Army Shows Its Colors

The Army's public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news called "Stand To" -- named for the set of procedures combat units do just prior to dawn, when they go to full alert for a possible enemy attack. The daily wrapup contains links to mainstream media articles, Army press releases, foreign media stories and blogs. It's similar to the Defense Department's Early Bird -- but much briefer, and obviously more focused on the Army.

Tuesday's edition contained an entry under "WHAT'S BEING SAID IN BLOGS" that struck me as unusual -- both for its headline and its patent political bias:

Obama: World peace thru surrender (KDIHH)

The link goes to a milblog called "Knee Deep in the Hooah." The author is a former Army officer whose son is serving in Iraq now. After citing a column on some curious Pentagon planning for an Obama administration, he goes on to write:

Roger that Redleg six, throwing away all ammo now and preparing to surrender ... Redleg five, out.

After all, what better time to surrender than when we are winning? The article cited above also includes a Youtube link so that you can see the end for yourself in the end makers own words. Sure. This is all old news for those of us who care. But it still ticks me off anyway. So I thought to myself,"Why not share the wealth?" Now I can be ticked off in good company. Enjoy.

Mr.Hooah!, out.

Seriously? Have any of these people actually read the Obama defense policy papers or speeches -- or are they simply going on what they hear on Fox News and the Limbaugh network?

And more to the point, why is the Army's official in-house public affairs shop linking to this kind of stuff? Just a few weeks ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told all hands to stay out of politics: "As the nation prepares to elect a new president, we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.... Keeping our politics private is a good first step." He added: "The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia."

Unfortunately, the message didn't get to through to the Army.

Let's be clear: It is okay for the services to have a message. Both the Early Bird and Stand To speak for the Pentagon and the Army as institutions, and that's okay. They generally support the troops, the military, the chain of command, and the current endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing wrong with that.

And I have no objections to what Mr. Hooah wrote, besides the fact that I think it's factually wrong. He has his opinion; I have mine.

But the Stand To page is different -- and Tuesday's edition crosses the line. This isn't some citizen's blog or website. It's the in-house public affairs digest of the United States Army. It should not be amplifying partisan political attacks, nor should it be airing them at all. This appears like yet another example of the unusually cozy relationship which has developed over the last generation or so between the military and the right wing of American politics -- an unhealthy development, to say the least.

Last time I checked, soldiers and civilian officials didn't swear an oath to either political party or to their current president. Rather, they swear their fidelity to the Constitution, and the ideals it embodies, including the subordination of the military to civil authority. Adm. Mullen is right: As we enter a contentious election year, where issues of national security are likely to dominate the debate, the military needs to stay on the sidelines.

By Phillip Carter |  June 12, 2008; 7:44 AM ET  | Category:  Army
Previous: The End of Intervention? | Next: Habeas Rights for Gitmo

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Yet another meaning for "Army of One".

Posted by: Gary Bridgewater | June 12, 2008 11:02 AM

If you were to go back in time and do an analysis on the types of articles in which "Stand To" links on a regular basis you would see that they actually link to a lot of various types of articles -- both leaning right and leaning left and many that are neutral. I have seen positive articles about Obama as well as negative. I have seen articles that point out the good and articles that point out the bad regarding President Bush. I have seen some pretty strong anti-war blogs linked to on that site before that openly criticize the war and just about all things regarding the military.

They are not endorsing a view point, but rather they are encouraging their leaders to look at what is being said in blogs -- blogs that are written both by service members and their families. Milblogs are phenomenon to this time and era, and leaders need to know what they are about. In order to lead people effectively you need to know their views; whether you agree with them or not.

Stand To is not telling military leaders what to believe or how to feel politically. They give them information and trust that they are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.

I have been reading the Stand To page pretty religiously for more than a year. Is your assertion based on one or two days worth of reading their links or were you able to go back and look at a year's worth or more of their links and articles?

I encourage you to look a little deeper. I really think you will be pleasantly surprised.

PS: I own the blog you reference and I can guarantee you that we don't listen to Limbaugh and we read many, many news sources, not just Fox. I just wanted to point out that as much as I disagree with your statements, I think I have remained pretty respectful.

Posted by: Claire | June 12, 2008 11:35 AM

Claire:
Have YOU actually read the Obama defense policy papers or speeches??????

I may have missed your answer in your response.

Posted by: Errol | June 12, 2008 12:24 PM

Claire: The point is that the military should not be promoting either a left or a right agenda.

Also, while you may READ other stuff, your blog is pretty much Limbaugh-compliant and hardly unbiased. I think YOUR own initial comment on the post sums up the blogs' views:

"What? Are you trying to get my blood pressure up? It's a good thing that it runs so low... with the rage this kind of stuff incites I get up to high normal"

And I really like the "What is he going to make us wear pink?" one also ... very nice.

Posted by: Kent | June 12, 2008 12:43 PM

You also left out that on the same Tuesday they also posted link titled: "Learn From Our Mistakes But Don't Abandon the Iraqis"

Sounds great on the surface... but if you read the blog it states:

"Regardless of what Obama and the Democrats say, we cannot just walk away from the Iraqi people."

http://americanranger.blogspot.com/2008/06/learn-from-our-mistakes-but-dont.html

You should follow up on this story and see if there is a pattern of this clearly partisan politics being spread to our milatary. This is totally screwed up.

Posted by: jet | June 12, 2008 12:49 PM

Mr. Carter,

I've read the Obama position papers and his book.

Reading his materials does not mean believing him. Politicians say what they must to get elected.

I do agree, however, that the Department of Defense should get and stay neutral on this subject.

Posted by: Cary | June 12, 2008 12:54 PM

If the differences between an administration representative of the New Obama Political Ideology, and McCain, with his, "we're winning and things are fine" continuation of the previous 8 years, I would hope that one of them would seem the more obvious of the two.

McCain as POTUS? You really have wonder how anyone could see him as the better of the two. Especially women. When the women voters learn that McCain is anti-abortion. And has an attrocious voting record against women, including voting aganst equal pay legislation.

This will be a very overpowering election come November. The map will really look different.

Posted by: CitizenXX | June 12, 2008 12:55 PM

Your tax dollars at work (supporting one party over country).

Posted by: Woody | June 12, 2008 1:03 PM

Can anybody remind Bush et al that it is actually against the law to pit army personnel against a rivaling candidate? And, when are we going to consider it slanderous to create slime rumors? Hopefully when Obama is president, we will see an end to disproportionate laws and governing.... where it is considered hands-off .. er, let us do what we want, when we want and to whom we want!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 1:40 PM

Actually, the relationship between many in the military and the right has weakened over the last four years. Most of course want any mission they are assigned to a success, but when they are incompetently lead (as they were until Secretary Gates replaced Secretary Rumsfeld), and where the actual mission is murky (is to allow Iraq to become a sovereign, independent country, which means that they could tell us on occasion to go pound sand, or is it to make Iraq an American dependency.

The Public Affairs departments throughout the Government, not just DoD, have been dominated by political appointees, for the most part movement conservatives , who select career PAOs that play their tune. DoD is no different then NASA in this regards, but there is no history of scientific integrity.

Posted by: Sherpa | June 12, 2008 1:48 PM

Thanks for the article, I hope you don't mind if I send it to my son in law who is on his 4th tour to Iraq, maybe he can share it with his buddies, and they can see how those who sit safely in the Pentagon can so easily see drawing down from Iraq, and building up in Afghanistan as surrender, rather than reassessment, realignment, re-energizing, and being successsful in their battle. Maybe, it's easy for those in the Pentagon to allow our family member's to be sitting ducks to protect "other nations for U.S. oil interests", rather than buffing up to fight battles in our best interests, and not to establish imperialism in another country.

This angers me greatly, especially since Bush is determined to also fight with Iran, too.

Most times war helps a country economically, however we are in so many wars, and our economy is in such shambles, that if somebody don't step in to intervene, I personally fear that Osama Bin Laden mission will be accomplished.

Posted by: Linda | June 12, 2008 1:52 PM

You shouldn't be surprised. The military is tilted heavily to the right, most among people that haven't been over there. Namely retirees and former servicemen. They perceive withdrawal from Iraq as surrender.

Well it is a surrender - to reality. They are so disconnected from the reality that this level of activity is unsustainable, and undermines the mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And on principle, they also want to strike Iran.

They mock diplomacy, and anything that resembles proportionality of action. They don't believe that the intelligence was forced to fit the pre-ordained outcome of going to war with Iraq, or they will resort to some excuse along the lines of "Bush was stupid."

These people don't understand that sometimes you have to learn to live with your enemy, and have bought into the bullying style of "diplomacy" that we use now and use "patriotism" as a defense for the continuation of this national disaster.

As a former serviceman myself, it is disgusting to me that these people cannot step back and see that the gain is nowhere near worth the cost. Not just in treasure, but blood - and it continues to weaken our power, from tactical, strategic, diplomatic and financial standpoints. Some very bright people are very deluded.

Posted by: C. | June 12, 2008 2:41 PM

C has said:
"......Namely retirees and former servicemen. They perceive withdrawal from Iraq as surrender.

Rejoinder: Puhleeeze, there are many members among the above mentioned cohorts that post here, and dare I say it, posted in greater numbers on the old Intel Dump, that do not buy into the Surrender Monkey Meme, nor the brilliance/execution/necessity of our latest Gilbert and Sullivanesque forays.

C says:
"Some very bright people are very deluded."

You can't be bright in all manner of knowledge, (unless a member of the Godhead, or some such tripe). Delusion is also caused by an addiction to propaganda, hence an inability to formulate critical thought.

Posted by: Eduardo, El Galgo Rebelde | June 12, 2008 3:04 PM

Anyone who favors staying in Iraq is either in massive denial or just massively ill informed. The reason that we invaded Iraq was to establish a base of operations for further Imperial goals. This is clearly stated in the plan of the Project for the New American Century.

Now we read in the papers that the Iraqis are balking at the US leaving behind 40 plus such bases. The Neo-Cons just do not understand that the future is economic rather than military. Not that military preparedness is not vital, but that it has to be part of a broader plan that allows the US to have a non-defense based economy. That has not happen since WWII and is one of the reasons we are falling so far behind the rest of the world.

Obama has the right idea for the military, it should be lean and mean. Not just the soldiers but the heirachy as well.

In refernce to the remark about believing what Obama says, spen a little time looking at what he is DOING in his campaign. He is a true leader that has the capacity to plan ahead (Neither Bush in Iraq nor Hillary in the Primaries did that), inspire people adn individuals to work for and finace his campaign. He has massive ammounts of money and is pending it wisely and measured. He is reaching out to all side of the political spectrum becasue he believes that we can work together. You can believe him becasue he is building a movement not based upon who he is, but who he believes we can be.

Posted by: Roy E Pearson | June 12, 2008 3:11 PM

Where the hell is the neutrality of the military? This is not supposed to happen. Someone over there needs to read the Constitution or a Federal judge remind them of it. Bush needs to open his idiotic mouth and shut this down NOW. Boy, if the shoe was on the other foot, Bush would be crying wolf. SICKENING TO SEE THIS.

Posted by: Jim McCoy | June 12, 2008 3:15 PM

Umm, who cares. We all know McCain the war hero is going to overwhelmingly win the military vote anyways. Just like Obama is going to overwhelmingly win the black vote.

Posted by: Wolfcastle | June 12, 2008 3:23 PM

THATS EXACTLY WHY THE RIGHT WING WILL LOSE THE ELECTION AND EVERYBODY WILL BE BETTER OFF.

Posted by: LUIS | June 12, 2008 3:35 PM

Wow. You people got off track with your comments very quickly.

Let me state for the record:
1.Claire is my wife. It's her blog not mine. Attack me. Not her.
2.Her point stands. The Army didn't take a position. It simply linked an article as a means of showing all sides of a thought.
3.I HAVE read Obama's material. In detail.
4.I HATE Rush Limbaugh and I think FoxNews is full of tripe.
5. Only somebody politically biased for Obama could suggest using Free Speech (look it up) against Obama is patently wrong.

