Just when you thought Ted Rall couldn’t get any more vile, he pukes all over you with a stench heretofore unknown:

Even if U.S. forces were not violating the rules of war in Iraq–torturing, maiming and murdering POWs, robbing and subjecting civilians to collective punishment, dropping white phosphorus and depleted uranium bombs on civilian targets–the war itself, based on false pretenses and opposed by the United Nations, would remain a gross violation of American and international law.

Soldiers, they say, must obey orders. However, “just following orders” wasn’t an acceptable excuse at the Nuremberg trials, where the charges included waging a war of aggression. Do our government’s poorly paid contract killers deserve our “support” for blindly following orders?

You notice how he proceeds from a position which takes for granted that American personnel are committing atrocities and that the entire war was commenced based upon intelligence which was known to be false. My wife once asked me what I meant when I said that someone had “drank the kool-aid.” This is what I meant; someone who takes for granted that information which has already been proven to be false or inaccurate is true, and then acts or advocates action based upon that information. Remember, an argument is only as good as the information it is based upon. The information Rall is basing his views on is patently false, so his argument has no merit. Of course, this means nothing to Ted and his leftist buddies, as they have used the old trick of continually repeating a falsehood until it is believed to be true for years now.

Oh yeah, and don’t question his patriotism.

Congress never declared war against Iraq. As an unelected imposter, George W. Bush did not enjoy authority under the War Powers Act to commit American forces abroad. Concentration camps at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere violate the Geneva Conventions, which as treaty obligations are binding under U.S. law. Iraq did not threaten the United States. Iraq is not the subject of a U.N.-led international police action. Thus, by several measures, the war is illegal. Every order to deploy a soldier, aviator or sailor to fight in Iraq is by definition an unlawful order, one that he or she is legally and morally bound to refuse.

Here we go again. First off, according to the terms of the surrender agreement which ended the first Gulf War, Iraq had to perform certain actions and allow for verification of said actions by the UN. They did not. The UN issued several resolutions which told Iraq exactly what was going to happen if they didn’t comply, and Iraq continued to refuse compliance. The US Congress voted to give the President authority to commence military actions in Iraq. So much for the canard that the President “did not enjoy authority… to commit American forces abroad .”

Next, you’ll notice that the entire line of reasoning (I hesitate to call it that) is based upon the President being illegitimate. Our friends on the left are still blindly holding on to the fantasy that George W. Bush somehow stole the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. This, of course, has been proven false by many organizations, not the least of which was a group of newspaper reporters, who work for liberal-leaning newspapers, who verified that President Bush won fairly.

None of these facts mean anything to Rall. He’s more interested in fostering treason among military personnel:

The military used to be an honorable calling. Not under Bush. Ethical Americans considering a military career should seek a civilian job until a lawful, elected government has been restored in Washington and we have withdrawn our forces from occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Those who are already enlisted should refuse to reenlist. Soldiers trapped by “stop loss” orders should apply for conscientious objector status (which is difficult to obtain) or refuse deployment based on the unlawful order principle. And if all else fails, there’s always desertion.

Of course, don’t you dare question his patriotism!

Finally, Rall casts one last parting shot:

OK, lefties? You can drop the “support the troops” shtick now.

Supporting the military is nothing more than a shtick to him. Supporting the men and women who make it possible for him to spew his vile hatred is nothing more than an act. Reminds me of the spoiled rotten little brat who has had everything handed to him all of his life and knows nothing of the value of the hard work it took to get all that he has.

Remember the real sad part of all of this: Ted Rall has an audience which thinks he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, and the members of that audience are probably right next to you.

Hat Tip: Right Wing News

This entry was posted on Friday, December 9th, 2005 at 1:47 pm by Nick, and is filed under Military, Politics, War on Terror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.