October 15, 2004
Support the troops: Vote for Bush
It’s clear that the troops overwhelmingly support Bush and the mission in Iraq. The suggestion that you can support the troops but not the mission is nothing but empty sophistry. The troops would rather have you support them and their mission!
Who do you trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military: George W. Bush or John Kerry? George W. Bush: 69%, or John Kerry: 24% annenberg
...and it doesn't stop there, on almost every question the military preferred Bush to Kerry by the same margins.
On particular traits, the military sample gave Bush an advantage on caring, leadership, sharing their values, knowledge, consistency and optimism. They did consider Bush more stubborn. [A positive trait in my mind, especially in wartime.]...When asked if the country was “going in the right direction” or was “seriously off on the wrong track,” 64 percent of the military sample said “right track” and 31 percent said “wrong direction.” In the general population a majority said “wrong track”; 55 percent took that view compared to 37 percent who said “right direction.”
...When it came to the war in Iraq, 64 percent of the military sample said the situation had been worth going to war over, while 32 percent said it had not. Of those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby, a smaller share, only 55 percent, said the war had been worth it; 40 percent said it had not. In the general population, 45 percent said the war had been worth it and 51 percent said it had not.
Kerry, who fought in Vietnam as a young man, and then made blanket statements that US soldiers were war criminals, says he is ready to be commander-in-chief. Yet our Armed Forces clearly would prefer that he not be.
They know Kerry would not be a very good C-in-C, and does not have a plan for Iraq.
Do you think John Kerry has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so? Has a clear plan: 16%, Does not have a clear plan: 74%
67% Approve of of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President.
54% Have an unfavorable opinion of John Kerry.
64% Said Bush shares their values.
47% Thought Kerry was 'reckless'.
You can read the entire pdf report here. (207k)
Posted by Eric Simonson at October 15, 2004 01:49 PMLuckily the vote isn’t restricted to soldiers.
Posted by: Alejo at October 15, 2004 01:57 PMIf it was, nobody would have ever heard of Monica Lewinsky.
Posted by: NOTOTH at October 15, 2004 02:05 PMSo, Eric, you would have an extremely small minority dictate the election. I support the troops but I think it would be a mistake for them to be allowed to run the country.
Posted by: Rocky at October 15, 2004 02:08 PMUnfortunately the site won’t load for me, suspect it’s a problem on my end. I don’t understand how anyone manages to poll people serving in the military. Maybe it has changed. When I served (1980-86), as an officer in SAC, talking with reporters or answering political polls would have been out of the question. Reporters are embedded now, but are military personnel allowed to participate in this kind of polling?
Posted by: Don at October 15, 2004 02:18 PMEric:
I think the more important point in this information is how the public views the Iraq situation and the safety issue here at home. Bush is generally ahead on these issues, as evidenced also by the military’s viewpoint.
If voters vote on this issue, Bush is the favorite. Kerry has made some inroads, but not enough, in my opinion.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 15, 2004 02:18 PMI love it when people say things like
The suggestion that you can support the troops but not the mission is nothing but empty sophistry.
and don’t feel the need to explain them at all. If I said something like, “It’s clear that many soldiers are programmed knuckleheads with no thought of their own, and any argument to the contrary is empty sophistry,” I’d probably get challenged on that, wouldn’t I? But since we’re talking about Patriotism, by God, there’s no need to even explain further. Only traitors would suggest getting our soldiers out of harm’s way! Posted by: Alejo at October 15, 2004 02:23 PM
Army Spc. Tyson Johnson III of Mobile, Ala., who lost a kidney in a mortar attack last year in Iraq, was still recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center when he received notice from the Pentagon’s own collection agency that he owed more than $2,700 because he could not fulfill his full 36-month tour of duty.
Nice to see the Administration is supporting the troops.
Posted by: ceejayoz at October 15, 2004 02:50 PMI can remember voting in the presidential election of 1968 when I was in Vietnam. I was one of only a handful in my compnay of 200+ MP’s who sent in an absentee ballot. I don’t think it’s any diffferent now. I don’t think the military vote elects anyone. It’s hard for me to believe that a reservists on his second tour would be voting for the Bush ticket. Maybe he would but how about his wife, sister, brother, fatherand mother?
Posted by: John Johnson at October 15, 2004 03:03 PMi bet that entire platoon that refused to be sent to their deaths are the only ones voting for Kerry? Please. Mange the message a little better, and then maybe I’ll start to blindly obey these skewed polls. i support these soliders, and I happily live in a “military town”, but if the mission was indeed right, then you wouldn’t be readin this:
“Aviation regiments have complained of being forced to fly dangerous missions over Iraq with outdated night-vision goggles and old missile-avoidance systems. Stories of troops’ families purchasing body armor because the military didn’t provide them with adequate equipment have been included in recent presidential debates.”
read more here:
Eric,
Could to poll just reflect that the Reps to Dems in our military has been 2:1 for a long time?
From the study:
“explanation for the pro-Bush tilt of the military sample was that they were considerably more Republican than the general population. Forty-three percent called themselves Republican, 19 percent called themselves Democrats and 28 percent said they were independents. “
well, imagine that..
Posted by: cali_ at October 15, 2004 03:20 PMEric,
Support the troops and vote for Bush means the troops are fighting and we should give them the leader that they are asking for.
They will be there awhile no matter who is in the White House.
Sounds good to me. Give them Bush.
Posted by: bugcrazy at October 15, 2004 03:23 PMOh, wait — now I get it. Since our roops overwhelmingly (supposedly) support Bush, if we don’t vote the same way we’re undermining the troops, and all of that explains the “empty sophistry” comment.
I have seen the light. I will definitely be changing my vote now.
Posted by: Alejo at October 15, 2004 03:26 PMFrom the study:
“explanation for the pro-Bush tilt of the military sample was that they were considerably more Republican than the general population. Forty-three percent called themselves Republican, 19 percent called themselves Democrats and 28 percent said they were independents. “
So what does that say about the democrats they don’t serve in the military? Strange how their so quick to criticize but so slow to serve.
Could it be that the guys that actually are fighting the war on terror have a better idea of how to fight it, than the liberal pundits sitting behind their computers?
-D
Posted by: Delzario at October 15, 2004 03:49 PM-could it be that the guys fighting the war are also killing thousands of innocent Iraqis, exactly the same people they were supposedly sent there to protect, free, and democratize (under pain of death, I might add)?
-could it be that the rank and file of the military is typically reflective of the general population (with a republican leaning, granted) but that the officer corps is almost entirely republican?
-could it be that it was neo-conservatives, not democrats, who sent them there in the first place?
empty rhetoric does not prove anything, and supporting the military does not mean voting bush, specifically because bush is responsible for their sacrifices in the first place!
-and, might I add, that it’s very possible that there are more republicans out fighting because they are the one’s willing to sacrificie their lives for W’s false ideals?
chew on that.
Posted by: david at October 15, 2004 04:03 PMThat’s the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.
The dig on the service men and women for killing ‘thousands of innocent Iraqis’ is disgraceful; you should be ashamed of yourself.
The vast majority of the ‘rank and file’ would have joined before Bush was elected, before 9/11, and certainly before Iraq. So if they didn’t like it they’d have no reason not to say so.
And yes, the republicans are the ones that sent our military and country on the historic mission of spreading democracy and freedom world wide. Thanks for noticing.
I’d say there are more republicans out there because more republicans believe the ideals of America are worth fighting and if need be, dying for.
Chewed, and spit out.
Hey Delzario,
Could it be that the guys that actually are fighting the war on terror have a better idea of how to fight it, than the liberal pundits sitting behind their computers?
apparently not:
WHO SERVED?
Republicans
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.”
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S.Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. “Knee problem,” although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst.’)
* Bill O’Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
chew on that..
I don’t see how that refutes my post. Sure, lots of republicans didn’t serve. Lots of democrats didn’t serve. The issue is that lots of people that do serve identify themselves as republicans and agree with the Bush administration’s strategy in the war on terror. The point was that the men and women that serve have a much better clue about reality than you (or me), sitting behind your computer do, and they agree with Bush.
So saying ‘they didn’t serve either’ doesn’t really make a point at all.
-D
Posted by: Delzario at October 15, 2004 04:26 PMthe point is, the people running this war have little to no military experience. the strategic commanders (rummy, cheney & bush) lack the real world military experience to succeed in this mission. therefore, well meaning & intentioned soliders (either reps or dems) are getting their marching orders from those that have no experience. that is not a recipe for success in any business, let alone in a war.
as as to your “many democrats didn’t serve”, perhaps you should do your research before speaking.. to wit:
Democrats
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star,
Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier’s Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Posted by: cali_ at October 15, 2004 04:34 PMWell, thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
The dig on the service men and women for killing ‘thousands of innocent Iraqis’ is disgraceful; you should be ashamed of yourself.
