Do Democrats support those who serve?
By David Pheasant
Army Capt. David Pheasant is a graduate of Eastmont High School and the University of Texas. He currently is serving his second tour of duty in Iraq with the 334th Signal Company.
Posted May 15, 2007
The following is taken from an article published April 29 in the Tacoma News Tribune.
Leaders of the state Democratic Party voted overwhelmingly Saturday (April 28) to support Lt. Ehren Watada, the Fort Lewis officer who refused orders to serve in Iraq. The resolution supporting Watada passed easily, although it was by show of hands so there wasn't an exact vote count.
"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.m curious
why that portion of the evening was not included in the KOM04, KING5, Seattle
P-I, or Wenatchee World stories covering the same meeting.
How does a party that holds the
majority representation for the people of Washington State
in both the state Legislature and national Congress get away with passing a resolution such
as this, and not reporting it to the constituency whom they represent?
They have voted to support a criminal. He is guilty, of
how many charges remains to be
seen at trial, but his violation of Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- Missing Movement -- is uncontested and is in fact flaunted at every press conference he attends,
while the unit to which he was assigned has suffered 22 deaths and over 300 wounded in action as he sits comfortably stateside.
The "immoral U.S. military occupation of Iraq" is an action which was voted for by the
elected officials of the government by a margin of over 2-1 in the House and 3-1 in the
Senate. The military is not a branch of government capable of initiating action on its own.
It serves at the pleasure of the president and the Congress of the United States.
A service members' "commitment to duty" is to
continue to perform loyally despite personal danger or conviction, serving the "greater good" -- that being the protection of 99 percent
of the American population not in uniform. Those are the very same people who elected the officials who voted to enter into this conflict in the first place . I have just passed through my 24th month in combat and have seen many actions which I would describe as courageous. Violating an oath that one has sworn to uphold is not one of those actions. Integrity is the
only thing you own that someone else
cannot take from you and Watada has voluntarily
given it away. To mistake his lack of
integrity for courage suggests to me that the authors
of the resolution know not the definition
of either word. As far as the superfluous descriptors of "costly" and "destructive," I ask for
you to find me a war that is neither of those things. It
again suggests to me that the authors lack understanding of the subject.
Ultimately, my question to the Democratic Party is this:
Why aren't you proud of your resolution? Tell the people of the state of Washington what you have done. Stand up for your convictions like you claim to commend Watada for doing. Don't do it by a show of hands hidden in a sea of cronies relegated to a hidden article in a local military-town paper, but rather have the courage to put your name next to the vote for all to see.Tell me to my face that you have put me in this position and now call me immoral for heeding your call.
|
Home • From the Chair • PCO’s • Officers • Event Calendar
Candidates • The Right Links • Donate • Volunteer • Contact Us
Paid for and authorized by the Chelan County
Republican Central Committee
PO Box 764 Wenatchee, WA 98807
509-665-8653
Not authorized by any Candidate or Candidate Committee
| 