Hey Phil, I understand the oath I took perfectly. I also understand "shaping the battlefield". Congratulations on your article. Mission accomplished. And the bias will fly right by your readership.

Too bad neutrality in journalism is obviously dead.

Posted by: Mr.Hooah! | June 12, 2008 3:41 PM

Here' Mr.Hooah's enlightened response "But if you have done those things then we have a legitimate disagreement because after studying the candidate I have come to the conclusion that he is a pandering, crooked, socialistic, whitey hating, lying, military and foreign policy moroon who makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius. So there." Got that? "So there", classic 5th grade antics.

Posted by: Kary | June 12, 2008 3:43 PM

"Mission accomplished."?

Didn't you get the memo from Fearless Leader? He's UnSpeaked stuff like that.

Posted by: name | June 12, 2008 3:58 PM

Wasn't Ron Paul #1 in donations from active service members and Obama #2?

Wasn't there a reporter recently who actually could not even find a McCain supporter serving in Iraq.

I think our boys and gals in uniform have - despite the BS being spoon fed to them - a very clear idea of what they think is best for the country. I don't think the services are nearly as monolithic as many people presume.

Posted by: Morris | June 12, 2008 4:00 PM

//But the Stand To page is different -- and Tuesday's edition crosses the line. This isn't some citizen's blog or website. It's the in-house public affairs digest of the United States Army. It should not be amplifying partisan political attacks, nor should it be airing them at all.//

Agreed. But in Bush World, it's probably a good way to get a promotion.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 4:03 PM

And here's Kary's enlightened response on my blog:

"If I were your son I would be embarrassed."

What does my son have to do with this post here or anything else that was written in that post on my article? I am shutting down comments to that post because my blog, by far and large, has been a family support blog. The majority of the articles are aimed at families and the stresses they go through during deployment. I have used it as a tool to reach out to family members whose loved ones are deployed. I used it as a tool to gather over 600 pounds of school supplies to ship to Diyala when my son was stationed there. I use it as my way to keep family and friends updated, and I appreciate it when my husband stops in and posts an article about politics or current events. I don't mind the controversy, and I don't mind people disagreeing with him.

I have no problem with people wanting to debate or discuss things, even heatedly, but if you come to my blog and begin name calling and dragging my son into it who is still working on reintegration after a very long deployment, then it is not beneficial for anyone. So, you are welcome to keep it here.

Posted by: Claire | June 12, 2008 4:05 PM

Here's another question. Didn't Obama get slammed by the White House, the Republicans, conservative radio, Fox News, and the Clintons for saying in the debate that if he had credible intelligence and knowledge of a significant terrorist target in Pakistan, he would order a military attack? The answer is yes. They ranted that it would be a severe foreign policy blunder to even consider doing something like that.

So what did the US military just do a couple of days ago with a Predator within the Pakistani border? Seems like I read that it killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.....Hmmm. Surely the Bush Administration would not OK a severe foreign policy blunder like this.....would they????

Posted by: LeeS | June 12, 2008 4:06 PM

"Reading his materials does not mean believing him. Politicians say what they must to get elected."

Why bother reading his policies if you don't believe him anyway?

Posted by: Johnny Canuck | June 12, 2008 4:07 PM

Phillip - It is a perfectly legitimate activity for an official Army publication to advise its readers what the troops and their families are saying and thinking and feeling.

If Obama is smart, he will, too. A lot of blood sweat and tears has been spilled over in Iraq by people who care pretty deeply about success there. Obama swears to us all that he will not hesitate to throw that away. If he becomes president and follows through on his promise, he is going to deeply, deeply alienate the US military and the vast majority of their family members. These disgruntled troops will cause enormous problems for the leaders of the Army and the other services. It is critical that our military leaders keep an eye on this sort of thing.

Posted by: ZZim | June 12, 2008 4:21 PM

This person should be immediately fired. Politicizing the military is a grave offense to democratic governance.

Posted by: Andy Olsen | June 12, 2008 4:36 PM

"As the nation prepares to elect a new president, we would all do well to remember the promises we made: to obey civilian authority, to support and defend the Constitution and to do our duty at all times.... Keeping our politics private is a good first step." He added: "The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia."

EXACTLY!

Fire EVERYONE in the Army's public affairs office who had ANYTHING to do with creating, approving, and distributing this offensive garbage. ESPECIALLY the leader who allowed this, and keep firing the leaders in the military who violate orders, let alone the constitution.

Posted by: JBE | June 12, 2008 4:36 PM

Army goes partisan? WTF? No a blogger went partisan and the Army linked it. I don't see a .mil on the blog. What is it with the WaPo, first you hire Ponnaru, now this.

Posted by: WhoDoesTheTitles | June 12, 2008 4:37 PM

Hello everyone. Beachhead calling from Iraq. The Army PAO needs to pull its head out of its fourth point of contact and so do most of the people commenting here. Take a deep breath. There really is no such thing as an apolitical military and probably never was, but selecting blogs for links from an official website is not a good development. There are so many blogs out there, why should a few be highlighted and not others. It smacks a little too much of advocating a political position by publicizing certain websites with certain points of view. This is a practice that should stop and the official military should run from it.

On the other hand, some of the comments here are out in space, too. No one in Iraq agrees with McCain? Oh, really? So what is it? We are over here for fun, travel and adventure? The truth is, things are getting better here, really, and if Obama wants to be on the right side of the war/peace issue, he needs to get himself over here and see and decide for himself, rather that rely on what others tell him or what he saw the last time (2006?) he was here. Without taking another look at what is going on, he would be dishonest with himself, the country, the troops and the 4,095 who will never go home except in a box. Then he can say whatever he wants, as long as he is honest with himself.

Nobody in Iraq agrees with McCain? Please.

Posted by: beachhead | June 12, 2008 4:40 PM

Hey Jet...who said we were walking away?

Posted by: Paisano | June 12, 2008 4:42 PM

It would be worth mentioning that Obama is getting far more money, from far more serviceman, than McCain.

Is this jarhead saying that the servicemen want to surrender, and thus are contributing to Obama in droves?

Posted by: mike | June 12, 2008 4:42 PM

I think if the milbloggers know who it is we could surrender to, then they have figured out who exactly we are fighting. That puts them ahead of the generals who keep telling us we are fighting al Qaeda and Iran because they don't really know...

Posted by: rmwarnick | June 12, 2008 4:43 PM

As someone who's quite familiar with the so-called "milblogs," I believe they have long been part of the U.S. military's domestic "psy-ops" to gin up support for the Iraq War, and for the Republican Party.

I think there are many links between the military, especially the Army, and the right-wing blogs. I hope that when a new administration and Congress take office next year, that there will be a thorough investigation of the military's descent into partisan politicial propaganda.

The U.S. military is supposed to be fighting for the whole country, not just the Republican Party.

Posted by: Longtime Observer | June 12, 2008 4:46 PM

We swore to uphold the Constitution "... against ALL ENEMIES, both foreign and domestic." Domestic enemies would include military officers who seek to undermine the chain of command.

Posted by: Noah Vail | June 12, 2008 4:47 PM

They must be crapping in their pants because so many in the military are supporting Obama and Ron Paul the two anti war cadidates.The republicans have over played thier hand and have lost one of their go to organizations !!Its about time!

Posted by: truthynesslover | June 12, 2008 4:47 PM

I see they have moved the Fascist Propaganda machine into the Army now...

So why did we pass up the impeachment chance again???

Posted by: Simple | June 12, 2008 4:48 PM

"Nobody in Iraq agrees with McCain?"

No beachhead . . . read the words, as they have meanings.

The reporter could not find any McCain SUPPORTERS . . . you know . . . for Preznit. He did not receive jack for donations from active military either (whether stationed in Iraq or not). Paul was by far the winner.

God bless ya regardless.

That is all.

Posted by: Morris | June 12, 2008 4:49 PM

Can someone please explain specifically what "success in Iraq" entails? Thanks.

Posted by: iconoclastic cat | June 12, 2008 4:50 PM

Isn't this directly opposite the Chief of Staff's explicit order to stay out of the race? Thought so. So I am confident that the appropriate people will be held accountable for insubordination.

Posted by: moondancer | June 12, 2008 4:50 PM

The press can never take it when a conservative position is put forth. All they can do is cry foul and whine.

Obama wants to pull out and run when the men and women in uniform are working hard to do the right thing in Iraq and keep RADICAL MUSLIMS on the run and prevent more attacks on free people in this country and other countries.

For Obama to become the Commander in Chief when he won't put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played, states our FLAG is something he won't wear on his lapel and hasn't put his BOOTS ON THE GROUND in areas of conflict around the country - scares me to death. His wife has no pride in a country that handed her an affirmative action ride through 2 Ivy League schools?? She has stated she will do everything to help her people - well aren't all Americans of ALL colors HER people if she becomes the First Lady?

They've never made a payroll, never walked the walk but THEY CERTAINLY CAN TALK THE TALK.

Posted by: ISEnglish | June 12, 2008 4:53 PM

If the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

The Military Industrial Complex will declare that the only solution to any problem is to wage war.

Posted by: AtltoPDX | June 12, 2008 4:53 PM

The desperation of the chicken hawks is quite entertaining.

Posted by: GarsLuber | June 12, 2008 4:53 PM

Well, well. Why am I not surprised to hear this?

This is a logical extension to hearing that the Pentagon has been PAYING retirees to push the war agenda.

I retired after more than 20 years in the US Air Force.

I currently volunteer a TON of time for the candidacy of the NEXT POTUS, Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

It is beyond time that we cleaned house of all those military types who would damage our nation by becoming actively involved and meddling in partisan politics.

Posted by: USAF (Ret.) | June 12, 2008 4:55 PM

In response to noah,what if the commander and chief is destroying the constitution?we have three seperate but equal branches of govt. And as far as the military goes ANY military member be it a private or a general has an obligation to uphold the constitution reguardless of the presidents wishes especially if that president has over stepped his bounds.Unless you were just kidding and I didnt get it.

Posted by: truthynesslover | June 12, 2008 4:55 PM

So where are the numbers on contributions from the military to the candidates? How do you identify military contributors from civilians? If you have numbers and a real source, post them. Otherwise, spare us all the big lie repeated yet again.

Posted by: beachhead | June 12, 2008 4:55 PM

For Obama to become the Commander in Chief when he won't put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played,
Posted by: ISEnglish


Where's your flag pin, coward boy?

luckily, there are less and less chicken hawks like yourself. People are waking up, and you hit the snooze button.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 4:55 PM

YouTube of Obama in a more McCain like mode on Iraq a few days after he toasted Nadhmi Auchi (and met Ayhim Alsammarae; then Iraq's Minister of Elec) at the Four Seasons Hotel.

Obama's been all over on Iraq...

...forget his policy papers... check who he's been having dinner with...

Posted by: Bill Baar | June 12, 2008 4:55 PM

"Too bad neutrality in journalism is obviously dead."

this post is to journalism what hot dogs are to cuisine.

Posted by: FastMovingCloud | June 12, 2008 4:55 PM

Cary: "Reading his materials does not mean believing him. Politicians say what they must to get elected."

The difficulty with this attitude is that one can then assume pretty much what one will of a politician. A pointless endeavor that simply allows one to reinforce one's own beliefs.

It seems to me that it would be much more fruitful to accept statements until and unless the speaker demonstrably contradicts them. In doing so let us not forget that people are generally not entirely consistent in their philosophy, that context is important, and that third party interpretations are rarely accurate.

Posted by: BRoberts | June 12, 2008 4:56 PM

There are always going to be people who will use the experience that they have obtained from serving our country to their own purpose. Sadly there will be a lot of this kind of propaganda. I do think that most of the army is smarter than that. Gives new meaning to who and who shouldn't be given a gun, you wonder if people are just this ignorant or really don't care to know the truth.

Posted by: hmmmmmer | June 12, 2008 4:56 PM

Is it really surrender if we leave Iraq? We went there over lies in the first place killed millions and have lost thousands.... What honor are we going to gain by staying?