Qualify that. What I’m saying is not necessarily that the soldiers should be reprimanded for killing civillians. What I’m saying is that they have to take just as much responsibility for their behavior as anyone else, especially if they believe in the war. Nobody yet has sufficiently justified to me or anyone I know the immense loss of life necessary to force democracy on a country that was not an immediate threat to our safety through any route.
The vast majority of the ‘rank and file’ would have joined before Bush was elected, before 9/11, and certainly before Iraq. So if they didn’t like it they’d have no reason not to say so.
That doesn’t contradict what I said. In any way. It doesn’t even make it invalid. The point is that while the military may feel strongly about Bush, it’s because, as other people said, the military polls as significantly Republican, and supporters (and detractors) of the war have for a long time run primarily within party lines (however, I don’t necessarily think that’s true anymore).
And yes, the republicans are the ones that sent our military and country on the historic mission of spreading democracy and freedom world wide. Thanks for noticing.
Again, that’s nothing but snark. You think it’s a good thing, and I think it’s bigoted to use force to convert people to your way of life. In fact, it really smacks of the same “manifest destiny” motives that led us to destroy civilizations across this continent. The Colonial era is over, and those myths of “superiority” have been debunked. I really actually don’t understand why Bush (and by extension, apparently you) believes that “democracy” and “freedom” are necessarily antithetical to hatred and terrorism? I’m not saying I don’t like the idea, it just doesn’t seem really logical at all… What about the society where they really actually elect a leader who wants to disavow the nation of all it’s connections with America, and in fact, what if the people of the country want to go farther? Who’s to stop them, us? At least then we’d have a face for our nameless, amorphous, and all-purpose enemy.
I’d say there are more republicans out there because more republicans believe the ideals of America are worth fighting and if need be, dying for.
One more time, you’re equating your political party with America and “patriotism”… That’s just not reasonable. My father was a conscientious objector, and I was raised in a very political but pacifist home. However, if I thought that our country was going to a just war for the right reasons after having exhausted all political/diplomatic solutions, I would very seriously consider giving my life for a cause. It’s not the democrats are wimps or pansies, it’s that the war was the opposite of all the things I look for in a war. And, seriously, cali_ raises a literally awesome rebuttal… Maybe the Republicans of our country are more willing to serve and fight for something they believe in, but where are all the bigwigs dictating those beliefs when it comes time to do their civic duty (and I don’t mean voting)?
Chewed, and spit out.
Very clever. Ouch.
eagerly awaiting your response
,david
Of course they support the war. Otherwise they’re left with the shock that they went over there for nothing.
Posted by: political news at October 15, 2004 04:43 PMSo do you want me to post a list of republicans that did serve and democrats that didn’t?
All of that is pointless. You may think that Bush doesn’t have the military experience to lead the military, but the military thinks he does. They are the experts, and they say he’s doing it well.
It’s like a writer saying that some CEO is doing a bad job leading his company. But most of his employees say he’s doing a great job. Who’s right, the writer that doesn’t know shit about the company, or the employees that are doing the work?
Really I expected a list of general that are supporting Kerry to defend your position. I guess you realize that wouldn’t work because Bush’s got 10X the generals that support him.
-D
Posted by: Delzario at October 15, 2004 04:43 PMbut seriously, what military experience?
Posted by: david at October 15, 2004 04:44 PMhe definitely has plenty of experienced war planners around him… CW calls them “warhawks”
Oh, and, you’re right. Novelists don’t really get any say in the company. But consultants and business journalists do. In the end, what matters is the success of the company. Does anyone buy McDonald’s because they support the workers? No, and if you tell me you do, I’ll assume you’re lying.
The fact of the matter is that it is generally agreed by experts, not just pundits, that the war has been going downhill for a long time. Some of us technoliberals will tell you it’s been going downhill from the beginning, but that doesn’t make us any more right or wrong, seeing as we are no experts.
I would also argue that the soldiers really aren’t experts anyway. If they were, they’d all be planning wars and not fighting them. What they have to be experts in is survival and “special” ops. I’m not anti-military, but seriously. You’re attributing to the soldiers in Iraq some consensus and expertise that they don’t have one way or the other.
You’re confusing the issue. Your world (and mine) is painted is spin. Those closest to the ground see the world with the least amount of spin. Those would be the soldiers and their families. They see the logic (yes, logic) to the Bush strategy. The question is, why is your view of the world so distorted from theirs? Why do they see something you don’t? Could it be that your heart felt feelings are wrong?
About military experience. I’ve already made that point. The people under the president, the ones that would be the best to judge his ability to lead the military, say he’s leading just fine. They don’t care about experience; they only care about how their being led today. And they like it.
I’m going home for the weekend so you can argue at the wall till Monday.
-D
i feel the same way (about leaving). enjoy the weekend.
Posted by: david at October 15, 2004 05:00 PMThe suggestion that you can support the troops but not the mission is nothing but empty sophistry.
Very well, then: When Clinton was president, Republican leaders failed to support the troops.
Posted by: Woody Mena at October 15, 2004 05:01 PMactually neither the writer, nor the company exacutive have that right. it’s the stockholders who get to decide the ultimate direction of the company. and the “stockholders” can’t wait to vote on the 2nd and finally have their voices heard.
oh, and i think you said something about generals who back Kerry? Obviously, decorum says that you never speak poorly of your boss while you still have a job.. however i submit these examples:
I think your 10x may be off just a tad. Again, I say you need to do your homework before posting:
1. In an unprecedented display of support from the military establishment, twelve retired generals and admirals endorsed John Kerry for president of the United States on Wednesday. These distinguished flag officers join the ranks of tens of thousands of veterans — including over 500 veteran delegates in Boston — who want a stronger, more secure America and their fellow veteran John Kerry to be the next Commander-in-Chief. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=34048
2. Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, producer of the early military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Sunday that criticism of John Kerry’s war record is political hyperbole and Kerry is “absolutely” qualified to be commander in chief.”Do you think Senator Kerry is qualified to be commander in chief?” Franks was asked. “Absolutely!” he said.
3. Even Norman Schwarzkopf, who endorsed Bush in 2000, won’t endorse him in 2004.
4. 148 Military Brass and Veteran Luminaries Endorse John Kerry for Commander-in-Chief: The committee includes veteran luminaries: generals, admirals, former VSO commanders, Medal of Honor winners, and elected officials from both the Democratic and Republican parties.
5. Washington - A group of 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers said Wednesday that President Bush should be voted out of office in November for damaging U.S. national security interests and America’s standing in the international community. “Today we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the world around it,” said Phyllis Oakley, former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. “Never before have so many of us felt the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy.”
6. Kerry’s Military Brass Backing Is Large And Growing: Top aides to Sen. John Kerry today are crowing today that they have the support of the largest group of three- and four-star generals and admirals ever for a candidate challenging a sitting president, especially one in the middle of a war. “I think this is a remarkable thing,” aide Rand Beers said this morning. He said that the list totals 12 so far and is growing. And, Kerry aides added, if the list were to also include one- and two-star generals, it would go on for pages. One is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs: Retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili. He’s to speak at tonight’s convention, during which the campaign will also air a special video tribute to Kerry by the other top officers. Kerry advisor James Rubin said that by comparison only one top-level officer endorsed former President Clinton in 1992 when he ran against former President George H.W. Bush. He said that the endorsements, combined with Kerry’s Vietnam War service, should prove to Americans that he has “passed the commander-in-chief test.” Paul Bedard, U.S.News
nice try though. got anything else?
Posted by: cali_ at October 15, 2004 05:05 PMMilitary tends to vote Republican and has for a while now. I agree that serving in the military does not give you a special right to elect the president nor does it make you an expert on military affairs. The fact that most of the military support the reelection of George Bush speaks to one point however. There is a significant part of the liberal establishment that claims to have sympathy for the guys fighting in Iraq and pretends to speak for them. Even someone like Michael Moore genuflects in that direction from time to time.
This survey proves that Michael Moore, Dan Rather and even John Kerry do not speak for our soldiers. They speak for themselves, and they overwhelmingly speak in support of George Bush. They seem to have decided who will better protect them and their country.
Eric, three questions for you:
1) What exactly is “the mission”?
2) Is the mission today the same as what it was in March of 2003?
3) Is it possible to support the mission today, but not the mission as described in March 2003?
Here’s how I see it: The real mission in March 2003 was (a) to oust Saddam Hussein and (b) to quickly hand control of a newly democratic, capitalist Iraq over to the Iraqi National Congress (the real mission had nothing to do with terrorism or WMDs). The original mission succeeded in the first goal, but it failed spectacularly in the second goal. Today, with that second objective in tatters, a new objective has necessarily emerged: to bring order to the chaos in Iraq and in the region and to get American troops the hell out of there.
I support the new mission, but I did not support the initial mission.
Does that make sense to you, Eric?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 15, 2004 05:39 PMjack,
i would respectfully submit that they “overwhelming(ly) speak in support of george bush” when the sample of totalled respondents is skewed towards republicans. I could easily skew the respondents towards the democrats and come up with a contrasting view. any good market researcher knows how to play with the samples like that to tell whichever story suits their needs.
you do make a good point however. each of these people, be they liberal or conservative pundits, or democratic/republican soliders can only speak for themselves. ultimately, it is a personal decision, while we still have a volunteer army.
ok, that’s it. i’m done for the weekend.
