt mean you become human fodder. "ok private. Throw yourself under that, im going to run you over. Quit your bitching, you signed up for this!!"


Hey I heard some weird story that the govt wont allow the returning coffins of soliders to be filmed or draped with flags. Its bad PR. Anyone hear this story???

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
President Bush told our nation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now that the chief weapons inspector has revealed that that simply is not true, President Bush seeks to avoid responsibility by creating an investigation that will focus on the CIA. That's why we believe:
"Congress must censure President Bush
for misleading the country
about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
You can join the call by sending an email with this message to your representatives in Congress. Please enter your name, email address, zip code, and personal comment below. We'll deliver these messages by to your member of Congress and other political leaders.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=-3...Uf.AIbOFA1UUOA

I see that they don't suggest the investigation go farther back to Clinton.

edited to add: They must not be after thoroughness.

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy


I think the important part is "DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY". Many people dont see the invasion of Iraq as "defending"the US. Defending from what???

Just cause you join the military doesnt mean you become human fodder. "ok private. Throw yourself under that, im going to run you over. Quit your bitching, you signed up for this!!"


Hey I heard some weird story that the govt wont allow the returning coffins of soliders to be filmed or draped with flags. Its bad PR. Anyone hear this story???

...
Niederer was one of about 600 demonstrators Sunday who marched to the gates of the base to protest the war and complain about restricted access to installations, like Dover, where the bodies of those killed in Iraq are returned.
...
The media have been barred from covering the arrival of remains at Dover, which has the military's largest mortuary, since 1991. Before the start of the Iraq war last March, the Pentagon expanded the no-coverage rule to its installations worldwide.

Critics contend the Bush administration did this to keep pictures of flag-draped coffins being unloaded from planes from possibly undermining public support for the war. Pentagon officials say the decision was made out of concern for families who lost a relative in the war.

But some families have complained that they have also been denied access and deprived of the chance to witness a solemn and formal military homecoming ceremony.
...
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8186714.htm

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


I see that they don't suggest the investigation go farther back to Clinton.

edited to add: They must not be after thoroughness.

With your keen powers of perception you probably noticed that he isn't the president anymore.

So if he's included you have no objection.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius

Critics contend the Bush administration did this to keep pictures of flag-draped coffins being unloaded from planes from possibly undermining public support for the war. Pentagon officials say the decision was made out of concern for families who lost a relative in the war.

Somehow, I get the idea the Bush administration wanted to protect the area from becoming a staging ground for anti-war circus monkeys to act like disrespectful fools.

Quote:

But some families have complained that they have also been denied access and deprived of the chance to witness a solemn and formal military homecoming ceremony.
...
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8186714.htm

They are not deprived of a very solemn military funeral.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius


With your keen powers of perception you probably noticed that he isn't the president anymore.

So if he's included you have no objection.

Absolutely no objection. The roots of the WMD scandal do not rest with Bush. We must be thorough. It is obvious moveon is not after the facts, just after Bush.

[blackpriester]

You said it exactly right.
By the same token, by the way, people make the Germans of the 40s RIGHTFULLY resoponsible fr being Nazis: Loyalty goes far, but even as a soldier you should not obey orders that take you in a completely different direction from what is RIGHT.

SOME questions have to be asked.

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


Somehow, I get the idea the Bush administration wanted to protect the area from becoming a staging ground for anti-war circus monkeys to act like disrespectful fools.

They are not deprived of a very solemn military funeral.

Somewhat shocked at your lack of respect for the wishes of the families.

Edited to add: they are asking to be present at the homecoming. That could still be private and restricted to them.

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.


Absolutely no objection. The roots of the WMD scandal do not rest with Bush. We must be thorough. It is obvious moveon is not after the facts, just after Bush.

Alert the media. Luke has just called for the censure of Bush.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by blackpriester
You said it exactly right.
By the same token, by the way, people make the Germans of the 40s RIGHTFULLY resoponsible fr being Nazis: Loyalty goes far, but even as a soldier you should not obey orders that take you in a completely different direction from what is RIGHT.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the vast majority of soldiers think what they are doing is RIGHT?

Quote:

SOME questions have to be asked.

Ask them of a soldier. Not his family. Not moveon. Not Bush.

It disgusts me beyond measure the way moveon is using the bodies of these soldiers.

[Luke T.]

If you guys can be disgusted and angry at psychics for exploiting a family member's grief for gain, why don't you have the same contempt for MoveOn?

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
If you guys can be disgusted and angry at psychics for exploiting a family member's grief for gain, why don't you have the same contempt for MoveOn?

Maybe because it is some of the families who are making the request too.

"Families of soldiers serving, as well as of those who have been casualties, in the occupation of Iraq came to Capitol Hill today with other volunteers, urging Congress to censure PresidentGeorge W. Bush."

They have a right to express their opinion and grief in their own way.

It ain't going to happen anyway so why not let them?

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius


Maybe because it is some of the families who are making the request too.