At what point will the Iraqi's divide into political parties and thank us and start having starbucks, macdonalds, etc...

Its not EVER going to happen... Ignorant, Silly, Petty, Shortsighted people led us into a war that is UNWINABLE unless we stay and OCCUPY the country for 100 years....

either IRAN takes over or Iraq goes like afghaniastan and the Mullah's take over... we CANNOT WIN....

bring the troops home!

There is nothing wrong with PEACE! Any loser can push a button and send young men into battle to lose their lives but it takes guts courage and will power to enact dipolmacy.... "walk lightly and carry a BIG stick" not BOMB BOMB BOMB KILL KILL KILL....

Written by a ARMY VETERAN!

Posted by: pleasantlyny | June 12, 2008 4:58 PM

As a retired member of that particular institution with 22 years' service, this sort of thing disgusts me. I weep for my Army and my country.

Posted by: Steaming Pile | June 12, 2008 4:58 PM

The Bushies are desperate. Using the Army to spread political propoganda is criminal and I hope Congress will look into this immediately. If not, I'm sure President Obama will deal with the Army brass next year!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 4:59 PM

If Iraq is a success, it's a success at covering up a giant mistake to begin with. What do you call a success of an illegal occupation and an admittedly lied to American People? A nation too afraid to realize it was bamboozled. Sure we have an obligation to help the Iraqi's- we tore apart their country and let incompetent middle managers rip through hundreds of billions of dollars!!!! After 5 years, the idea of taking what generals said in the beginning of the run-up to the war of is suddenly a novel idea of a "surge". The surge propaganda is working! I mean no disrespect to the people out there- they're doing their jobs-following orders. It's the armchair pretend-soldiers:Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitzes/Bremers/Rumsfelds that I have strong issue with. But to let a politicized viewpoint seep through only distracts from what a soldier is supposed to be. End of story. I have kin buried in Arlington who are probably spinning in the Gardens over Bush's Big Middle East Blunder. This is not a football game- there are no "winners" in war, war is hell, didn't you get the memo? Eisenhower warned us, and it fell on deaf ears.

Posted by: John | June 12, 2008 4:59 PM

".....Hmmm. Surely the Bush Administration would not OK a severe foreign policy blunder like this.....would they????"

Ahhahhahaha. That's the funniest thing I've read all day. This administration is one 8 year long Foreign AND DOMESTIC policy blunder.

Posted by: FastMovingCloud | June 12, 2008 5:00 PM

Sorry to say it, but spending a little time in a war at a relatively junior level and then getting captured and held during most of the war does not qualify one for Commander in Chief. It also does not qualify one for national security leader.

NOt trying to diminish McCain's pain and his horrific time at the Hanoi Hilton, but just dealing with the issue of qualifications.

Posted by: Tuzo | June 12, 2008 5:00 PM

I agree politicians will say what they have to in order to get elected. That is why McCain has flipped on many conservative issues i.e. immigration etc. If elected, I believe he will go back to his Maverick ways.

Posted by: Frankie | June 12, 2008 5:02 PM

I fought in Korea and in Vietnam and I
never thought the Republicans would stoop so low as to have our Armed Services do their dirty work. This is disgraceful and I am ashamed to have served in the Army if this holds true.

Posted by: MedalofHonor | June 12, 2008 5:03 PM


War. What war?

It is an occupation. Write it a hundred times in the blackboard.

An occupation sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world. With gasoline at $4.00/gallon. With Big Oil having record profits. And Dick Cheney ready to retire from Halliburton.

Helloooo? Anybody there?

Posted by: apduncan | June 12, 2008 5:03 PM

beachhead:

use the googles. here is what i dug up with a quick search for just Q2 2007. Point: no one's lying to you. it is there. not sure what the totals are at this point but in Q2 Obama + Paul (surrender-monkeys the both of them) = almost 3x McCain.

Military contributions for Q2 (% of total miltary . . . I think).

Ron Paul 26.23%
Barack Obama 24.02%
John McCain 18.31%
Hillary Clinton 11.08%
Bill Richardson 5.59%
Mitt Romney 4.05%
John Edwards 2.63%
Rudy Giuliani 2.44%
Mike Huckabee 1.84%
Tom Tancredo 1.63%
Duncan Hunter 1.05%
Joe Biden 0.84%
Mike Gravel 0.16%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
Dennis Kucinich 0.05%
Tommy Thompson 0%
Chris Dodd 0%
Jim Gilmore 0%
John Cox 0%

Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly and compiled by Phreadom. Visit phreadom.blogspot.com for more detail.

Posted by: Morris | June 12, 2008 5:05 PM

Bush & Cheney would have flourished in Germany in the 1930's. Using the Army to do their dirty political work is right out of the Nazi playbook.

Posted by: A.Lincoln | June 12, 2008 5:07 PM

The military is supposed to be an arm of the CIVILIAN controlled government.
I understand that individual soldiers have their own opinions and preferences, but as a whole, The Military should be on the sidelines for an election.
In our country they get one vote, just like we do, and we all abide by the results, like it or not.

Seeing as its election season, this publication should stay away from political discussions and stick to their assigned missions.

Hopefully they can safely come home soon.

Posted by: RicksterInGulfport | June 12, 2008 5:08 PM

I am afraid of becoming a 3rd world country if McCain is elected.
A war in Iran will make our dollar worthless. It is already worth less than the Canadian dollar with Bush; which is pathetic.

Posted by: twb0392 | June 12, 2008 5:09 PM

ISEnglish - OMG you are very rude and very racist - and it's very apparent by your message!
We are trying to get our country back from RADICAL RIGHT WING - who have pushed us to the verge of economic disaster, sent our young people to fight a war that shouldn't have happened, the state of the country is dreadful!
What harm could Obama do - I doubt any worse for god's sake!
The Bush govs and everyone who voted for the war in Iraq is responsible for over 4,000 deaths, countless injured and maimed!
Obama has not mentioned surrender - but we need to get our troops OUT!
We know for sure it was a fabricate war for money - who has made the most profit out of this war - Bush/Cheney and their cronies!
It was a war for profit - and shame on us all for alowing it to happen!

Posted by: Debbie | June 12, 2008 5:09 PM

Why is talking to Iran a bad idea? Nixon talked to CHINA ... WHILE they were giving weapons killing our soldiers in Vietnam.

We gave weapons to Bin Laden and Afghansitan to fight the soviets but i guess that is ok... But if Iran helps the arabs next door its a bad thing....

If China invaded the U.S. I hope Canada at a minimum send weapons to help us set IED's and KILL the invaders who are occupying our country.

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!!!!!!

Posted by: pleasantlyny | June 12, 2008 5:10 PM

beachhead: though that phreadom.blogspot.com site seems like a Paul supporter's site, you can jump from there to some more definitive stuff.

Also, opensecrets is the go-to place for ost of contribution stuff.

Regardless, you seem a bit surprised to say the least. Why is that?

Posted by: Morris | June 12, 2008 5:10 PM

Alienate the MILITARY...are you serious? I assume you joined up as there is no draft (yet), If Obama is elected, you (and the leaders) will do as you are told. Just like now, maybe in '03 if the military leaders kept their eye on the shrub, a heads up from the boots on the ground would have prevented a lot of grief. Try and remember, you are the military of the US, and the elected POTUS is your CIC, like it or not it's called DUTY. Also check out this site:www.fightthesmears.com. It's called HONOR & TRUTH. Thank you for your service.

Posted by: to:ZZim etal: | June 12, 2008 5:10 PM

The army has every right to publish what it did, and I agree with the message.

The republicans are correct to block education benefits for soldiers, and I personally don't even like giving them socialized medicine - the VA should be dissolved.

Anything that makes a soldier think on his or her own, lowers the readiness of the troops. Years are spent removing free will from soldiers, and for good reason. If they are not taught to hate on command, they will pause before killing others, and especially small children.

The head of a small brown child is a head to be hated, and a head to be split open, letting the brain matter fall out.

It is the duty of the government to purchase the most weapons of the latest variety and deploy them against the enemies it is obligated to find and create.

Personally, I think the army should be deployed right here in the US to hunt down and kill any citizen that does not profess complete loyalty to all government policies, as long as those policies promote the sale of weapons, and the manufacture of new enemies.

No person with any capacity to reason would believe America could surrender. That is why the article is written the way it is. Any soldier who displays scepticism over the article should go the way of general Sincheki, or however you spell his name. He was a traitor to this nation and was dealt with. Let that be a lesson.

Hitler had bad intelligence about the Jews, and we had bad intelligence about the WMDs. Let's not let two little mistakes stop us from our objectives.

Posted by: CantRevealName | June 12, 2008 5:11 PM

cantrevealname.....alias Karl Rove

Posted by: Bushwacked | June 12, 2008 5:12 PM

It doesn't matter anyway because , The Repugs have made it Extremely Hard for the troops overseas to vote.
50 differant states each,with thier own rules and snail mail forms to fill out and send back and forth.
The troops overseas should be able to vote on thier bases with No Red Tape.

Posted by: AdobePhsyko | June 12, 2008 5:13 PM

After reading some of the comments here, I'm absolutely shocked that for the most part the military votes republican!

I hope you all can understand sarcasm.

Posted by: gdogs | June 12, 2008 5:14 PM

1. These some right wingers do not like Muslims and do not want them in America, but they want to be in a Muslim country?
2. They hate Muslims but do business with them, depend on the oil the Muslims produce. And now the Muslims the right wingers hate have found a way to fight them by raising oil prices. (Who is the fool?)
3. These right wingers do not want illegal immigrates in America, but want to be in Iraq illegally. Now you understand why the Iraqis do not want us in their country. They feel the some way the right wingers feel about illegal immigrates in America.

Posted by: jay | June 12, 2008 5:14 PM

The Army owes its readers and Mr. Obama an apology and a commitment not to engage in this kind of destructive partisanship -- on either side -- again.

Posted by: Oomingmak | June 12, 2008 5:14 PM

Q: What do you call somebody who graduated bottom of his class from the Naval Academy?

A: The Republican nominee for President.

Posted by: goatboy slim | June 12, 2008 5:15 PM

Hey CantRevealName... you're either a 12 year old geek, a fat disfuctional adult with no life, or one of George Bush's illegitimate children by a Black woman.
Which is it?

Posted by: HideBehindBlogName | June 12, 2008 5:15 PM

McCain says troops should stay in Iraq peacefully just like S Korea and Germany.

McCain then says troops should be pulled out if there are 'unacceptable' casualties.

How can troops be pulled and peace maintained but troops should stay and peace will be maintained?

If McCain's goal is to 'win' by bringing peace in Iraq how than can he justify pulling the troops if said peace is tested?

If he pulls the troops when the going gets tough wouldn't he be doing EXACTLY what he is accusing Obama of doing?

Does no one see the irony?

Posted by: brian | June 12, 2008 5:16 PM

What does "winning" in Iraq mean?
Does it mean to help set up Iraq's gov't so they can stand on their own? as we've been told..

Well, the democratic gov't that is currently in place as a sovereign nation. (That we helped them build) is definitely wanting our soldiers out asap...we shouldn't listen to that?

If their own people feel they can stand on their own without us. Who are we to challenge that?
They may stand on their own or they may fail but its THEIR CHOICE, not ours.

perhaps this is a simplistic view. but no one has laid out what is required to "Win" this war.
Is our intent to let the Iraqis build their own future? or is it (saying softly) to gain permananent control over their oil wealth?

They say right now that they do not want our soldiers there unless possibly to man our bases and nothing else..assuming a agreement is reached.

I want someone who desires to stay in this war please state plainly what EXACTLY are the goals of this occupation...when and how do we win this.

If its to let the Iraqis control their own destiny..well thats what they are asking for right now... Mission accomplished.

If its not that then admit what it actually is...

Just a thought...

Posted by: Curious | June 12, 2008 5:16 PM

John McCain, in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk

Posted by: j | June 12, 2008 5:17 PM

ISEnglish, everything you just stated about Obama is untrue. I suggest you do a little research so you can be better informed.