> Could it be that the guys that actually are
> fighting the war on terror have a better idea
> of how to fight it, than the liberal pundits
> sitting behind their computers?
If you base your vote on how another group of people is voting, even if they are soldiers, then you are an idiot. This whole topic is insulting to the individuality and intelligence of the American voter (I know that the “intelligence of the American voter” might make for an easy punch line, but like it or not it’s the real backbone of our democracy and must be respected).
To be quite frank, I don’t think that the opinions of the typical American soldier are at all representative of the needs of the American people. Soldiers are a special kind of person who see the world in a very particular way, a way that is not shared by the vast majority of Americans.
Anyway, I’ll be damned if I’ll let a statistic affect my vote. I’ll let specific people who I personally respect help me form intelligent political opinions, but never a statistic. That’s just stupid.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 15, 2004 05:53 PMAnd Kerry only went to Vietnam because his 5th deferrment, to go study in Paris, was denied.
He had a choice to go to jail, go to Canada, or go to Vietnam. I say he picked Vietnam because it looks better on his resume’.
Is there anybody out there with an ounce of strategy in their heads?!?!
We are in Iraq to fight the war on terror. Whether, or how much/little Saddam/Iraq had dealings with OBL/Al Quaida is immaterial!
Bush has even had to lately, say outright that the goal is to bring the fight to the terrorists abroad, rather than them bringing the fight to us here.
WHY DOES NO ONE GET THAT!
It maddens me to have to be posting this publically, let alone that my President has to resort to saying it, to protect his administration from attacks from within, openly in public forums!
Please, put aside the partisan thinking for just a moment and consider;
To win a conflict, to emerge the victor in any conflict; it is highly desirable to be able to choose your place of battle to be to your benefit. The more the field of battle can be in a controlled environment, the better the chances will be for victory.
The worst type of condition, is the one where you are forced to fight a “defensive” battle, on your own soil, against an elusive foe (guerilla).
This scenario leads to huge collateral casualties amongst your own populace, loss of freedoms and liberty for your homeland and carries the highest possible risk for failure.
This is basic stuff.
In order for the Viet Kong to get the upper hand on us, it took a massive effort on their part to bring the battle to us, in the USA, by the only method they had at their disposal that was within their scope; Propaganda.
They were so succesful in this aspect of the Viet Nam war that, they not only won the war… they almost caused a civil war here in the USA, the afteraffects of which are so strong that they are still matters of strident debate in this election, 2004.
So far, in the War on Terror; We are providing the propaganda. For the most part, internally. Our enemy has only to fan the fire.
If we do not stop doing this, we will fall to this foe.
The consequences of losing, THIS war are so far beyond anyone’s imagining that there is not the fear of it that there should be. This fear should be a healthy, galvanizing force amonst us.
Imagine every city of America in flames and you can begin to get an idea. But that would only begin to scratch the surface of the nightmare that fighting a guerilla war on American soil, would be.
Senator Kerry has said, on many occaisions, that “the terrorist’s are pouring over the borders into Iraq!!!…”, as if this were a bad thing!?
The goal is to draw out as many terrorist’s as possible, into the open to fight us… OVER THERE!!!!!!!!
WE DO NOT WANT THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ TO END QUICKLY PEOPLE!!! We want the “insurgents” to continue to fall back into Fallujah, get reinforcements and come at us again and again.
Because there, we are in fortified positions, where we can lauch erradicative strikes, decimate their ranks… then stop just short, of finishing them off. (Think about it.)
Then when they’ve got a fresh supply of terrorists and wanna-be terrorists, FROM ALL OVER THE GLOBE, we can kill them too. (and if there are a few more in Baghdad and other place in and out of Iraq… this is still much easier to manage.)
Please open your eyes and shut your mouths and vote for Bush so we can win this thing. Any soldier, worth his salt knows what I have written here is accurate. Soon after, they would wish I had’nt spelled it out so clearly.
J B Templin
For a group (conservatives) that tout individual liberties, you sure seem to like to be told what to do (read Hannity, Rush, etc.).
To allow the military to deem who is electable smacks of fascism.
Eric,
You say support the troops and I do too. Nevertheless, how can you promote votng for Bush when he is trying to tell the republican party that “We don’t need to pass a Truth Test” isn’t that the wrong message to be sending your children?
> Kerry only went to Vietnam because
> his 5th deferrment
Prove it. I’ve only ever heard that he applied for one deferment.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 15, 2004 07:00 PMJB Templin-
We are in Iraq to fight the war on terror. Whether, or how much/little Saddam/Iraq had dealings with OBL/Al Quaida is immaterial!
I have more of an ounce of strategy in my head. You know what occurs to me? Because we didn’t find the terrorist conspiracy we were looking for, we didn’t do any damage to them by invading.
They bomb our facilities at will, bomb children lining up for candy from troops, bomb police officers standing in line to apply. They are creating much more havoc for their numbers than we are on them. A stronger position would be an Iraq where police once more walk the streets and law and order are once more enforced.
They also have us stationary, and at a disadvantage. We can’t bug out like they can, and return later. We can’t give up territory without losing face. We don’t have control, otherwise the battle would be won long ago.
This idea that somehow the terrorists will become obsessed, and this will become their quagmire is just ludicrous. They aren’t standing toe to toe with us. It’s the native insurgents that are doing that.
The terrorists are bombing and executing, creating the propaganda themselves, creating the fear, and the hatred for a country that’s taken over their nation, but refuses to take ownership of the situation.
What we should be doing is locking down the country, finding some means of making the border less porous, and getting a legitimate police presence back on the streets. We do need to be building up the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi army, because otherwise, what we will see is a progressively radicalized and frustrated population. From that point, we will have civil war, and some nation will rush in to fill the power vacuum.
War is not military victory or strategy alone, but also the wise use of economic resource, and the proper practice of nation building.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2004 07:05 PM“Bush has even had to lately, say outright that the goal is to bring the fight to the terrorists abroad, rather than them bringing the fight to us here.
WHY DOES NO ONE GET THAT!”
(by the way, no need to SHOUT nor to tell anybody to shut their mouth, please).
Wasn’t the intervention In Afghanistan meant for that ?
Posted by: Rick Hong at October 15, 2004 07:26 PMJB,
What if the Bush administration is lying to the American people?
Almost daily air strikes are being launched in Falujjah against ‘safe houses’ harboring memebers of ‘the Zarqawi terrorist network.’
Do you believe that’s true? Who are in those houses? How many people are we killing? Are they foreign Jihadists? Iraqi subversives? Innocent men, women, and children? The answer is that you don’t know, and I don’t know, and I don’t believe the military knows with any degree of accuracy, either.
The US invasion of Iraq has already killed 10,000 innocent men, women, and children, and that’s a conservative estimate. We do know that.
Innocent. Civilians.
I’m sorry, but the idea of conducting a war of attrition against terrorism by bombing a city of 250,000 civilians is simply evil, and unworthy of the idea of what it means to be an American.
I was once a military man myself. By the time I finished training in 1968, I was so brainwashed that I never questioned whether the administration was right or wrong, I simply followed orders and hated Gooks! The president was my commander and Chief, how could I doubt that he wasn’t looking out for me and the country? He and I were on the side of right, it was unpatriotic to question the man or the mission. Unfortunately, there were many like me at that time and it cost our country dearly. Some were more aware than me and some even had the guts to stand up and speak their mind to an administration that used every dirty trick in the book to discredit them and smear them because they chose to follow their conscience and speak the truth. John Kerry was such a man. They say that a smart man learns by his mistakes and a wise man learns by those of others. I fear that President Bush and the military who eagerly pledge their allegiance to him never learn by mistakes. So the military is for Bush, that really doesn’t surprise me and it will make no difference when I vote.Posted by: Mike Kohus at October 15, 2004 07:56 PM
JB Templin, it is naive in the extreme to believe that terrorists who have designs on the U.S. are forgoing coming to the U.S. in order to get blown up in Falujah.
There are foreign terrorists in Iraq. But, our government also tells us there are al-Queda cells here in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The argument that Iraq is containing the terrorists that would otherwise strike us here at home simply is illogical. The terrorists who have designs on the West and the U.S. in particular, are not going to be drawn to Iraq, they are going to pursue their efforts against us here.
Think about it. If there goal is to terrorize Americans, will that goal be better served by killing a few GI’s in Iraq, or a few hundred or thousand in the U.S. Think about it, I am confident the logic of this simple proposition will ring true.
Of course I know that this is not the only front in the war on terror… but it is a visible one that the voracious media can report on. And one that the American populace can “see” is happening.
Do you remember the feeling of utter helplessness that we all felt immediately following 9/11?