"Families of soldiers serving, as well as of those who have been casualties, in the occupation of Iraq came to Capitol Hill today with other volunteers, urging Congress to censure PresidentGeorge W. Bush."

They have a right to express their opinion and grief in their own way.

It ain't going to happen anyway so why not let them?

I think a clue to moveon's exploitation lies in something you quoted yourself:

Quote:

You can join the call by sending an email with this message to your representatives in Congress. Please enter your name, email address, zip code, and personal comment below. We'll deliver these messages by to your member of Congress and other political leaders.

Solicitation. They called the families, not the other way around.

[subgenius]

"Solicitation. They called the families, not the other way around."

We disagree on whether this conclusion is supported by what you cited.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the vast majority of soldiers think what they are doing is RIGHT?

Cognitive dissonance, son. Attitude follows behavior. Behavior is compelled in the armed forces. Therefore, soldiers will rationalize the orders that they follow.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Cognitive dissonance, son. Attitude follows behavior. Behavior is compelled in the armed forces. Therefore, soldiers will rationalize the orders that they follow.

My statement was in response to blackpriester's comment "as a soldier you should not obey orders that take you in a completely different direction from what is RIGHT." That implies the soldiers don't believe their orders are right.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
"Solicitation. They called the families, not the other way around."

We disagree on whether this conclusion is supported by what you cited.

Another quote you cited: "Families of soldiers serving, as well as of those who have been casualties, in the occupation of Iraq came to Capitol Hill today with other volunteers, urging Congress to censure PresidentGeorge W. Bush."

I wonder who those other volunteers might be?

And the fact "the call" is on moveon is exploitive.

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Well here's 236 other reasons.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs...record_rep.pdf

Thanks for the very useful link subgenius.

I haven't had time to read it yet but I will and post my observations. ('Oh goody,' I know you're thinking, hehe)

I would like to point out one very important statement that jumped out at me as I scaned the document.

Quote:

In compiling the database, the Special Investigations Division did not assess whether “subjectively” the officials believed a specific statement to be misleading.

This is very significant as it goes to the heart of what I previously posted. To censure a sittiing President one would need to prove intent and that by nature is a very difficult thing to do.

The intro does refer to a handful a statements deemed 'false' by Rice so I am interested in those especially.

I will withhold any further comment till I've read their findings.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke T.
My statement was in response to blackpriester's comment "as a soldier you should not obey orders that take you in a completely different direction from what is RIGHT." That implies the soldiers don't believe their orders are right.

My statement was in response to your comment that soldiers believe what they do is right. Of course they do!

How many soldiers thought killing gooks/yips/slant-eyes/Nazi bastards/towelheads was wrong? Not many, I think. That's why such derogatory terms were created to refer to whoever we happened to be fighting at the time.

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy


I think the important part is "DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY". Many people dont see the invasion of Iraq as "defending"the US. Defending from what???

Just cause you join the military doesnt mean you become human fodder. "ok private. Throw yourself under that, im going to run you over. Quit your bitching, you signed up for this!!"

Though I wouldn't have phrased it as harshly joining the military does mean that, at least to some degee.

It certainly doesn't mean that being a soldier one cannot have an opinion or disagree with policy but it does mean that you may be called on to engage in combat and it does mean that you will be expected to whether you personally agree with policy or not.

Anyone joining the military should understand that should hostilities break out no one is going to stand up and say, "OK, who wants to go to Iraq?"

[zenith-nadir]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
I think the important part is "DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY". Many people dont see the invasion of Iraq as "defending"the US. Defending from what???

That question is moot. When you join the military you swear to defend the country, not decide in which situation you will or will not defend the country. If you can't follow orders and question every order then you are a liability not a soldier.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Just cause you join the military doesnt mean you become human fodder. "ok private. Throw yourself under that, im going to run you over. Quit your bitching, you signed up for this!!"

Who's human fodder?...the soldiers have the weapons and the equipment to defend themselves in spades, it just happens that these "families" forgot the reason for having a military. And it ain't to look trendy in camo-wear...

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius


With your keen powers of perception you probably noticed that he isn't the president anymore.

So if he's included you have no objection.

I think that the Intelligence reports provided to the Clinton administration and their assessment of those documents are extremely relevant to this issue.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by blackpriester
You said it exactly right.
By the same token, by the way, people make the Germans of the 40s RIGHTFULLY resoponsible fr being Nazis: Loyalty goes far, but even as a soldier you should not obey orders that take you in a completely different direction from what is RIGHT.

SOME questions have to be asked.

Soldiers are not paid to think about and rationalize their orders. They are issued orders, salute, and carry them out. The only exception is the illegal order, but you'd better be damned sure it's illegal and not just something you don't like.

Of course gassing a helpless innocent civilian would be an example of an illegal order.

Quote:

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ Article 90—Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

“Any person subject to this chapter who—

(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

(a) Lawfulness of the order.

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

iii) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of in-creasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.

A soldier does not have to be happy with the politics or policies of his leadership...but he DOES have to follow ALL legal orders.

-z