Posted by: TL | June 12, 2008 5:19 PM

Bush and his totalatarian government has been outed again today with the supreme court stating the detainees do have rights. Must they get involved again and demand the military stay out of politics? Any links to political sites that render a military branches decision should be removed.

I'm surprised Bush hasn't installed martial law with his 2nd term up and demanding he be made God of America so he can continue to invade any country he chooses and send them all to Gitmo.

We have lived a nightmare in the last 8 years. Get out Bush and take your right wing military complex with you.

Posted by: TheCp29 | June 12, 2008 5:19 PM

Helllloooo. How can anyone separate contributions from someone in the military from contributions from someone who is not? I can donate to anyone I want and don't have to tell you or a pollster or anyone what I do for a living. Are you that gullible that you believe what you read on the internet or in a blog, any blog? Now tell me again that this isn't another big lie. I'll believe you this time.

By the way, I am undecided between McCain, who has morphed himself to fit the Republican mold (too bad, I would have voted for him 8 years ago) and Obama, who committed himself on a position on Iraq almost two years ago and doesn't want to take another look because he might have to change his position.

You can't find many people anymore who don't agree that getting into Iraq was a royal screw-up, but after being here awhile I actually can see that we can get out of here before too long without just pulling up stakes and leaving like many keep saying. Oh, and don't be surprised when President Obama doesn't do that the way he said he would. I can already here the howling.

Have a nice election and please vote. Otherwise, you don't have any business complaining.

Posted by: beachhead | June 12, 2008 5:19 PM

HideBehindBlogName - I'm George Bush, you fool. I just can't say it.

Posted by: CantRevealName | June 12, 2008 5:19 PM

What a bunch of military hating liberals. No wonder we feel like we'll get screwed when you guys get elected. You have no concept about what we do, nor do you really care, unless it serves you to use it in context of anti-whatever you happen to hate at the moment. Surprising to me is the downright aggressive and hateful attitudes most of you have. It may be useful...if channeled correctly of course...in a military...any military. But you never have the inclination nor courage to serve. Except to check the block on the way to run for some office.

Posted by: SIDELINEARMY | June 12, 2008 5:24 PM

Yes I have read the Obama talking points. They are a plan for disaster in the middle east and could quite possiably ignite a large war. His plan for Iraq would isolate small groups of us forces in iraq and the region for destruction in detail. This is why he needs to go there to see what is actualy going on because his plan would destroy any progress made in Iraq if it were enacted today.

Posted by: sonofdy | June 12, 2008 5:25 PM

This was the same army that refused to hand out voter registration cards to their infirmed and wounded soldiers because it was too political. Can't give them a leg up with a new GI bill, and clearly we can't give them a leg up to vote or receive proper news.

Posted by: Rob, Philly | June 12, 2008 5:26 PM

At first I thought the headline referred to Osama Bin Laden because ---- isn't it the mission of the military right now to get bin Laden rather than to play around in electoral politics?

Posted by: eagle314 | June 12, 2008 5:29 PM

Where were all you Communists when Obama's Rev. made political statements? No rush to withdraw that church's tax exemption eh? Now the people who stand, guns bristling, to fight for your right to propogate your mental disorders upon others have NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION?! How quaint.

But then again most of you pacifist cowards would dissolve the military in days if it meant clean needles and abortions for all. Why don't you shut your silly faces before you foam at the mouth when individuals 10,000 times better than you voice their beliefs, or pick up a gun to earn the right to be paid attention to.

Posted by: pedrogonzales | June 12, 2008 5:30 PM

The Iraq policy weakens our national security.
The Iraq policy weakens our military.
The Iraq policy weakens our economy.
The Iraq policy weakens our National Guard.
The Iraq policy weakens our image abroad.
The Iraq policy takes our focus off of Afghanistan.
The Iraq policy prevents us from rebuilding our infrastructure.
The Iraq policy prevents us from having national health care.
The Iraq policy damages our national pride.

We can't afford the continuation of this failed war policy. We can't afford McCain.

Posted by: Kane | June 12, 2008 5:30 PM

Iraq is not failing. You would know that if the media would tell the truth.

Posted by: sonofdy | June 12, 2008 5:34 PM

Good God, if they are attacking Obama for budget cuts I wonder what they thought of Far Right candidate Ron Paul?

He wanted to abolish the Dept of Defense completely.

Posted by: Gail | June 12, 2008 5:35 PM

Q: What do you call somebody who graduated bottom of his class from the Naval Academy?

A: The Republican nominee for President.
-------------
Okay here is another.
Q: Who spurned military service?

A: The current Democratic nominee for President.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 5:35 PM

If I had a son or daughter serving in Iraq, I would be mighty annoyed by the McCain comment yesterday in which he said it was unimportant how long the troop[s stayed in Iraq. Yes. He said that. ps: I have served twice in our military.

Posted by: fred lapides | June 12, 2008 5:37 PM

"Where were all you Communists when Obama's Rev. made political statements? No rush to withdraw that church's tax exemption eh? Now the people who stand, guns bristling, to fight for your right to propogate your mental disorders upon others have NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION?! How quaint."

Opinion is one thiong and it's fine when you guys keep it to yourselves, but when you start propagating it out there like cancersous cells painting it the truth, that's another story.

That's where we out our foot down. We're not interested.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 5:38 PM

For the COWARD BOY who didn't even post his name, OBAMA WAS AT A BASEBALL GAME YOU MORON!!
That's why he didn't put his hand over his heart, what an idiot, you're why this country is so f-ed up! People like you, go already, get raptured or whatever. False pride and false patriotism. All of you fools are getting people killed and we've all had enough. move out of this country we used to love! You fools have ruined it with your false patriotism. The flag pin was given to Obama by a vet! That's why he's wearing it. For all I care he could burn the f--ing flag, who cares, symbols don't matter when people are being killed because of a lie, that's called murder! You and your little pal G Bush are responsible, it's your fault and you're too much of a coward to even list your name.

Posted by: Andrea D | June 12, 2008 5:39 PM

"But then again most of you pacifist cowards would dissolve the military in days if it meant clean needles and abortions for all. Why don't you shut your silly faces before you foam at the mouth when individuals 10,000 times better than you voice their beliefs, or pick up a gun to earn the right to be paid attention to."

So...we should pick up our guns like Bush, Cheney, O;'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, The Bush Twins,,,should i continue?

Posted by: Gail | June 12, 2008 5:40 PM

This is just another example of the military industrial complex who need war and the threat of war to keep their pockets lined. George Bush and his massive war budget has been a boon for these folk and there is no evidence that he's keeping the country safer. Obama who might take a sensible foreign policy approach is a threat to some of these people. There willing to sacrifice more soldier in Iraq if it means increased war spending.

Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2008 5:41 PM

This seems to be another part of the Republican effort to turn the United States Armed Forces into a place of religious and political proselytizing of the troops as supported and protected from the upper levels of the Pentagon.

It is part in parcel with this administration forcing out senior officers who's views do not agree with GOP plans and also it's continued employment of the right wing paramilitary companies like Blackwater who additionally have a christian church affiliation.

That they are now part of a partisan political effort in the election campaign must be viewed and reviewed by the highest appropriate governmental legal authorities.

It is seemingly part of the continuing Republican, Bush, Cheney, McCain attack on our Constitution and our way of life.

It's become rather amazing to view what's become of our country since 9/11 when 19 men, most from Saudi Arabia attacked the United States and the World Trade Center. Ya know, in his wildest virgin infected dreams Osama Bin Laden never imagined the repercussions led by the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld Republican Administration and Party in bringing America it's Armed Forces, Economy, Constitution and reputation to where the've got it today.

Posted by: Plus 15 | June 12, 2008 5:42 PM

It doesn't surprise me since the White House had been using our generals as mouthpieces to the media.

If they traced Mr. Hooah's IP it would probably give you McCain's home address, oh wait, I forgot, McCain doesn't know how to use a computer.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 5:43 PM

The Military Command has left the room.
The Army (incl Navy, Air, etc) knows to take advantage when no one is looking.

Posted by: RichardF From Toronto | June 12, 2008 5:43 PM

Articles like this where people in the military are slaped down for daring to express thier views* are why the military dispises liberals, who usualy never would lower themselves to actualy serve themselves.
*except if they are anti-gop views.

Posted by: sonofdy | June 12, 2008 5:44 PM

We are entitled to our opinions and as a white woman, Rev. Wright was RIGHT about everything he said! I'll voice my opinion cause we've been listening to your propaganda for years now. The number of lies from all of you are obscene. Clearly none of you are Christians or you would see that innocent people in Iraq are being killed on a daily basis.
Nothing good will come to any of you who have and are supporting Bush/McSAME, they're exactly the same people. Maverick, HA what a joke!

Posted by: Callie | June 12, 2008 5:46 PM

Nobody's free speech is being limited. People should be free to write whatever they want. But to even link to partisan political messages from a government-paid-for web site is just wrong.

This argument makes not sense at all:

"It is a perfectly legitimate activity for an official Army publication to advise its readers what the troops and their families are saying and thinking and feeling."

By this reasoning, it would be possible to put ANYTHING AT ALL on an Army web site by simply prefacing it by "Some troops think that...".

Posted by: Fran Taylor | June 12, 2008 5:46 PM

Beachhead,

The Federal election laws require that donors to political campaigns identify their occupation, if they contribute more than $100 in a campaign. If you have been donating more than $100 without identifying what you do for living, you have been violating Federal election laws. Even for lesser contributions, campaigns are required to "make best effort" to identify the occupations of their donors and report them to the Federal Election Commission. Not only is the data on occupations of campaign donors collected and reported to the FEC--and made available to the public--it is the law that they be colelcted and reported.

Posted by: hsk | June 12, 2008 5:49 PM

Yha'll well Kerry is a liberal and he served. More than I can say for BUSH/CHENEY etc.. they never served anything, not even a cup of coffee. Don't you have a lot of gall, YOU'RE the phoney patriot sonodfy! Exactly what year did Bush and Cheney fight in Vietnam? Oh that's right, Bush never finished his service and Cheney was deferred 5 time, FIVE TIMES!!! So shut the f-- up, you've and your ilk have ruined this country.

Posted by: Steph | June 12, 2008 5:49 PM

we want to put in 58 permanent bases over there? ridiculous -- just make them divide the oil money (less payback to US for investments) and reduce it to a armed embassy. we are wasting our money and our kids money !

Posted by: philosopherkingtomas | June 12, 2008 5:51 PM

may be your son who is on duty in Iraq,, should come in a box,, or some of his limbs blown away,,, or come home with mental problems and are the govt is slow to give proper medical treatment,, then your eyes will be wide open,, isn't it,,

Posted by: mugambo | June 12, 2008 5:56 PM

Looks like all the recruiters are out in full force on here.. since folks are not signing up for their illegal shameful war.

Posted by: exxonmobil4prez | June 12, 2008 5:56 PM

It's the slippery slope that leads to stories
like this:

  • "Military Runs Mugabe Campaign"
  • The military must be beyond reproach when it comes to partisan politics.

    Posted by: John | June 12, 2008 5:57 PM

    Our military is in a very troubled state right now-----Fast-encroaching privatization/outsourcing;MAJOR fraud by some military corporations in Iraq;Loss-of-morale
    for many of our most conscientious troops;Severe overstress from too many rotations;Undue and TOXIC influence of fundamentalist religion in some areas,
    etc etc

    Day by day, our military is coming apart.

    And it is specifically NEOCONSERVATIVE policies that have accomplished this.

    This can't be good.

    Posted by: nikto | June 12, 2008 5:58 PM

    I pity the poor bastards who serve and who will, inevitably be thrown from the train by the neo-cons when the vets need long-term medical care. Wait- the guys have already been tossed by McCain and the GOP with the defeat, engineered by Republicans, to properly fund veterans benefits.