That kind of helpless feeling breeds low morale, which means people staying home, which means a crashing economy with employers scaling back instead of “pushing ahead”.
The point is, the Iraq war is absolutely “useful” and the terorists do not have unlimited resources.
Of course they are also trying to attack us here, and of course we are “fighting” them here as well, but we cannot, and should not, have that aspect of the war on terror in the public eye.
And… the broad base of opponant that we are facing in Fallujah (and in other locales) is not “primarily local/indigenous” fighters. They are mostly foreign, which the Iraqi’s know better than we…
PS; When I write in CAPS, I am not shouting… just bringing attention to that statement.
And I apologize for the “shut up” reference.
The inference was meant to reflect on too much “airing out” of what should be sensitive data.
J B Templin
Posted by: James B Templin at October 15, 2004 09:38 PMPPS
What the 9/11 report, and other reports showed… was that there was not enough evidence to support in “court” or at the UN or Wolrd Court, to “prove” dircet ties from Saddam/Iraq & 9/11.
It/they do not disprove “ties” to Al Quaida at all.
In fact, they do show connections/dealings/money flow & support & training facilitation.
Saddam was a major money man for all forms of seditionist groups all over the world. He was all for anything that would add to “upsetting the apple cart” of the “powers that be”.
This qualifies as a “real and present danger” to US interests, in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the broader scope of a war on terror.
The same can, (should & ultimtely will) be said of the UN “OIL for FOOD” scandal, that is beggining to unfold. Just how deep the interactions and “supporting roles” that they ultimately play/played, is yet to be seen.
JB Templin
James,
On the Oil for Food program should everyone who profited from it indirectly be charged?
Oil for Food is an unfloding debaucle…
Those who were getting fat on kickback $$$/ “hush” money, yes, absoulutely…
Those who are doing business thinking that they are “doing good”? Of course not, but we don’t even have enough data yet to get a clear picture of all that went on here… but what I’ve been able to gleen so far is pretty damning stuff for some very “popular” UN figures.
The overall point here is,
How wrong was Bush to turn away froom the UN when it’s beginning to look like the UN was playing both sides of the fence and HARD… I am truly hopeful that this real atrocity comes out into full view and is not “shelved” by the UN who is the only entity able to access all the fact, at this time.
Posted by: James B Templin at October 15, 2004 10:29 PMBefore the Iraq war, protestors waved signs saying “No war for oil.” They had a point, but the order of the words was wrong. They would have been correct to say “Oil for no war” since the Saddam was effectively using oil wealth to bribe and manipulate key countries and UN Security Council members.
The Duelfer report found no WMD. But it also found that sanctions against Iraq were weakening and Saddam planned to restart his weapons programs again as soon as they were gone. Inspections cannot be effective without the full support of the U.N. Security Council. That didn’t exist as Iraq used the UN oil for food program to buy influence in the Security Council. Time was running out when President Bush made the decision for war. Based on the evidence available to him, it was the right decision. Bush knew he was risking his presidency on an issue where he could expect no credit for doing well and a lot of blame, and he was willing to do it. It was a courageous decision.
jack, please don’t exaggerate the facts to make your argument. The Duelfer Report does not state that the sanctions and containment were weakening. That is plain false. It said it is apparent that Saddam was working and bribing to weaken the containment, but, there is no evidence the U.S. was about to walk away from the no fly zones, or from its containment policies regardless of what other nations decided to do.
And the plain fact was that the U.S. was the primary force behind the containment and sanctions against Iraq. If we could invade Iraq without U.N. agreement, surely we could have maintained the containment and sanctions without U.N. approval. Let’s stay factual about references to other works.
Eric, I didn’t realize the military ran this country. Why don’t we let them decide domestic policy, also.
Eric, Could to poll just reflect that the Reps to Dems in our military has been 2:1 for a long time?
Exactly, isn’t that kind of evident? So who’s blood is it being spilled? Perhaps if liberals joined in significant numbers they would stop insisting we must have a draft. Which if you think about it is about the same policy solution they provide for everything. We need more troops? Use the monopoly force of the state. Healthcare? Use the monopoly force of the state. eh.
As an aside, LGF has this link to a page that used to be on Kerry’s website proposing mandatory service for youth.
As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service.
***
The real mission in March 2003 was (a) to oust Saddam Hussein and (b) to quickly hand control of a newly democratic, capitalist Iraq over to the Iraqi National Congress (the real mission had nothing to do with terrorism or WMDs). The original mission succeeded in the first goal, but it failed spectacularly in the second goal. Today, with that second objective in tatters, a new objective has necessarily emerged: to bring order to the chaos in Iraq and in the region and to get American troops the hell out of there.I support the new mission, but I did not support the initial mission.
I agree, that is the real mission, and it is being accomplished. We can’t be directed by unreasonable politically motivated defeat-and-retreat timetables though.
You declare defeat so quickly, Chris. How many months, (2 or 3?), does Kerry get before it is declared impossible to achieve? I suspect the Michael Moore wing of the party gives Kerry about 1 day before demanding a complete ‘Spanish’ withdrawal.
I don’t think that the opinions of the typical American soldier are at all representative of the needs of the American people. Soldiers are a special kind of person who see the world in a very particular way, a way that is not shared by the vast majority of Americans.…To allow the military to deem who is electable smacks of fascism.
But it was ok for Kerry to claim he is fit for the office purely because he served in Vietnam? This is why this poll is relevant and so damning of Kerry’s candidacy. He has built his qualifications for the white house on two things now, 1) Kerry served in Vietnam and is ready to serve as C-in-C purely because he served on that basis, and 2) Bush is killing our soldiers, (1000 and counting), in a war that was wrong in every way.
Kerry’s medals are supposed to give him an edge in war time, yet the soldiers themselves who are fighting and dieing today in that war are irrelevant? It just goes to show what a sham democratic support for the military really is. The argument is that the war is fraudulent and anything done to stop the war is helping the troops. Except that the troops don’t agree.
The idea that Republican ‘chickenhawks’ are running this war and therefore it is an unjust, mismanaged, and evil war is equally fraudulent. If the Armed Forces are predominantly made up of Republicans and Republican leaning individuals what does that say about Democrats? Are they then worse than ‘chickenhawks’? I don’t know if there is a such a term. I’ll think about it though, maybe something will come to me.
Posted by: eric simonson at October 16, 2004 12:18 AMJames B Templin said Bush has even had to lately, say outright that the goal is to bring the fight to the terrorists abroad, rather than them bringing the fight to us here. WHY DOES NO ONE GET THAT!
I’ve been saying it all along. I think it’s the funniest thing ever. We liberated Iraq to make them the target of terrorists. What f*cked up logic that is.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 16, 2004 12:22 AMSorry, Eric, Cali owned you on this one.
I really really liked that chicken hawk list, Cali. Excellent retort. They should put that on a billboard all over the country. It says it all.
Posted by: Greg at October 16, 2004 12:32 AMThis article is just a logical fallacy. Simply propping up some appeal to authority by quoting favorable polls has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of Bush as president or the lack of Kerry’s qualifications for the office.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 16, 2004 12:36 AMWant to know more about Kerry as a Senator?
Look at this link and see exactly who Kerry is supporting in Boston.
Note the ‘Mission’ of this group on this page.
Does Kerry really know who he sent a letter of support to?
Kerry & Al Qaeda supporters? One has to wonder???
Looks fishy to me.
Don’t blow a gasket until you read through the site.
James,
Here is an article that lists the names of the American companies and individuals that are currently being investigated on the oil for food program American Busted,/a>
Check out the name Oscar Wyatt; He has been a friend of Bush41 for a long time.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 16, 2004 02:18 AMEric,
It isn’t that the republicans are running the war, it’s the fact that when you outline how poorly they have handled it. Check out the congression hearings over the past year and you quickly find out that the administration and the military leaders have consistently said one thing and the facts show something different.
Why do you think Senator Hagal stated publicly that this administration is incompetant?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 16, 2004 02:25 AMA reason that military people don’t like Kerry, even though they should:
Kerry started a series of investigations into the Reagan Administration’s involvement with the Nicaraguan Contras, a guerrilla group opposed to the left-wing Sandinista government. His subcommittee on narcotics and terrorism revealed that Oliver North, a junior Marine officer assigned to the White House, was in charge of funnelling arms to the Contras; and suggested that some of the C.I.A. operatives who supplied the Contras were flying narcotics back to the United States (a fact that the C.I.A. finally acknowledged almost a decade later); and then that Panama’s dictator Manuel Noriega had been involved with the arms-running, the drug-running, and the C.I.A. From there, Kerry began to investigate Noriega’s money-laundering operation, which was run through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, in the Cayman Islands. The B.C.C.I. trail led to its partner, First American Bank, in Washington, D.C., which was represented by Clark Clifford, who had served every Democratic President from Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter. “John wasn’t a very popular guy when he called Clark Clifford to testify,” David McKean, the committee’s chief investigator at the time, said. “Most of the other members of the committee were uncomfortable with it. I remember that one senator cornered Kerry in the elevator and said, ‘What are you doing to my old friend Clark Clifford?’ But those hearings were the first real look at how terrorists, drug dealers, and international criminals conducted their business.”Posted by: Julia at October 16, 2004 02:29 AM
It is a joke that Army supports Bush. There is a mutiny reported today. It is going to grow.
