Harsh?  I don’t think so.  It’s completely true, according to the News Tribune:

Democrats support Watada, caucuses

Leaders of the state Democratic Party voted overwhelmingly Saturday to support Lt. Ehren Watada, the Fort Lewis officer who refused orders to serve in Iraq.

Maybe traitor is too harsh, but I have no kind words for the man who joined the service knowing we were in a war, and then used specious reasoning to justify his refusal to fight.  He ignores the entire reality of the chain of command and his responsibility as an officer, and the oath he took when he was granted his commission.

And maybe it is accurate, as he left his unit without its leadership as they deployed to harms way.  He is at best a dishonorable disgrace to his uniform, to his service and to his country.

But the democrats think he is mom and apple pie.

“We support and commend Lt. Ehren Watada for his courage, moral leadership, and commitment to duty demonstrated by his act of resistance to the continued costly, destructive and immoral U.S. military occupation of Iraq,” the resolution said.

Yes.  Leadership by refusing to lead, Morals by violating his oath to obey, and commitment by refusing to serve.

Clear Democrat principles.

Mike Carnahan, a Democratic Central Committee member from Clark County, spoke against the Watada resolution. It’s an all-volunteer military, he said. “I find it offensive as, a veteran, to have him doing what he’s doing,” Carnahan said.

But other veterans on the committee said that, particularly as an officer, Watada shouldn’t just blindly follow.

“To say he’s required to follow all orders would be to negate the Nuremberg trials,” said Mike Mosbarger, a Mason County Democrat.

Those were the war crimes trials of Nazis after World War II, some of whom offered the unsuccessful defense that they were just following orders.

I hate this attempt to mitigate this with the Nuremberg defense.  The major difference is, if they had any sense and understanding of the military, is that Watada was given a lawful order to deploy, not to engage in a specific act of unlawful cruelty.  Now if he was in the field and felt the orders to shell a particular target were in violation, fine.  But the mere act of DEPLOYING is not subject to the Nuremberg Defense.

This is utterly unfounded self serving rationalization.

At best he could have cited himself as a conscientious objector, but he deliberately negated that defense, leaving him utterly defenseless.

State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz said in an interview that officers at Abu Ghraib prison or Guantanamo Bay might have done well to take an action such as Watada.

I don’t like the kid, but I don’t like any equating to the thugs at Abu Ghraib.  They willingly committed crimes, judging by the manner in which they relished it.  And they had the choice to refuse and to challange the orders.

It boils down to choices.  Watada Chose to join, and to serve, and then he chose to disobey.  Not protest, not take a moral stance, he disobeyed a lawful order in a time of war.  Period.

Watada is awaiting a court-martial in July. The central committee’s resolution calls on Washington Democrats in Congress to help him.

As a disabled Air Force Veteran, I can think of no act they could have chosen to offend me more.

The party’s central committee also decided to continue the Democrats’ tradition of ignoring results of the state’s presidential primary election. That means Washington Democrats will instead use caucuses next year to decide who the state supports in the race among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and others for the party’s nomination for president.

The decision to disregard the 2008 presidential primary came on a 119-42 vote at the state party central committee meeting in Bellingham. The resolution supporting Watada passed easily, although it was by show of hands so there wasn’t an exact vote count.

I regard this as a lesser evil, though not one I really have an issue with.  As I won’t subscribe to either party (though the Democrats drive me closer to the Republicans daily) I normally do not vote in the primary since we have a party primary system here.

So I don’t care either way if it is caucus or primary.

But why have the primary then?  Why waste millions for an empty process?  Considering how the Democrats gripe about waste and spending sometimes, this is an incongruous position.

A 2008 presidential primary election in Washington, at a cost to the state of $9.7 million, will still happen, despite the party’s decision to ignore it. The Democratic-controlled Legislature considered canceling the primary to save money but decided against it. Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire and some legislative leaders pushed for their party to pay some attention to the primary election, but Pelz lobbied hard for the caucuses

One wonders why?  The caucus does not get nearly the turnout that a primary does, so is this an effort to control the candidates selection by an elitist pool of delegates?  That is a valid concern.

A caucus is a multistep process in which party supporters gather in neighborhood settings to discuss and select candidates. Supporters said caucuses build a stronger state Democratic Party, and allow the party to gather names of people who want to be involved.

“Grass-roots organizing at its best happens through caucuses,” said Janet Miller of Seattle.

And there is merit there, as I have heard some Republicans make the same arguments. 

Others said a primary is just about big-money ads.

Well it is not as if the ads are not effective in a caucus.  That is just a hollow argument.

Party supporters of the primary election argued that it would let more people participate in choosing who will be the Democratic nominee for president. They said members of the active-duty military, and others, might not be able to attend a party caucus.

As they showed today, they don’t understand the military, and apparently have no regard for the safety of the soldiers abandoned by Watada, so I doubt they really care.

“The issue, it seems to me, is one of openness,” said John Pollock of Clallam County.

Today they openly showed their disregard of fiscal responsibility, of democracy and of the military.

Is that enough openness for you?

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Mark My Words, Big Dog’s Weblog, DragonLady’s World, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Pet’s Garden Blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Stageleft, , stikNstein… has no mercy, The Right Nation, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Wake Up America, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Maggie’s Notebook, basil’s blog, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Faultline USA, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, CORSARI D’ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, Gone Hollywood, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.