    Posted by: tanaS | June 12, 2008 5:58 PM

    This is part of a pattern. Closing small military bases in "blue states" in favor of mega-bases in "red states" and eliminating the draft has led to the politicization of the military. Unfortunately, those opposed to the Iraq war make the same mistake when they seek to banish ROTC classes from college campuses. Soldiers and scholars occupy the same world. Could Abu Ghraib have happened without the insular thinking of a professional army? It's time for a Citizen Service requirement for all Americans, for military and nonmilitary purposes. The army defends all Americans; it is not the Republican Guard.

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 5:59 PM

    Obama is more supportive of the troops than McCain, where it counts: Not needlessly sacrificing troops in support of a failed mission and honoring our servicement by providing them with the veteran's benefits they are entitled to. It appears we did not learn a damm thing from Vietnam. Colin Powell tried to sound the alarm both from a logistical point of view and from a strategic point of view. He was right on both counts but then in a misguided sense of loyalty went to the U.N. and disgraced himself and his country. General Petraeus had done a masterful job with the surge but great tactics in support of a failed mission is something he should know something about. Admiral Fallon, General Shinseki, Powell, and other general officers knew Bush was out to lunch, but soldiers obey orders, which is good for us, but bad when we elect incompetents like Bush who may seem like a good guy to have a beer with but hardly a criteria for POTUS.

    Posted by: Bobz | June 12, 2008 6:02 PM

    We aren't winning, the surge has only dampened the opposition. They are just waiting for us to leave, either when Obama does it or when McCain does it. They have a philosophy of revenge that can wait years to execute. Unlike our haste after 9/11 to retaliate.

    What a sorry mess Bush created.

    Posted by: Reality | June 12, 2008 6:04 PM

    Phil:

    OMG!!! 105 hits, new contributors, a very diverse set of opinions. I guess we car rest easy about your blog's relation to the WaPo will lead to your Bill Arkinization (I know he's been given a reprieve). Well, the old blog was getting a tad incestuous. Too bad however that MSR (SNLII????) can't be here for this exchange where he could unload diatribes on his lessers like a six barelled ONTOS....Talk about a target rich environment.

    You now know the secret to success! Stay away from your over technical detailed postings. Rather go for the meat N Potatoes stuff like (Is the military right wing or left wing? Are you a patriot, or not? Are you a warrior, or not? )

    You're headed for the firmament of Blogistani hosts, my man....Feel the power!

    Eduardo, El Galgo Rebelde.....aka
    Fasteddiez...and
    Bleccchhhhh.

    Posted by: Eduardo, El Galgo Rebelde | June 12, 2008 6:04 PM

    We should all send our opinion on this to Adm. Mike Mullen (aka Mr. Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) himself...but FYI, you might want to keep it professional, no cussing or craziness.

    Comment page on the Joint Chiefs Web page:
    http://www.jcs.mil/jcs_comment.html

    I simply asked him:
    1. If this violated his orders
    2. Should the American public be concerned that the Army has willfully violated the orders,instructions and /or directives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during a time of War.
    3. Excluding a Military Coup, why would the Army promote Slanderous Propaganda against a person who may be the Commander-in-Chief & THEIR BOSS next year.
    4. What Corrective Steps / Disciplinary Actions he plans to take.

    Wonder if I'll be sent to Gitmo...actually, I don't care...I'm sick of NOT saying anything.

    WE ARE the one's we've been waiting for...

    Posted by: Ssgt Freedom | June 12, 2008 6:06 PM

    gdogs said:
    "After reading some of the comments here, I'm absolutely shocked that for the most part the military votes republican!

    I hope you all can understand sarcasm."

    I think we fully understand sarcasm. I think the big problem is you "my friend" have no understanding of irony.

    And a big shout out to Peedro. The fascist who sees communists everywhere he looks. Better change your name "my friend" or your buddies will be throwing you over the border.


    Posted by: slamkitty | June 12, 2008 6:10 PM

    Again, I say horse hockey to statistics, no matter what the law says or does not say. Do you think the campaigns are dilligent about finding out what contributors do for a living? Welcome to Fantasy Island. No one cheats on their income tax either. Right!

    I thought the deal with Obama was that he was getting so many contributions of $100 or less. No reporting requirement there, according to you. And McCain was Mr. Campaign Finance Reform and now his campaign is looking for loopholes that his bill created.

    We live in a society where BS now rules and facts are always shrouded in it. You can try to convince me, but you will fail. If it sounds cynical, you are right, but I think Americans have good reason to at least be skeptical of almost everything they read in any media or hear politicians say. Every day, both journalism and political discourse are becoming trivialized to the point that our country better get a grip on reality soon. Otherwise, we will soon head down the same road as all the other empires (yes, that's what we have become) in human history.

    Posted by: beachhead | June 12, 2008 6:12 PM

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of right-wingers among the military brass; not quite as many among the troops. The U.S. Army has a history of spreading right-wing propagada going back to the 1960s when General Edwin Walker deseminated fascist John Birch Society literature to his troops and had to be stopped by presidential order.

    Posted by: Mary Jacobs | June 12, 2008 6:12 PM

    Many of these life long soldiers are nothing more than misfits of society who give real soldiers a bad name.
    I firmly believe those who can be swayed by these people? Were looking for an excuse anyway.

    Posted by: Deanna | June 12, 2008 6:13 PM

    Give the couple a break. They too are Americans. She has a blog that helps support familys in the frey. A very patriotic role for an American imo. How have we become so polorized?

    Aren't we all having to learn. In this new world our national idenity is beginning to change. We are a world power beginning to be on the skids. The enviroment and cheap labor abroad has dictated it.

    We are like an aging lion amoung younger economic nations coming to their own now. We can bully as we once did for the benefit of corporate interests or lead ourselves and others to a better day.

    Find compassion in your heart and grow to a more complete human being.

    Posted by: Nonforce1 | June 12, 2008 6:15 PM

    In case anyone has not mentioned it, the Early Bird is extremely biased. The editorials included in its daily survey are primarily right leaning. There are the occasional left of center editorials and articles, but that does not erase the bias. It does not absolve one of the need to be objective if you have one right and one left. It is in the aggregate that it matters. The Early bird consistently prints more conservative viewpoints. Editorials should be eliminated from it entirely.

    No one here should attack the blog writers. They and their viewpoints are irrelevant to the larger issue of promoting one viewpoint over another. The army PAO site gave prominence to a viewpoint from a personal blog. That is the issue. The authors can say all they want. They are right leaning and that is good for them. I disagree with them but it does not matter what I think. What matters is that if the shoe was on the other foot, which thankfully we are afforded that opportunity, would they be so quick to raise the free speech flag?

    BLUF__No personal viewpoints should be coming out of an official government mouthpiece. I sincerely doubt that the blog authors would claim credit for speaking for the entire Army. With the PAO linking to them on its official site, that is what happened.

    Lastly, leave them alone and deal with the issue at hand and not attempting to have the best personal attack on people you do not even know.

    Posted by: Matt | June 12, 2008 6:19 PM

    This is a bit off the topic of the Army being biased...

    Reading the KDIHH blog was one of the most fascinating experience I've had this week. It was similar to conducting a sociological experiment by observation. The types of things that they have on their blog and what they blog about was extremely revealing. One thing in particular that struck me was a sticker with the saying "Don't start that "I support the troops, but not their mission." capola with me, mister!" I suppose what strikes me is the utter ridiculousness of that sticker and the sadness I feel towards people who might find it funny.

    Clearly, like some of the troops themselves, this family has to keep this mindset that the mission their son was sent on is good and just- so that they are able to move on. Claire, it is perfectly acceptable to be outraged and saddened by a mission that your son is sent on. It is also perfectly acceptable to love and support your son and his peers, but not actually believe in the mission they were sent on. Remember, they did not choose the mission. We do not need to succumb to simple minded thoughts when dealing with such monumental topics like war. All I could think as I read this blog was-how terribly sad that these families have to deal with this for such a unwarranted reason. The lack of self-confidence and self-assurance these families have now because many Americans do not believe in the war is evident in the posting and comments. They are left defending the war because they feel as if their son's and daughters are being attacked when people have anti-war sentiments. Add another side effect to this disastrous war.

    Posted by: kwhite | June 12, 2008 6:19 PM

    Linda...excellent post.

    This article makes me all the more pro-Obama. It will be a definite CHANGE to have a president who has read, taught and respects the Constitution of the United States. George W. Bush and all those who enabled him for nearly 8 years should hang their heads in shame. That includes John McCain. This war is a blatant example of "mission creep" and I don't know how any self-respecting, intelligent military person can ignore that fact.

    Posted by: Joyce | June 12, 2008 6:28 PM

    The Army needs to remain neutral and not comment on any candidate whether Republican or Democrat. But if they do comment further about Obama, they need to read his speeches and his defense policy papers rather. They need to fair and not be so biased like Fox News. If they can't, perhaps we need to withdraw further funding of and communications by the Army.

    Posted by: Walt | June 12, 2008 6:28 PM

    "But then again most of you pacifist cowards would dissolve the military in days if it meant clean needles and abortions for all. Why don't you shut your silly faces before you foam at the mouth when individuals 10,000 times better than you voice their beliefs, or pick up a gun to earn the right to be paid attention to."

    I carried the gun and I have earned my right to be paid attention to. And this isn't about cowardice, it is about self-preservation. The people getting the most money for this war are not the people fighting it. Our armed forces are getting more and more broken by the day. We should never have gone into Iraq, and it shouldn't have taken two eyes to see that!

    Real patriots wouldn't subject our troops to this mess. All it shows is that the administration was so focused on going to war that they they threw out every lesson learned since Vietnam.

    Posted by: C. | June 12, 2008 6:30 PM

    I'm sure this little mouthing off problem will be handled when President Obama takes office.

    As far as I'm concerned they can take the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines and shove em.

    I don't like my tax dollars wasted on misfits.

    Posted by: Cheryl Fontaine | June 12, 2008 6:33 PM

    Hey, aren't the Armed Services supposed to stay out of politics? At least that's the way it used to be when I was in the Marines. Even though the guy is acting as a surrogate, it was published in an official magazine. I think that rule would apply to this.

    Posted by: Richard Bentley | June 12, 2008 6:34 PM

    Succeeding in Iraq? It's Like saying I succeeded in curing my headache by shooting myself in the head.

    Posted by: rowzeer | June 12, 2008 6:39 PM

    Hey-
    The publication is for the PDB's...what do you expect?

    (poor dumb bast**ds)

    Posted by: Kase | June 12, 2008 6:40 PM

    Neanderthals

    Posted by: artistcain | June 12, 2008 6:40 PM

    "This is part of a pattern. Closing small military bases in "blue states" in favor of mega-bases in "red states" and eliminating the draft has led to the politicization of the military." It certainly has a role, no doubt, but it is not the only reason. I'd say that it is symptomatic of the politicization, not the source of it.

    "Unfortunately, those opposed to the Iraq war make the same mistake when they seek to banish ROTC classes from college campuses. Soldiers and scholars occupy the same world. Could Abu Ghraib have happened without the insular thinking of a professional army? It's time for a Citizen Service requirement for all Americans, for military and nonmilitary purposes. The army defends all Americans; it is not the Republican Guard."

    Not all of us who oppose the war are against ROTC being on college campuses. And honestly, if the military wasn't so politicized and right-leaning, I think that resistance to ROTC would be far less.

    I am ex-military and I opposed the war primarily on tactical and strategic grounds: The Armed Forces could not sustain all existing operations AND go into Iraq without something giving way, and that big something was the mission in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has earned the nickname "the forgotten war" for a good reason. We were distracted by the operation in Iraq. Period. And it wasn't even NECESSARY - Al Qaeda wasn't attacking us on our flank from Iraq. No, we trumped up some BS about weapons of mass destruction, to feign a need for immediacy.

    I agree that a service requirement would be healthy for us, and that there are some people who wrongly demonize the military and don't understand the scope of what we do. But don't lump all people against the Iraq War into the same pile - some are pure pacifists, some object for reasons like mine, and some just hate the military. We are not all the same.

    Posted by: C. | June 12, 2008 6:43 PM

    In more than 30 years, the so-called Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals, a fraction of the 80,000 chemicals proliferating in the U.S. This presents a bonanza for the RNC.