Solider have fought the hard war, but look what the white house has done? Give the supply contract to Dick’s Hallibuton and let them deliver crap yet make a fortune. Drive the force to Falluja and only to make a peace deal a few days later. Plan patrol route through some Iraqi cities that’s consdiered dangerous in order to show ‘resolve’.
There will be more of the same next 4 years, if Bush get what he wants.
Posted by: AK at October 16, 2004 07:15 AMHey, kerry&alqaeda?,
Did you realize that al Qaeda and other related terrorist groups want Bush to win re-election?
The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, the group that claimed credit for the Madrid bombings, is backing Bush because they feel it’s not possible to find an adversary, “more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.”
And al Qaeda itself issued an endorsement for Bush’s re-election “because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.”
If you want to vote for al Qaeda’s candidate, vote for Bush.
JB Templin-
Ilike the idea of our president taking us to war to manipulate us even less than I like having been manipulated into one, so the idea that the Iraq War can serve to energize us just creeps me out. Also, If Bush is in fact using the war to help America vent those emotions, the very act of doing so will be harmful
Harmful how? He’d be taking away our motivation to get him to go after the real targets. And as I can see from the Republican response, that is exactly what’s happened.
But, this unfounded war has also damaged the unity of this country. Because Bush was not straight with us, did not base this war on anymore than his gut, we are stuck in Iraq for the forseeable future. Additionally, though, the true believers have bought into the factually shaky case for war, and let the shifting motivations slide. Others have not, disappointed in a president who did not do all he could to make sure that whatever we did, the evidence would vindicate us before the world, not humiliate.
I could give a crap less whether the case would stand up in a court of law. I would have settled for standing up when the facts and evidence are brought to bear. I would not let a perfect case be the enemy of a good case.
The 9/11 report (which I’ve read) specifically says that while there were contacts made, the intelligence they looked at, and which has been scoured from the ground in Iraq, indicates they never collaborated. Each side sent feelers out, each side came away unsatisfied.
If there were really ties, one day you may be vindicated. But the lack of a strong terrorist presence pre-invasion would serve to corroborate the idea that there was no such relationship going on. You may feel inclined to look for the chinks in the armor of all these statements about weapons and terrorists, but the truth is, your standards of evidence would have to be pretty low to justify an invasion of Iraq.
Low standards like that may seem like the quick and easy way to deal with the world’s threat, but for that speed and lack of effort, one gets a poorer, fuzzier sense of the world that will lead to us making errors that will cost us soldiers, resources, and reputation, all the while allowing, and even helping groups like al-Qaeda to become stronger.
Let me use a visual metaphor: Our intelligence picture is like us staring down the sights of our gun, drawing a bead on a target. If we simply raise our weapon and shoot without really looking that well, we might miss, and in fact hit something we were better off missing. If we stare down the sights and become to obsessed with perfect, yes, we will get hit by our enemy.
What we need is a healthy arrangement that allows us the evidence to make correct decisions most of the time, and at the same time doesn’t bog us down with endless quibbling and standards that are far too high to be achieved.
As for broader scope, I’d say it’s better for us to stay focused on al-Qaeda, because the moment it looks like our supposed war is just a pretense for something else, it will get much harder to gain cooperation when we really need it.
As for Oil For Food, the debacle was on Saddam’s side of things. As the leader of the sovereign country, it was his decision how to spend the money. As for Bush turning away, I never got the sense that he was leaving anything up to them in the first place. I think he just doesn’t like the lack of control that would entail.
Jack-
Time was not running out for Bush. Any time limits were self imposed. He got things backwards, really. He started us on the road to this war before we had a case. He went to the UN and was declaring them unnecessary before they had proved themselves so. He invaded before he had the evidence that what he was invading for was there. If Bush had proceeded wisely, He could have turned back at any time,
But Bush’s people didn’t care about that. There are many accounts of people being turned away, censored and even fired because they didn’t give the Bush adminstration the answers they wanted to hear. Bush is trying to scapegoat the CIA, but the fact is, Bush and his people wanted this war, and were willing to do whatever it took to get it. Even if it were the case that Bush had limited evidence to make this decision on, the courageous and risky decision would be to ask for a better picture on things, to hold back until the truth was known. When the alternative is a bloody guerilla war that has benefitted the terrorist more than us, I think the obvious case for scrupulous analysis is there.
Essentially my point to you would be: There can be consequences for not taking the time to really examine a potential threat as much as their can be consequences for taking too much time or ignoring a threat. Don’t let your fear, anger, or even admiration for the president blind you to that.
Eric-
Speaking of blindness, what exactly did we go in for? Weren’t we trying to hit a threat Bush supposedly knew was there before we got hit ourselves? Wasn’t that the basis of pre-emptive action? If so, this war was unjustified, and nobody’s opinion will change that.
As for that article, there’s no call for mandatory military service. Taken in context, it says two things: mandatory public service for high school students, and for two years of service in the military, four years of college.
But of course it’s a moot point now. They’ve reconsidered, and they did so long ago. I know this for a fact because the heading on that page is “Kerry” not “Kerry/Edwards” as it is now. So you’re dealing with something which is at minimum months old, and no longer a position taken by the campaign.
Is that the best you’ve got? Again and again, this small thing called reality intrudes on your criticisms of Kerry. Again and again you insert your expectations of Kerry in the place of his actual positions, and his actual record. Everything becomes about what you expect of him, and naturally, you don’t expect much.
Besides, it seems to me that Bush has done a much better job of rushing things. He rushed us into war, he rushed his planning, he rushed the official end of the occupation, and he’s going to rush this vote. He doesn’t seem concerned about getting such historical decisions right, he just wants them made, and the pre-arranged time table adhered to. Time is a factor, but sometimes you’ve got to patient enough to just do things right.
You conflate the question of military service of Candidates who are now civilians with that of the question of whether we should take the military’s lead. I do think how each person responded to their country’s call to duty matters. Bush halfheartedly served, though he fullheartedly supported the war. Kerry had reservations about the war, but served anyways, feeling it was his duty. When he got back, he didn’t simply fade into civilian life, but he opposed the deep wrongs of the war that he himself experienced.
I would hope that my experience, should the draft be reinstated and I am called up, follow Kerry’s example- that I would serve honorably, and coming back, tell the truth about what I saw, whatever that was.
As for the quite separate question of military influence on the public, I don’t take so strong of a position as Chris does, knowing that you are only speaking about us following their opinion, not submitting to their control, but the underlying thought beneath your sentiment has problems he pretty well identified.
I think the line from Crimson Tide says it best: We’re here to defend democracy, not practice it. In many ways, the military is like a miniature dictatorship, with it’s own bureaucracy, it’s own laws, rules and regulation. Everything is regimented, rationed, and restricted. Respect for one’s commanders is not just asked for, but required.
Sometimes, that means that what the Military might prefer is different from what we civilians would think best. We’ve likely been exposed to more of the news, more of the political events, more of the essential pieces of the puzzle we need to put together our choices. The military may not like that, but they’ve got their duty, and we civilians have ours, and the military’s opinion should never be valued as anything more than equal to our own. It is no coincidence that when everything is said and done, civilians decide when we go to war. Such checks and Balances must exist, or otherwise we end up like Saddam Husseins Iraq.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2004 10:50 AMJust why would a terrorist group let it be known that they ‘endorse’ a certain candidate for president?
In effect they are telling us how to destroy themselves & terrorism.
Why would they do that?
I thought they had at least been given credit for being manipulative.
I posted this on the other side - amazingly CF and Mike K said just about the same thing heres, so here’s my support for thie views:
First: The mission of the troops in Iraq is to (1) ensure that we’re safe from whatever risk the Iraqis might pose (2) ensure that Iraq ends up with a stable government (3) come home safe. I fully support their mission, and I would not vote for a candidate that didn’t.I believe that if Kerry had been in charge instead of Bush, then this mission would have been accomplished a lot less painfully. I think Bush’s track record in decision-making shows it’s unacceptable to let him continue to act as CinC. But whoever wins in Nov 3rd, the mission of the troops - bringing stability to the region, showing that the US is a responsible world citizen, saving 25M Iraqis from chaos and civil war - that mission remains vital. The statement “Bush was wrong, and we must win this war” is not a contradiction.
Second: I’d make a terrible soldier, in fact I’m probably not a very good employee even. I’m always second-guessing my “superiors”. An army doesn’t work unless *everyone* follows orders. The fact that Bush is an inept leader doesn’t mean I respect the troops any less - in fact, I respect them more for being able and willing to stick to their guns, literally, and being brave enough to trust their lives, literally, to Bush. Especially to Bush. I admire them for supporting their CinC. But that’s not going to change my vote.
This morning I read up more on the Annenberg report. One interesting tidbit: even in the culture Mike K described above, 60% of those polled thought that there were too few troops in Iraq.
And more news from this morning: a reserve troop in being investigated for allegedly refusing to drive supplies 15 mi north of Baghdad, calling it a suicide mission. Some quotes:
The supply route the soldiers were to have used, is among the most dangerous in Iraq. The military calls it “Main Supply Route Tampa.” Many soldiers have been wounded there by roadside bombs and rifle and rocket-propelled grenade fire….Staff Sgt. Christopher Stokes, a 37-year-old chemical engineer from Charlotte, N.C., went to Iraq with the 343rd but had to come home because of an injury. He said reservists were given inferior equipment and tensions in the company had been building since they were deployed in February.”It wasn’t really safe,” he said. “The vehicles are not all that up to par anyway. The armor that they have is homemade. It’s not really armor.”
Yeah, I know, Bush and the Red Team have run out the excuses more than one: No war is perfect, there might have been WMD, it’s Kerry’s fault anyway for missing those committee meetings, Saddam tried to kill my Daddy, etc. I’ve heard the whole lot, I think.
Call me crazy, but for me “support the troops” and “vote for Bush” just don’t work in the same sentence.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 16, 2004 11:13 AMbugcrazy, these guy are just not very bright. But they do understand what will eventually bring them all down.
Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.
Forget about Kerry, it’s clear that this guy’s talking about Western ideas seducing “the faithful”.
Bush’s anti-Islam crusader rhetoric - “In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty” - is like a gift from Allah for uniting Muslims against Western ideas and values.
Bush is cocking-up the war on terrorism for us on the military, diplomatic, AND ideological fronts. And that’s just what the terrorists want.
AP,
“bugcrazy, these guy are just not very bright. But they do understand what will eventually bring them all down.” ????
How can you say they are not very bright? Most of the men that are leading their ‘crusade’ have been educated in Western countries. Before or after they joined their ‘crusade’.
Seems to me they don’t like Kerry or Bush or anyone else we would have as president.
They do not want western influence period.
It comes down to ‘they know they will lose’ and how will they lose?
‘A gift from the Almighty’ - is Allah not ‘Almighty’?
Those who strongly believe in a certain religion have an ‘Almighty’.
Here’s what makes this thread’s whole premise a moot point: The military may support Bush politically, but they clearly do not support Bush’s specific policies in Iraq.
Military members and their families seem to have an awful lot of strong opinions that stand in stark opposition to the President’s specific military policies and views:
- 62 percent in the military sample said the administration didn’t send an adequate number of troops to Iraq.
…
- 59 percent said too much of a burden has been put on the National Guard and the reserves when regular forces should have been expanded instead.
…
- 51 percent, said showing photos of flag-draped coffins being returned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware would increase respect for the troops.
…
- Six in 10 of the regular military in the sample said they were properly trained and equipped. [i.e., 4 in ten said they were not properly trained and equipped]
…
- Only four in 10 of the Guard members and reservists questioned said they were properly trained and equipped.
…
- Eight in 10 said soldiers responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and their immediate commanders should be punished. Half said higher-level commanders should be punished and three in 10 said civilians in the Pentagon should be punished.
Also, they’re not really behind the Iraq War as much as one would think:
For example, 68 percent of the service members but only 55 percent of the family members
approve of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. (survey press release)
Why do they stand by the President despite these views? Clearly members of the military, like other Americans, don’t vote based on military issues alone. The fact that the military attracts Republicans in general might be the only explanation. And loyalty: If Clinton decided, for example, to invade Mexico, I’ll bet at least half of the military would say that they supported the policy.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 16, 2004 12:34 PMI belive it was Mark Twain that said; There are lies, Damn lies, and then there’s statisics.
Why do we belive that polls are are so important?
They only show a persons belief at the moment in time that the poll is taken. Polls can be skewed to show anything the pollster wants them show.
Where and when have a lot to do with the results.
So a poll shows that the troops support the President. Why do we find that suprising? That’s their job. It’s in their oath.
What’s really suprising is that 24% don’t support the President.
BTW pretty soon someone will report a poll that shows that polls are irrelevent.
Posted by: Rocky at October 16, 2004 01:39 PMRead the satire at www.ScrappleFace.com - Bush REINTRODUCING THE DRAFT TO GET RE-ELECTED.
A great conservative site. Witty. Thoughtful. Hillarious.
Posted by: hermes1LA at October 16, 2004 02:40 PMEric wrote:
> You declare defeat so quickly, Chris.
Eric, you are not living in the real world if you think that the President’s original Iraq invasion plans were a complete success. I specifically said that part (b) of the mission was “to quickly hand control of a newly democratic, capitalist Iraq over to the Iraqi National Congress”. By “quickly”, I am talking about the rosy timetable of several months that countless Administration officials suggested American troops would remain in Iraq in large numbers after the war. Obviously we’re long past “quickly”. Are you really still holding out a hope that we’re going to put Chalabi in charge? Do you think the President has a time machine or something? What’s done is done, Eric - Bush’s original post-invasion plan failed utterly. Face it.
Because the original post-invasion plan failed, we’ve had to invent a new, revised mission, one which Bush hadn’t planned for and one which he never mentioned to the American people. But he should have known: countless others warned both him and the American people about the costs and dangers of post-invasion Iraq: the native insurgents, the foreign fighters, the faltering economy and unemployment, the failing infrastructure, the sectarian violence, etc etc. This should not have been a surprise, but Bush and you are pretending like it was something that we couldn’t possibly have foreseen. We did foresee it!
This really irks me, Eric. Back in early 2003, people like you were calling people like me “defeatist” for even suggesting that the post-war Iraq occupation might last more than a few months or cost more than a couple of billion dollars. And now that you realize how completely foolishly wrong you were back then, you are changing your tune and accusing us of not supporting the “new” strategy, even though we’ve known and said all along that long term occupation was the inevitable outcome of the invasion.
Eric: I urge you to read the November 2002 James Fallows article “The 51st State” and ask yourself why neither the Administration nor its supporters were willing to face up to or discuss ANY of the predictions made in this article, predictions which mirror the criticisms of countless Democrats and foreign policy and military experts. Ask yourself if the mountains of accurate predictions in this article, and the realities in Iraq today, were really considered by your side in the runup to the Iraq War. I re-read the “The 51st State” article every couple of months, and I’m amazed at how such thorough predictions could have been so utterly ignored by the Bush Administration.
In early 2003, did you honestly think that things in Iraq would be as bad as they are now in late 2004? No, you did not, and neither did the President. But I did, and John Kerry did. We knew the war would be costly and lengthy. Does that make us pessimistic? No! It makes us people who live in reality. We who doubt the President’s rosy hopes are, as one administration official put it, hopelessly “reality based”. It is that ability to live in reality and to make accurate predictions about the future, predictions based on intelligence and wisdom and not on faith and gut instinct, that makes my side better suited to lead this country than your side. America will win this war because we will fight it with our brains, not with blind faith.
I also specifically said that I do support the essence of America’s new mission in Iraq (“to bring order to the chaos in Iraq and in the region and to get American troops the hell out of there”). Neither I or Kerry advocate leaving Iraq in chaos. I don’t see what the hell you mean when you imply that I “declare defeat”. I don’t see where in my statement I have ever advocated “defeat-and-retreat timetables”.
The only defeat I’ve observed is the defeat of Bush’s preposterously ignorant hope that Ahmed Chalabi would be President of Iraq today and that most of our troops would be home now.
The only defeat I seek is the end of George W. Bush’s political career.
By the way, you never answered the three simple questions I put to you, which were sincere attempts to understand your position:
1) What exactly is “the mission”?
2) Is the mission today the same as what it was in March of 2003?
3) Is it possible to support the mission today, but not the mission as described in March 2003?
-Cf
For those who don’t want to pay the Atlantic Magazine’s fees, you can read “The 51st State” at this mirror site.
Eric, I hope you take me up on this one.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 16, 2004 04:38 PMWhy won’t JOhn Kerry answer up about his military record?
Mystery Surrounds Kerry’s Navy Discharge
It Followed Unusual High-Level Review
By THOMAS LIPSCOMB
Special to the NY Sun, October 13, 2004
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry’s campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry’s “Honorable Discharge from the Reserves” opens a door on a wellkept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration’s secretary of the Navy,W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry’s discharge as being subsequent to the review of “a board of officers.” This in itself is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy’s document, the “authority of reference” this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry’s record was “Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163.”This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr.Kerry’s involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn’t have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all.The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry’s status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.
The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry’s military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional sixyear reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.
The most routine time for Mr. Kerry’s discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?
NBC’s release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr. Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon’s special counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry’s Senate testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a “complete opportunist…We’ll keep hitting him, Mr. President.”
Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he wrote on June 15,1971,that was brought to the surface by the Houston Chronicle. “Let’s destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader.” Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find “dirt” on Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn’t find any.