    The changes come at a time when consumers are increasingly worried about the long-term consequences of chemical exposure and are agitating for more independent government oversight.

    Anthrax is used just for show of course, when the frightened American sheep are ready to give administration lawyers carte blanche to use Anthrax against America. Anthrax is a sheep's disease believed to be the Sixth Plague mentioned in the Book of Exodus in the Bible.

    Posted by: Singing Senator | June 12, 2008 6:45 PM

    to the troops. please pay attention to which party is supporting th GI bill of rights and which one is not, especially which candidate for president. Also, although you are serving your country, and are eyewitnesses to what may be happenning in front of you in Iraq, there is more to the picture than what you can see. those of us at home also see a picture, and even success, defined however you like it, may not be worth the price we are paying finanacially or to our standing in the world. Your experience stops at only what is happenning in Iraq, and is actually more limited to what effects the war is having on our country and the rest of the world. So please consider our opinions as wella s yours when you make such statements.

    Posted by: alan t | June 12, 2008 6:45 PM

    Readers and posters should remember that for career military people, having an active war theater is essential to their future career sucess. Promotions and careers are made in wars, not sitting at a stateside base during peace time. Of course career people are going to support John McCain and unending war, its what they want and need for their future advancement.

    Posted by: Susan E | June 12, 2008 6:47 PM

    Regarding Iraq - I used to care both about the soldiers that are in Iraq and about the amount of money we are spending.

    But - to be honest - this many years in my concern is less about the military people in Iraq - after all many have re-enlisted or enlisted since the Iraq War began so if they want to fight in Iraq - that's fine with me.

    However, the amount of money - including MY money being spent in Iraq is insane - and that is now what has my ire up more than ever.

    Either the Pro-Iraq War people start telling Americans to pay for this war in Real Time and cut the cost of the war - or stop the spending.

    Posted by: Rob | June 12, 2008 6:47 PM

    somebody forgot to tell these armchair generals that the armed forces are told what to do by those elected, not the other way around. If it was like what these a-holes dream of, that's called a "military coup."

    Posted by: Carl C | June 12, 2008 6:51 PM

    And I have no objections to what Mr. Hooah wrote, besides the fact that I think it's factually wrong. He has his opinion; I have mine.

    That's true up until Senator Obama becomes Commander in Chief Obama.

    At that point any further expressions like Hooah's are insubordinate slander of a commanding officer, and damn well better be subject to disciplinary action.

    Posted by: eyelessgame | June 12, 2008 6:54 PM

    Stand Up references highly opinionated blogs, not highly intelligent ones. That is propaganda. One article says: "There were major cuts when the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, and when Bill Clinton won the presidency. The same drill is expected if Obama wins, and military planners are studying ways they better cope with a new round of cuts."

    What cuts does Obama say he would make? Cuts in wasteful and unnecessary spending. Yep, the Army is sure opposed to that.

    Obama also says he will work toward a world free of nuclear weapons. The Army opposes that?

    There are thousands of blogs. Whatever the past history of the blog references, the current ones are clearly aimed at defeating Obama. Could that be considered getting involved in politics, which Secretary Gates say the Army should not do?

    It is fantasy to try to claim that the Army will do an objective and nonpartisan job rather than look after its own interests. What Claire fails to realize is that the Army is made up of human beings.


    Posted by: grandpaw | June 12, 2008 6:54 PM

    Dont you people know by now that NO ONE is allowed to say ONE WORD against the Obamesiah?The cult worshipers have taken over every blog known to man.Even our troops in the field who are risking their lives for these cowards,are not allowed to express their own opinions.It is okay for them to take the bullets and bombs,just dont ever tell the truth about the chosen one.I support our men and women in the feild.They,more than anyone have the right to free speech.Obama is a coward,racist radical,liberal fool.There !

    Posted by: Nannie Turner | June 12, 2008 6:57 PM

    Our boy was in iraq,(twice). He loves the people there and is sympthize with their situation. but like he says, there is no military solution. We can't pull their groups together who's been on the outs with each other for century's. Their own goverment has to do the work necessay, and we've trained plenty for their army and police now. We are no longer wanted there. They themself want us to pull out. It's also draining the money we need at home to hold up our own people in health care,schooling and etc. They already lost billions of U.S. dollars sent there and can't find where the money went for pete sake. We can't help them no more!

    Posted by: alberta treaddway | June 12, 2008 6:58 PM

    if we don't walk away America will continue to sink deeper into financial debt we cannot sustain. We are broke... Let us all face reality. We cannot keep borrowing money from China to fight an endless war. And those people want us out of their Country. It doesn't belong to America, it belongs to the tribes of Iraq. So let us pack up our bags and bid them farewell.

    Posted by: lynette | June 12, 2008 7:03 PM

    When I was in the Air Force we were told we were not to enagage in any political or partisan activity whatsoever. It was forbidden by the Hatch Act.

    Has the Hatch Act been repealed?

    Posted by: Malama Makena | June 12, 2008 7:08 PM

    I continue to find it amazing how Democrats and the left liberals or progressives continue to find that anyone who joined the Military is an uneducated, right wing, Fascist, Nazi goose stepping person. Terrorist cut the heads off their prisoners and we give our prisoners Consitutional rights. The worse thing we've done is have them in uncomfortable positions and break them down by humiliation. But in your eyes there is no difference? Tell that to the ones who had their heads chopped off.

    As a solider in the Army who has been to Afghanistan and Iraq twice my time spent there has been up and down. No war is a prefect video game. During each deployment I think about how many soldiers who fought in WWII who didn't see their love ones for three or four years. I realize there is no way our current society could sacrifice as they did. As Osama has said our country has become weak and soft. I sadly have to agree with him and I know during my lifetime our great country will face the realities terrorist attacks Israel faces each and everyday.

    No one can predict the future but we can logically assess actions by terrorist and they have made it clear they will continue to kill Americans even if we completely withdraw from the Middle East. Terrorists or jihadist whatever you want to call them hate us with every fiber of their being. From 1979 to 2001, whether Republican or Democrat President we have retreated every time terrorist killed us. I don't agree with everything President Bush has done but I thank God on 9/11 that he was President and not Al Gore. I know I wasn't alone with that thinking.

    As General Patton stated the only good German soldier is a dead one we can apply that to today and say the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist we have killed. This fight will be generational and we need to wake up to that fact. The terrorist are losing the battles but they are winning the war because we (Americans) can't do what it takes to finish the fight!
    For all of you who believe Obama will continue the fight you are fooling yourself. No Democrat President will deploy combat troops on the ground. (note Clinton never deployed ground troops into combat) Obama will withdraw troops from every battle field because the Democrat party members live in the past of Vietnam and can not accept the fact in combat people die. It's a sad reality of war and they can't handle that reality. Thank God Roosevelt didn't have the mind set of the Democrats of today if he did I'd be speaking German right now.

    Posted by: Just an American | June 12, 2008 7:09 PM

    This is another prime example of why CHANGE is needed in America. Why is the Army weighing in on the presidential election, and siding with John McCrazy?

    Posted by: Terry | June 12, 2008 7:09 PM

    civilian authority is the key here

    civilian

    if you want to run the country, run for office

    Posted by: ashish | June 12, 2008 7:10 PM

    For Obama to become the Commander in Chief when he won't put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played,
    Posted by: ISEnglish

    If you go to

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

    you'll see a video of Obama saying a pledge with his hand over his heart.

    English knows nothing about the truth. That why he is against Obama.

    Posted by: Gator-ron | June 12, 2008 7:11 PM

    beachhead:

    you are fighting the hypo. at first you don't believe me without cites. i provide cites you say phewy. hsk explains election contribution disclosure law and you dismiss this. ironically, i just heard a passing reference on tv (i know i know librul media) and it was basically unremarkable aznd treated as such BECAUSE IT IS A FACT. it happened. active military voted with their money and they voted anti-war early and often (caveat: this was early in the election so i am sure the breakdown has changed as the field has narrowed).

    why can you not accept this fact? your cognitive dissonance is sad to watch. look at the former military in the congress. how many are republicans? off the top of my head, all i can think of are mccain and warner (i am sure there are more) look at iraq ('91 & '03) and afghanistan vets in the new congress. how many are gop'ers? we'll just ignore the executive.

    on an slightly different note: we already won the iraq "war." our military did exactly what was asked quickly and skillfully. the iraqi military/regime was taken down. we are now occupying - there is no win/lose with occupation. there is occupy and there is leave. win or lose the goal is still leave (unless "win" is permanent presence).

    Posted by: Morris | June 12, 2008 7:13 PM

    Surely this is no surprise to anyone. This Administration has pushed their lack of support post service time far past the bounds of propriety regarding our brave service people till they are no longer even close to being intact. However, service men and women who are out on the front lines seeing their buddies getting maimed or killed know exactly what is going on. And of course, John McCain's cavalier statement about no worry about how long our military have to stay in Iraq is par for Republicans in these times. What ever happened to the Eisenhower Republicans and their total commitment to our military before, during and after a war. Then if perchance, service members make it home, they meet up with the stingy Republicans who are eager for them to risk their lives but who have no heart for assisting those who need help so they can get their lives back together. Just review the scandal ridden VA system that exists to this very day, look at the Administration's total lack of compassion so they fudge on the diagnosis of PTSD and other horrible Vet problems. The shut these military heroes into rat infested, dirty, and poorly staffed VA facilities. The horrible undercount of PTSD is a crime that denies services to so many. For just once, I would be thrilled if this administration showed any compassion or concern for those whose lives they so cavalierly put on the line and for many, destroyed.

    Posted by: Mari | June 12, 2008 7:16 PM

    justansnerican please answer one question...why are we still fighting in Iraq??? And don't give us that spin about Iraq freedom, most civilians who had or owned anything got out before the war started. Dems know that you cannot take over somone elses country and baptize them, it doesnt work. Iraq was Pandora's box and we are now broke and paying 4.50 a gallon because of it.

    Posted by: lynette | June 12, 2008 7:17 PM

    I believe it's commonly referred to as the "Military Industrial Complex" nowadays.

    It is the convergence of interests of the Military and those who own Industry (that includes the media).

    What is this common Interest? Money. War makes money for them. Oil prices soar, record profits. War Times, oh no, more money for Pentagon's Private Contractor Budget... (you wouldn't want to leave our troops without body armor, would you?)

    In the past it was plainly called Fascism, and it looks like it's come to the USA.

    I can't tell you how disgusting I find it that my tax dollars are being used to elevate lies about Presidential Candidates.

    People Get Ready.

    Things Are Not Good and Getting Worse.

    We Have Already Demonstrated Our Reluctance to Stand Up for Ourselves in 2000.

    The Bullies Have Pushed Consistently Since Then, and nary a whisper was uttered.

    If We Don't Fight Fascism Here At Home, We LOSE. And Soon.

    What Are We Waiting For? When Will We Stand UP?

    when they adopt the Swastika?

    It Wont Be Long Now.

    Posted by: mark naegeli | June 12, 2008 7:18 PM

    What really confuses me is how ANY member of the military could want anything like the status quo perpetuated. Nothing has done more harm to our military than this under-funded debacle in Iraq.

    Posted by: mobedda | June 12, 2008 7:18 PM

    Army of IQ of 1.

    -Wexler

    Posted by: William W. Wexler | June 12, 2008 7:22 PM

    As a Viet Nam Vet, I think this stink to high heaven, if you want to keep our troops over there doing 2,3,4,5 tours why don't you and your wife rejoin and gives some of the kids a break, my baby sister and brother have both been there and my sister is on her 2 tour, so what you have to say don't mean a damn thing, I hate people like you, sit some where you are safe and call for another hundred years.

    Posted by: john | June 12, 2008 7:23 PM

    Goatboy Slim,

    You exaggerated, McCain was not last in his class, he was fifth from the last. Last in the class would be his Secretary of the Navy, I suppose.