The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy, was easier than finding “dirt.”
For example, while America was still at war,Mr.Kerry had met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to get Congress to accept the enemy’s seven point peace proposal without a single change. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding.
Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House.The secretary of the Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the senator, John Ullyot, said, “Senator Warner has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge.”
The “board of officers” review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about “by direction of the President.” No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry’s hidden military records.
Mr. Carter’s first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.
Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.
If Mr.Kerry was the victim of a Nixon “enemies list” hit, one might have expected him to wear it like a badge of honor, like many others such as his friend Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, CBS’s Daniel Schorr, or the actor Paul Newman, who had made Mr. Colson’s original list of 20 “enemies.”
There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges,bad conduct discharges,as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges.There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S.Senate in 1985,on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry’s medals were reissued.
Boy, some people just can’t let go of this Vietnam-era conspiracy stuff, huh? What I want to know is what about the rest of Bush’s dental records? I heard he really had five cavities, so two are unexplained!
Seriously, the debunkers have been hammering this one over in the Blue column already. Is there a protocol for multiple posts? it seems to have just caught on, and it’s redundant to have the same arguments going on twice, but also difficult to let a load of nonsense slip by without coment. This format doesn’t really seem to be set up for dueling top-level posts.
Posted by: William Cohen at October 16, 2004 09:40 PMSo what you’re trying to tell us is that, then President Carter, knowing that he would have the chance to sit with Michael Moore at the Democratic National Convention, saw this as a chance he couldn’t pass up and pardoned Kerry.
Posted by: Rocky at October 16, 2004 10:15 PMMaybe President Kerry will pardon Bush for going AWOL?
I have evidence that aliens kidnapped both Kerry and Bush near Roswell……
Posted by: Greg at October 17, 2004 11:53 AMwow, this post has exploded..
Sorry I couldn’t read that article about Kerry’s supposed missing military record, I was too busy snorting cocaine and having my father get me a job. I’ll get around to reading it when I’m 40. Right now, I’m just too young and irresponsible.
Here’s the bottom line:
1. troops? -> smart, highly capable and the large majority are fighting for justice and freedom.
2. leadership? -> if you honestly think bush is a humanitarian and cares about spreading freedom, then kindly disregard the 14 permanent military bases that we’re building there to help Israel. If bush were s a humanitarian, would 60,000 residents of Darfur be dead now?
3. kerry terrorist connections? check out the Caryle Group, (http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html) or read about the oil company that Salem Bin Laden’s brother helped Bush start (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html).. but of course, Kerry’s probably a stinking commie.. riiiight.
4. Plan in Iraq? Soliders with guns aren’t peacekeepers. It’s not their job, not their area of expertise.
5. the mission? -> the new mission in Iraq is not to let it get too fubar before the election. that’s why they’re pulling back on essential operations, forcing the brits to move their troops in the most dangerous places, and generally stalling until nov 4th. The election is the mission at this point. what a commander in chief that makes him. He’s a war criminal.
Bush is a radical, fighting the wrong war, using up precious resources, draining our economy and diluting our standing in the world community. The war on terror wasn’t in Iraq. We brough it to Iraq.
The burden is now on us, and more specifically, our military to ensure that Iraq does not become a failed state. Imperial hubris has never worked in Iraq, ask the Brits.
Once again, GWB has made the mess, but it’s someone else who has to clean it up.
Posted by: cali_ at October 17, 2004 06:43 PM“”Sorry I couldn’t read that article about Kerry’s supposed missing military record, I was too busy snorting cocaine and having my father get me a job”“
Very funny. Not one person could ever come forward and say they saw Bush snort anything, however there were DROVES of people, that saw Clinton do all type of drugs and whores while Governor of Arkansas, but that WAS OK for you guys.
Amazing. no evidence against bush, but personally attack. TONS of evidence against CLINTON when he ran, but over look it.
You guys are gutless hypocrites.
Posted by: Steve at October 18, 2004 11:19 AMi’m perfectly willing to admit that Clinton probably did do drugs, and you know what? it means nothing to me. You yourself have probably tried them, or maybe had a little too much to drink one night (or weekend). Does that mean you can’t do your job? I didn’t think so.
The hilarity comes from the hypocrites (you) that think it means everything. If Bush came out and said, “yep, I did cocaine, and I drank too much, but I’ve seen the light, I’ve matured and I now regret those days” I’d have nothing but respect for his honesty and maturity. The fact that he hasn’t, won’t and never will, only heightens the hyprocrisy of the matter.
it’s just like a moral relativist to focus on the personal and not focus on the facts that I stated. I noticed you didn’t spend one second trying to rebuff them.
But since you seem so fixated on drugs and presidents, let’s take a look at this shall we?
LA TIMES: 2000
A Tragic Unfolding of Character
John Seery, October 2000
Has George W. Bush ever used hard drugs such as cocaine? Even as a scrutinizing campaign season draws soon to a conclusion, the American public still doesn’t know Bush’s answer to this question. He has groused about, danced around, and heretofore successfully evaded the famous “cocaine question,” and shockingly news editors and press pundits have deferred to his annoyance over the matter. Media reporters across the nation, unable to find hard confirmation of earlier allegations about possible drug use in Bush’s past, haven’t even put the question to candidate Bush for many months. The silence is curious. Yet for many reasons—for one, to avoid another grueling impeachment trial of a sitting U.S. President—the American electorate deserves an unequivocal answer to this question, which indeed holds public, not simply personal ramifications. George W. Bush should step forward before the election and volunteer a simple and clear answer: yes or no.
Even more troubling, possible use of cocaine raises a question not just about character, but about Bush’s legal fitfulness for elected office at all. If he indeed used cocaine, he would have committed a felony. If convicted as a felon, under almost all state constitutions he would lose the right to vote and the right to hold elected office. Surely the American people deserve to know: Are we about to elect a felon, albeit an unconvicted felon, to the Presidency of these United States?
In 1994, when asked about drug use in his campaign for governor of Texas, Bush replied, “What I did as a kid? I don’t think it’s relevant.” But it was and still is relevant, if only because his dismissive response reveals a profound misunderstanding of the severity of the charge. Imagine if he had sidestepped a similar question about other felonies such as armed robbery or rape. Moreover, if the rumors are true, namely that Bush used cocaine in college through the end of his military service at age 26, he certainly wasn’t a “kid” at the time but was an adult citizen of this country, especially in the eyes of the law.
About a year ago, during the presidential primaries, 11 out of 12 candidates in both parties denied ever using cocaine. George W. Bush was the sole candidate who refused to answer the question. He quipped, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” But youthful irresponsibility is not the same as felonious criminality, and most state constitutions observe that distinction quite strictly.
George W. Bush has waged his entire presidential campaign on character. He has promised to restore honor and dignity to the Oval Office. No one, even a President, should be above the law, he has told us. He wants the President to be able to serve as a role model for our kids. He wants to be able to speak straight from the heart without needing to appeal to obfuscations such as “no controlling legal authority.” But his fuzzy answers and fuzzy memory on the drug question, left unchallenged by a complicitous or obsequious national media, belie and potentially sabotage his high-minded aspirations. The American public deserves to know in advance whether he is legally fit to uphold the laws of our land. If he has nothing to hide, then he should exonerate his good name as soon as possible.
Why won’t president Bush be honest with America? Why?
Bush was born again, so none of his youthful precociousness should be held up for scrutiny. (Of course, we COULD discuss the dangers of being led by a religious fundamentalist….)
Anyway, the point of the post is bunk. People should vote for the candidate they think best represents them. Saying the military knows what’s right for the country and that we should do what they tell us to? Come on. I don’t want to live in that country and neither does anyone else, even if the idea seems to suit them two weeks before an election.
Posted by: Alejo at October 18, 2004 04:01 PMEvery American should read the God inspired book, “FIRESTORM!” - author/Lawrence W. Corob to find out why the U.S. is vulnerable to nuclear disaster, and why President Bush should lead this country for another 4 years. The book can be ordered at amazon.com or xulonpress.com or ordered at your local book store. - Lawrence W. Corob
Posted by: Lawrence W. Corob at October 18, 2004 05:12 PMum, Lawrence… blogwhoring is pretty low, especially if you’re a published author.
Posted by: cali_ at October 18, 2004 06:36 PMBush was born again, so none of his youthful precociousness should be held up for scrutiny.
Well, if he’s stopped taking cocaine, isn’t that flip-flopping?
What’s strange is that W seems to get a free pass on anything before 9/11, and Kerry has had an absurb amount of scrutiny on his time in Vietnam. True story - some ABC reporters actually travelled to N. Vietnam and interviewed villagers from the site where Kerry got his Silver Star. Short summary: Kerry’s story holds up, John O’Neill is once more caught with his pants on fire.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1
Posted by: William Cohen at October 18, 2004 09:31 PMWilliam: Bush gets a pass at everything? I dont think so, but you are entitled to your opinion *smiles…. after all it is the people in the military, all throught history, that are the ones willing to die for it so others can live it and it can be given freely at birth…. Also William to many vets and soldiers , John Kerrys Nam Era does matter. Maybe he should stop trying to be this big war hero, and calling himself a war hero for serving 4 measly months out of 12 and abusing the awards system to come home 8 months early to bash his fellow soldiers when they were not here to defend themselves to Kerrys charges? He would be more credible if he would release his entire 201 file. Its that simple and he wont do it. Mine is 300 pages long and includes some very personal information regarding marriage counseling my husband I went to. SO I can see why he wont release it even though 200,000 vets signed a petition asking him to, including myself.and He has refused to this day. Funny thing is we in the military know what is contained in those records…. the details and facts. If there was a review board to upgrade discharge papers they will be there…just like the little things like marriages, abortions counseling, indebtness, awards, disciplanary actions… all in complete detail. A war hero such as himself shouldnt mind releasing records for a career he says he has. and BTW most vets dont brag about their awards….My dad and father in law are nam vets…that did multiple tours…
DAVID: “I would also argue that the soldiers really aren’t experts anyway. If they were, they’d all be planning wars and not fighting them. You’re attributing to the soldiers in some consensus and expertise that they don’t have one way or the other.” David, Im going to guess you know nothing of military planning? MET-L, AAR, and LRP? Where do you think the military planners get their plans? I’ll tell you. From the soldiers on the ground. From the privates to the generals from After Action reports done at the lowest level there is, the UNIT AAR. Case Senarios, what worked, what didnt, the tasks and conditions. May want to read up on the facts.
Cali: Did you serve? Just wondering. I always find it interesting when people feel the need to bash people that didnt serve when they themselves havent. Those who havent served in any compacity dont really have the right to judge those that have. Also Cali, Clinton didnt mind commiting troops in what he termed “peacekeeping missions” and he didnt serve” SO why does military service matter?
Why won’t president Bush be honest with America? Why? Cali, why wont john kerry do the same , or any other politician for that matter? Hipocrasy at its best :)
Ceejay: SPC Tyson accepted cash and signed a piece of paper stating “if he did not fulfil complete obligation he would have to pay it back.”
That goes for all term enlistment bonuses. That was well in affect before this admin was in office. So point the finger elsewhere, which BTW ask those soldiers that were in Kosovo, Bosnia, and other places under clinton in the same circumstances that also had to pay back enlistment bonuses for not completeing their enlistment. Just a fact I thought you would like to know.
Congress sent the troops to war. They voted yes to force. Kerry is in the yes column as well. SO instead of blaming one person (BUSH) look to your representatives and elected officials of your states in congress. Kerry wants to be CnC.. send soldiers to war, refuses to fund them, and now after sending them to war says opps im an anti-war candidate? And you all are wondering why the military doesnt like the guy? Think about it. There are 43% republican and 47% Independents and democrats, yet 69% support bush and 74% doesnt believe Kerry has a clue about this war. Where does the other 31% of these soldiers come from? That 31% has to come from the 47% of the demo and independent soldiers.
Democrats for years havent been too nice to those wearing a uniform in this country. Republicans have. If you have served in the military you would know that. Under Clinton, those in uniform suffered immensely, benefits taken away in health retirement and education. Alot of back to back deployments, no money for training, lower than inflation pay raises, soldiers on food stamps while deployed. Under Bush… Tax breaks, free education to all service members and tuition asstance to dependents, better medical care and services, better pay. For vets…Better VA on less money with lower tricare costs, better educational benifits, shorter wait time for medical care, more up to date medical procedures. A better standard of living for the military along with money for training, Better gear. That is why you see no politics played in voting and supporting a president.
Our military soldiers are tax paying citizens just like every other American. Even more so since most businesses off post like to take advantage of service members by charging an arm and a leg for anything. Raising prices on payday and such.
I am a civilian now but served for 12 years as a combat medic in the army. My husband is an active duty soldier that spent 13 months in Iraq and still believes in the mission there. Too bad you all dont really see what is going on in Iraq, just what the media sees with dollar signs on it. Because a good story isnt worth a penny, controversy is……
Posted by: Lisa Austin at October 21, 2004 02:13 AMHow could anyone vote for this smug, dry drunk, delusional, named Bush. Its like a very bad dream. Cripes, just look at him: Chimp-like with a mouth like a tear in a vinyl seat cover.
Wake up people!
Lisa
You need to delete that post right now. How can you put something like that, up here. Dont you know you can’t use facts if they don’t make kerry or the left look good?
I’ve never performed a surgery before, but I know alot more about it then the surgeons assistantes, I watch ER you know.
Great post Lisa
Thanks
“How could anyone vote for this smug, dry drunk, delusional, named Bush?”
Beats me!
How could anyone have voted for a smug, drug using rapist named clinton? That was a nightmare.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for people to wake up either.
Kerry wants to be CnC.. send soldiers to war, refuses to fund them, and now after sending them to war says opps im an anti-war candidate? And you all are wondering why the military doesnt like the guy?
Because they’re uninformed if that believe any of that?
fact: When you sign a military contract with the U.S. government, it becomes illegal for you to say anything against your superiors or not to follow the orders of those individuals that are your superiors …. i.e the President
so of course you will not hear the “troops” say anything (in public) that will politically compromise the President of the United States. It would not matter if he were a democrat or republican, its not legal. So all they can do is either praise him or keep their opinions to themselves. They are here to follow orders and they are doing their jobs. Don’t get the job confused with the person, the military is not a job you can just wake up one morning and say I quit… It is a complete change of lifestyle for many individuals to undertake and for those who are critical of the individuals who serve this country, you have the right to your opinion but make sure you know all sides of the story. Most of the people that you see on t.v. that express their political views openly or either retired or discharged members of the military. Those individuals currently serving in the military that do speak out or get involved in political activity that is endorsing a certain individual, pay the price for that in private. Its easy to have a certain opinion on things when you are on the outside looking in… and individuals who support a war that they will not even volunteer to fight themselves have totally invalid opinions to me…but for those individuals who believe in a cause and volunteer themselves as a potential sacrifice…those are the only ones whose opinions really should matter, whether it be for or against this war…..
fact: When you sign a military contract with the U.S. government, it becomes illegal for you to say anything against your superiors or not to follow the orders of those individuals that are your superiors …. i.e the President
so of course you will not hear the “troops” say anything (in public) that will politically compromise the President of the United States. It would not matter if he were a democrat or republican, its not legal. So all they can do is either praise him or keep their opinions to themselves. They are here to follow orders and they are doing their jobs. Don’t get the job confused with the person, the military is not a job you can just wake up one morning and say I quit… It is a complete change of lifestyle for many individuals to undertake and for those who are critical of the individuals who serve this country, you have the right to your opinion but make sure you know all sides of the story. Most of the people that you see on t.v. that express their political views openly or either retired or discharged members of the military. Those individuals currently serving in the military that do speak out or get involved in political activity that is endorsing a certain individual, pay the price for that in private. Its easy to have a certain opinion on things when you are on the outside looking in… and individuals who support a war that they will not even volunteer to fight themselves have totally invalid opinions to me…but for those individuals who believe in a cause and volunteer themselves as a potential sacrifice…those are the only ones whose opinions really should matter, whether it be for or against this war…..
President Bush has shown strong support for our military. I never hear kerry say anything. I believe kerry caused the US to loose the vietnam war, and he and the democrats are trying to loose the Iraq war. Thats why i believe they dumped dean for kerry.
President Bush has respeact for our soldiers and tells them often. Bush is a strong leader and will protect us.Our troops are strong and doing a great job.
I believe the liberal bias media was trying to do the same thing.CBS, for ratings, and the prison abuse, gave the insergents a reason to behead and take hostages. I will never forgive them for undercutting our military like that.
They dont care for lives, just ratings. kerry doesnt care if he lies,cheats or steals. he just wants votes.
President Bush cares.
President Bush cares about America and all of us.
VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH.
I believe kerry caused the US to loose the vietnam war, and he and the democrats are trying to loose the Iraq war.
That’s an interesting theory…
CBS, for ratings, and the prison abuse, gave the insergents a reason to behead and take hostages. I will never forgive them for undercutting our military like that.
Interesting. So the actual torturers, and their superiors who created an environment where it was possible, are not culpable at all?
AND THEY TOOK PICTURES!!! Dumb-asses.
“fact: When you sign a military contract with the U.S. government, it becomes illegal for you to say anything against your superiors or not to follow the orders of those individuals that are your superiors …. i.e the President”
Uh, which branch of the US military were you in?
- We are free to say what we wish, as long as it isn’t classified information or disrespectful.
- We are only required to follow LAWFUL orders.
>President Bush has shown strong support for our military.
Right. By sending insufficient numbers to accomplish the job — and then when the job is not going well, by refusing to take responsibility.
>President Bush cares.
Right again. He cares about his own ass.
Posted by: Charles Finn at October 29, 2004 01:59 AM