    Posted by: G8tr | June 12, 2008 7:24 PM

    The Army should not engage in partisan politics! Those in the Army who push the partisan agenda are unpatriotic. The fact that you serve or served in the Army does not necessarily make you patriotic. Some serve for patriotic reasons, some for economic reasons, some for sanctioned killing, etc, etc. Believe me, I know! Therefore, we must be ever watchful for the subversive, who hide behind their military service in an attempt to destroy our country!

    Posted by: Intelligentia | June 12, 2008 7:25 PM

    If you dont like Obama .. do not vote for him.. If your trailor is floating down the river..and you lost your house..and you job movew to another country .. and you know someone killed in iraq..and you can not buy food..and you have spent all your savings .. Vote for McCain

    Posted by: tina | June 12, 2008 7:26 PM

    To beachhead and all the other elements of right-thinking on this ,ah, interesting, blog role: do you really believe that all the US Military Cemeteries throughout the world and at home are only filled with Republican/ Conservatives?
    Military graveyards are A-political. So should the Army.

    Posted by: oldjarhd | June 12, 2008 7:26 PM

    As a veteran, I know its the commander-in-chiefs responsibility to ensure the military stay out of politics. Look at who our commander-in-chief is, and you are looking at why our military is dangerously entering the political arena. Our nation has been taken over by fascists.

    Furthermore, as a veteran, I'm disappointed the average American doesn't research the propaganda and rhetoric being spoon fed to them by the likes of FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh. The Republican Party DOES NOT support the troops. If you look at their voting records, the party that consistently supports the health, welfare and proper equipment for our troops is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

    Posted by: cowboyneok | June 12, 2008 7:28 PM

    Would you expect anything less from a mercenary army of poor, uneducated, racist, baby-killers?

    Posted by: Gary | June 12, 2008 7:33 PM

    Obama will be far, far better for the troops than the lying, deceitful
    Bush&Co ever were.

    Obama will make sure our veterans are fully supported AFTER they return & not cut them off at the balls like the GOP/Rightwing does.

    The slurs and lies against OBAMA will fool only the ignorant, or bigoted.

    Anybody who still buys the GOP blowhards' nonstop BS on "supportin' The Troops" and the outrageous lie that "the GOP is better for the military" is an abject FOOL.

    Posted by: HardHatVet | June 12, 2008 7:33 PM

    yeah right. Just what I like--MY TAX DOLLAR SPENT BY THE US ARMY TO CAMPAIGN FOR A REPBULICAN.

    I like that about as much as I like my tax dollar being spent to advertise the military to teenagers in high school.

    Posted by: Liz | June 12, 2008 7:33 PM

    INFORMATION WARFARE AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS!! You gotta love the stupidity of our military :)

    Okay spread the WORD folks! Lets get those volunteer army recruitment numbers down to ZERO next month.

    Posted by: Debbie | June 12, 2008 7:36 PM

    Gary: c'mon. enuf with the mercenary baby-killer thing. that is blackwater. not the army.

    Posted by: Morris | June 12, 2008 7:36 PM


    "Anyone who favors staying in Iraq is either in massive denial or just massively ill informed.

    ...a correct statement, speaking on behalf of those I meet - civilian and military - in my travels throughout the Red Zone.

    Charlie Jackson
    Texans for Peace

    Posted by: Charlie | June 12, 2008 7:40 PM

    We need a complete cleansing of the military, especially the Pentagon brass.

    We can start with the torturers and the abettors of war-profiteering. Then we clean out the Air Force of its rapturist fundies, who have confused patriotism and duty with a bizarre cultist religious view. No nukes for the flyboys.

    Thank you, Republicans,for crippling our military!

    Posted by: Veritas78 | June 12, 2008 7:40 PM

    This post only addresses a publicly viewed web site. It does not mention email.
    During the 2004 election, I got emails attacking Democratic candidate John Kerry, through jokes, side references, and direct political attacks including questioning Kerry's military service, on an Army National Guard listserv. The content was straightforward political and on most occasions was send by persons in the chain of command.

    Posted by: pwlsh | June 12, 2008 7:45 PM

    Having read the comments of beachhead, it is quite obvious that he is one who will not let the facts get in the way of his thinking, no matter what. I doubt that he is anywhere near Iraq, or even in the Armed Forces. I would be most interested in seeing a survey done of our military members serving in Iraq, asking them what they think of the occupation. For sure, a few would express total support to the "mission," (whatever the hell that is) but I would venture to guess (see, we progressives don't state our opinions as fact, which is often taken as a weakness by the wing-nuts) that most would love to get the hell out of Dodge. There is a reason why suicide among our military is so high, and so many of them are suffering from self-inflicted wounds, and it isn't eagerness to return to that dead-end war.
    No, beachhead, you ain't no military person, of that I'm sure of. You are another one of those punk chickenhawk cowards that don't give a second thought to sending others to die for your false patriotism.

    My credentials? I'm a retire Navy veteran who served in the first Persian Gulf war.

    Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2008 7:45 PM

    I thought America is way up there where the army does not get involved in politics. What is happening to this nation that used to be the world's envy. What a crash! We, outside America are watching and wondering how America is fast losing her "beauty". America will overcome these setbacks, I pray.

    Posted by: SHAMEonyou | June 12, 2008 7:53 PM

    We shouldn't even be in this war, period! The cost will go to the American people and while we spend billions to make their country better there is no guarantee they will keep our policies once we leave. Afghan all over again. Helped the Taliban get rid of Russia and now here are trying to get rid of the Taliban. What a waste. Why does war always have a place in a man's mind? Maybe being at peace is too boring or maybe they are tired of testing their weapons on inanimate objects.

    Posted by: Anthony | June 12, 2008 7:57 PM

    This article was very interesting and the comments even more so.

    Posted by: Jeff | June 12, 2008 7:58 PM

    I am pretty sure that if there were a hint of leaning towards Obama's secular progressive agenda in this article, it would make front page on the mainstream media and the hate blogs like the Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, MediaMatters,org et al,

    Come on guys, the character assassination of Sen. McCain is quite alright with y'all, but if anybody dares to differ from Obama's secular progressive plan for the U.S., it becomes totally off limits.

    Get a grip of yourselves!

    Posted by: latina_in_texas | June 12, 2008 8:07 PM

    The Army has been under the influence of those criminal war profiteers at 1600 for nearly a decade. If the voters get together what brain cells they may have left and vote for Senator Obama, we can hopefully get it back on track, back home and most importantly, back under the auspices of the Constitution.

    Posted by: Sir Rodney Stiffington | June 12, 2008 8:12 PM

    That's ok. WHen Obama becomes president, these jerks will wind up peeling potatos for the rest of their army career. LOL

    Posted by: Steamboater | June 12, 2008 8:13 PM

    The Army:
    You make them strong, we'll make them dead.

    Posted by: Charlie | June 12, 2008 8:19 PM

    That blog is a bad joke. Just like the Republicans' chances this fall.

    Posted by: blah | June 12, 2008 8:20 PM

    You've got to remember too, that the officer corps is not representative of the enlisted men.

    Enlisted men tip much more away from the Republican talking point mindlessness. It's typically highly partisan officers pushing this crap.

    Enlisted men typically have a much wider range of opinion, that more accurately represents real American opinion. Currently, this would mean many more represent the moderate, liberal and progressive positions than the conservative positions.

    You won't find the media mentioning this. They always spew the "military = conservative" false meme. It's false, but it's easy to mindlessly regurgitate.

    Posted by: digdug | June 12, 2008 8:38 PM

    The whole washington establishment including the pentagon is going to need a scrubbing after the Bush has sliimed everything.

    Posted by: jen hutchin | June 12, 2008 8:39 PM

    I think within the higher echelons of the army are keeping an eye on what a possible Obama administration might bring in terms of funding.

    The US economy is so far down the toilet is wiggling round the u-bend. The dollar is in freefall. The deficit is running into trillions.

    Given this situation, a responsible politician has to look at two things. Increases in tax (which - despite what he says - even McCain would have to do if he's not going to bankrupt the country) and cutting back expenditure.

    And there's the rub. 59% of every tax dollar goes on defence. Obama wants to improve housing, infrastructure, education and a whole lot more. So where are the savings to be made?

    The army top-brass has figured that one out already. Expect low-level mumblings like the blogs linked to be quietly pushed to the fore.

    Posted by: Fast Eddie | June 12, 2008 8:47 PM

    Shame on the US Army! All the racists, rednecks and religious fanatics trying to cramp this crap down our throats. What goes around comes around!!

    Posted by: Outraged American! | June 12, 2008 8:48 PM

    When I was in flight school with the U.S. Army back in '67, I was the company Public Information Officer. I posted an article from a Roman Catholic newspaper (I'm Protestant) that was vaguely against our actions in Viet Nam. Immediately, I was called into my commanding officer's officer's office and dressed down for my action. His searing comment, "We don't want our officers to think about what they're doing or why they're doing it." Nothing has changed. I served my time, did my duty and was often awarded for it. But I never trusted the government, nor the Army again. They offered me new "bars" when my time was up, but I just wanted to get out.

    Posted by: John van der Graaf | June 12, 2008 9:05 PM

    As a starting point, I want you to go to YouTube and enter the terms Dick Cheney/Iraq/Quagmire. This was an interview when he was Secretary of Defense. It is a very prophetic commentary on where we are today. And it isn't 146 lives lost as in the First Gulf War, it's over 4,000 and counting.
    We have spent over 500 billion dollars on credit (the Chinese are laughing about this one), put our nation at fiscal risk, and we have one candidate (McCain) who can't figure out if we will need 100 or 10 years to complete the mission. Meanwhile, the US Government is trying to negotiate with the Iraqi government for a Status of Forces agreement to include 50 bases (according to one newspaper source). Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we put forces there. And POTUS used the term 'CRUSADE' when talking about the current war in Iraq. Muslims everywhere know historically what that term means.

    Sen. Obama has said that he would be willing to pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda into Pakistan. This doesn't make points with Pakistan, but I don't care. We don't need a repeat of the Cambodian sanctuary for Viet Cong during the Vietnam war.

    Posted by: macinpa | June 12, 2008 9:05 PM

    Free speech is always to be respected, obviously. The military is expected to be non-partisan at all times, however.

    You think these troops in the field aren't aware of their comrades self-injuring to either go home or avoid additional tours of duty?

    They know how bad it is over there, better than anyone. Propaganda for troop morale is a normal thing too. But partisan politics has no place in the military. None.

    Posted by: Susan | June 12, 2008 9:18 PM

    It's a blogroll for chrissakes.

    Posted by: p0s3r | June 12, 2008 9:18 PM

    "After all, what better time to surrender than when we are winning?"

    Nobody has been able to tell me what we are winning in the occupation. This is not a war, as the Iraqis themselves have stated. We are occupying their country, we have reduced it to rubble... one of the most historic countries in the world.. reduced to rubble. Yes, we are going to be in Iraq a long time but it is not going to be with guns and tanks... we will be there with humanitarian and rebuilding efforts because we broke it... so now we have to buy it. Hopefully, the Iraqis will like the helping side of the USA better than the killing side and will shoulder up with us.... The invasion was wrong.. the American people were lied to.... the military followed its CIC (and I am an Active Duty member who should be staying on the sidelines as Adm Mullen has requested... but sometimes Truth must be spoken) and coming home is not defeat... there is no win/lose in this situation...

    Posted by: Show Me | June 12, 2008 9:19 PM

    May the DO NOTHING CONGRESS WAKE UP and call for a public hearing on ARMY and Defense Dept's mis use of tax payers money on pushing partisan agends. I though our defense and army is supposed to be nuetral, or have they been nuetered that they dont have the spunk to stand aobe the fray. Shame on you Army.

    Posted by: Constituonalist | June 12, 2008 9:24 PM

    To say that the military ought to remain or has at any time remained out of the political sidelines is preposterous! War is America's most serious addiction. The military industrial complex continues to drag the world into a hellish nightmare! George Washington was right on this one, the only cure here is to disband the Army completely.

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 9:24 PM

    beachhead: if you had ever donated money to a campaign, you would know the answer to your question.

    Posted by: earl, sr | June 12, 2008 9:25 PM

    You don't have to be a member of the military to understand national defense and our national interest. The Iraq war is not protecting us, nor is it in our national interest. It has depleted our miltary power and has brought our economy to its knees.

    What these military propangists don't understand is that ultimately, its the people (not the military) that are the deciders and in the next election we are going to decide to get their behinds the he11 out of Iraq. And we are doing it for their own good as well as ours.

    While we all respect their sacrifices, they need to remember that they work for us.

    Posted by: JOY | June 12, 2008 9:25 PM

    Not sure I see the problem if it's true.

    Posted by: ArmyBrat | June 12, 2008 9:30 PM

    Phil- while I miss the old Blog and the comments that went along with it (they were less random and focused more on the issue posted), I'm glad to see you got picked up by a major news source. Continue the good work!

    Posted by: Chris LaCour | June 12, 2008 9:30 PM

    The new top majors at USMA?
    Political Science and media manipulation.

    Posted by: paul94611 | June 12, 2008 9:32 PM

    The military has not only been politicized and nearly destroyed but also inundated with religious fervor.

    The guys that write me say they are indoctrinated to go to church or swear their love of God. When your commanding officer asks if you have taken Jesus as your savior, what can you say? Several soldiers have been sent back home because they refused to knuckle under. In a country that is Islam, our military units have flags with a religious motiff. This in a part of the world that still remembers the crusades. It is now being pushed in all three military acadamies. You ask what this has to do with anything.

    Just this. The military has been changed from what it was intended to do. Not just the forced religious aspect, but the private contractors that do so poorly, what the military used to do so well. And they get paid 4 times as much for cheating and bungling.

    All this in a country we have no business being in. A country we now occupy. A country where we have promoted a civil war between factions that was not there before we came. Now we want them to sign away their rights to be independent from us, and to force them to lose 30 years worth of their oil to Exon and other companies. To allow us to build dozens of bases to remain for countless years. All this with rules that beggar the mind. They will allow us not to hold any Americans military or civilian contractors responsible for anything they might do. For the priviledge of having us there, we take their oil, their autonomy and their rights. Sounds fair. Does anyone remember when Bush said we were not going to build bases? I do.

    We are occupiers, we have become torturers, and we are liars and destroyers. Can you say immperialists?

    Posted by: carol H. | June 12, 2008 9:39 PM

    I guess the AFL-CIO (and other labor unions) gets a free pass.

    Posted by: Jibreel Riley | June 12, 2008 9:41 PM

    Just drink the kool aid.

    Posted by: gotalife | June 12, 2008 9:44 PM

    I hope that former army officers's son doesn't ever come home

    Posted by: madashell | June 12, 2008 9:51 PM

    It is time to bring back the draft. Only not JUST military. Peace Corps (where I served), AmeriCorps, Health Services, etc. Everyone needs to give two years to their Country. And both male & female. Universal. Gay or straight. Sometime between 18 and 30.

    Posted by: pghphillip | June 12, 2008 9:58 PM

    "Last time I checked, soldiers and civilian officials didn't swear an oath to either political party or to their current president."


    are you unaware of the oath soldiers take or that the "Commander and Chief" is the same person as the POTUS?

    Posted by: USA | June 12, 2008 10:00 PM

    Not that I disagree with your stance that it's inappropriate to promote such in the official army.mil blog - but you are incorrect about the oath.

    The oath soldiers take is:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice. So help me God."

    So yes, soldiers swear an oath to the President, not just the consitution.
    That one little part? about 'enemies foreign and domestic?' has been used by many a person to rationalize just such an instance.

    Posted by: anonymouse | June 12, 2008 10:04 PM

    Wow, now that was an informative post.

    JT
    http://www.FIreMe.to/udi

    Posted by: Johnny Thomas | June 12, 2008 10:05 PM

    I used to wonder how America got into the mess it's in, until I found this blog. Its radical-left fanatics are the answer. Your last president allowed 9/11 to happen by failing to respond to attacks on Americans overseas and weakening our Intelligence gathering capacity. We did, however, strengthen our ability to get blow-jobs in the Oval office, so not all was lost.

    I am proud to be an Independent Voter who has not been brainwashed by either party. Once again, we, the Independents, will decide our next President.

    Thankfully, neither Rush Limbaugh's listeners, nor the readers of this column will decide. People who are capable of seeing both sides of an issue and filtering out out all the crap (90% of the comments and material here) and then making a decision, will actually determine the outcome, as we have for the last few elections. .

    For all of you who are brain-dead, go ahead and subscribe to the bumper-sticker mentality. Those of us that know better will decide.

    Only one candidate has actually "reached across the aisle" and actually sought "unity" in the last several years. We all know who that was. Only one candidate voted against his own party several times... Supported Amnesty for illegal immigrants, campaign finance reform, and several other bi-partisan efforts.

    His opponent abstained more than any other Senator but still voted more Socialist/ Far left Radical Agenda, than any one else in Congress.

    One candidate has bumper-sticker slogans. One candidate has experience. You decide.

    Posted by: IndependentVoter | June 12, 2008 10:07 PM

    The US Military, until perhaps 25 or 30 years ago, was traditionally and correctly non-political in any public sense. Until the 1940s few voted. It is completely inappropriate (and illegal under the Hatch Act)for any medium of the US military to make comments for or against any political person, party, or position. If the US Army doesn't whack this activity fast, they will get help they are not going to want.

    Posted by: jfowler | June 12, 2008 10:16 PM

    In his own words, this is why Barack Hussein Obama doesn't belong in the White House and can't serve as head of our military:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
    Obama:

    First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]

    Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

    I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

    I will not weaponize space.

    I will slow our development of future combat systems.

    And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

    -----

    The psycho is proposing to bureaucratize the single most important function of any capable government: its military. This is unacceptable and completely out of touch with world polity.

    Posted by: Obama not presidential material | June 12, 2008 10:16 PM

    I don't care if individuals/writers or whatever have an opinion one way or the other and make that public, but I would hope they'd be fair and balanced and represent the thousands of military who DO support Senator Obama as well. This man doesn't speak for the U.S. Army. And if he thinks he does, someone needs to stand up and correct him.

    Posted by: Megan | June 12, 2008 10:24 PM

    This is a very good example of why I'm glad I served my country under the egle globe and anchor for 20 years as a United States Marine. When it comes down to taking an oath and honoring that commitment regardless of political points of view. The tax paying public deserve better. The American people are being served less than honorable when the people whom are entrusted with the commitment to serve are doing so by promoting one political party over the other. The people in the army who do not understand this basic principal of service to our country and how important this relationship impacts military leadership, in places in which this matters the most to our democracy, demonstrates a sign of decline in our combat readiness.

    Posted by: Cypress | June 12, 2008 10:25 PM

    Funny, that link is no longer on the Tuesday edition of Stand-To!

    However, it is still on the cached version stored by Google here

    Should I be surprised?

    Posted by: John | June 12, 2008 10:26 PM

    Oops, WaPo didn't like my html.

    Here is a tinyurl to the Google cache version: http://tinyurl.com/6jmrax

    Posted by: John | June 12, 2008 10:27 PM

    It appears the post has been scrubbed.

    Posted by: Rock Strongo | June 12, 2008 10:28 PM

    "The psycho is proposing to bureaucratize the single most important function of any capable government: its military. This is unacceptable and completely out of touch with world polity."

    I am sure you meant to say "policy" However your argument has nothing to offer in response. You just throw out quotes... well, I hate to tell you this but there is a lot of wasteful spending in the military... also, Obama isn't cutting our military, he supports building our Army and Marines.... he kind of left out that Navy, and since I am AD Navy, that saddened me... :(.... but you just seem like a troll to me.. and a ReThug who thinks that we are so stupid that we are just going to take in whatever you throw at us as the truth... GET A LIFE... the American voter is more savvy than they were four years ago... and if they aren't... then Obama has a grassroots organization that eclipses anything that the ReThugs have... I am projecting a landslide for my favorite son this year... OBAMA 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: Show Me | June 12, 2008 10:32 PM

    What's the difference between pulling out of Iraq and the Vietnam pull-out? I would think that the US didn't surrender in Vietnam. It just got out wisely of a war it couldn't win.

    It's obvious, given the socio-political dynamics in Iraq, that there can be no military victory for the US there. The sooner the US disengages from a war it can't win, and one that should not have been fought in the first place, the better.

    Posted by: RFBorjal | June 12, 2008 10:47 PM

    So we need the army to protect us from......?the army propaganda?What close resemblence the Bush Administration has to Adolf Hitler's Nazi propaganda machine of the thirties and forties. This is shameful, this and all the liberties that Bush and Cheney and Company have taken with the Constitution. And McCain thinks Cheney is an OK guy.

    Posted by: majorteddy | June 12, 2008 10:55 PM

    "Obama isn't cutting our military, he supports building our Army and Marines.... he kind of left out that Navy, and since I am AD Navy, that saddened me..." - Show Me

    I always thought the Marines are with the Navy. I could be wrong.

    But since the Army and the Marines are the ones at the forefront of the war effort, they seem to get the overt attention. But I'm sure Obama didn't mean to leave out the navy, or the Air Force, for that matter. His plans encompass the whole Armed Services.

    Posted by: RFBorjal | June 12, 2008 10:56 PM

    HE IS FULL OF IT

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 11:04 PM

    Having come from the Army background, I'd have to say that Obama has very few "friends" in the military. Nearly 75% of enlistees come from republican backgrounds, add another 15% as independents or unafilliated and lastly 10% of democrats.
    Regardless of their affiliation, most enlistees raise their right hand because they feel they have a duty to support and protect their country. The same can not be said for the "kids" who would rather pursue the government for what they perceive as "their entitlements": welfare, free college/ schooling, etc.
    Why are the democrats so poorly received in the Army? They're not. It's as if the lefties have "black-listed" the military as a deadend for those seeking employment. I still see articles comparing todays Army to the Vietnam era and the racial body count as being predominately African American. I see the faces in my weekly Army Times of the fallen and know the facts to be different than what Sharpton or Jackson would have you think.
    As for the subject of the thread, it's good to see some diversity in the Army net links so all can receive a different perspective. We (the military) are all adults and can form our own opinions as to what is right and wrong and whom to believe. We who lived through the gutting of the military by the democratic party in the 90's know that they DO not hold the same values as the military and will cut again when the chance arrives. The funds will then be shifted to social programs that will have nothing to do with national security.

    Posted by: Butler71 | June 12, 2008 11:14 PM

    This is why there are, or should be editors in the public affairs office - to keep this kind of crap out of the publication.

    The grunts have a right to say wht they want, but an OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DOES NOT ! ! !

    BTW I am a WASP, a 24-year retired officer, and a FORMER 'R'.

    Posted by: swanieaz | June 12, 2008 11:17 PM

    It is illegal for any federal employee to use the equipment or powers of his office for furtherance of one political party over another. Violation of this rule by any federal employee is grounds for immediate termination. No exceptions.

    US Military Personnel are almost always US Citizens who serve our country out of love and respect for the constitution and an unswerving sense of duty to protect it. Challenging the honor and integrity of US Military personnel because of an article linked to by one person is despicable and should cost the author of this article in the post his or her job.

    Posted by: Voice of Reason | June 12, 2008 11:21 PM

    Well, gee, if Mugabe can have the Zimbabwean army helping him, why can't the Pentagon help McCain?

    Posted by: Perla | June 12, 2008 11:35 PM

    Beachead:

    Thanks for your comments and, moreover, your service to the country.

    One question: how much can anyone really learn about the "facts on the ground" by visiting Iraq, since the visits are so tightly controlled? In his famous visit to the market, McCain was accompanied by a numerous, well-armed security detail--far better protection than our servicemen and women have. The following day, the market was attacked by a suicide bomber who killed quite a few people. Dignataries who visit see pretty much what the brass and the political muckety-mucks want them to see.

    I'd be interested to hear your comments.

    Posted by: David Expat | June 12, 2008 11:37 PM

    This is a federal offense and all of those individuals that are involved in this smear tactics and while using the governments funding should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They should be prosecuted right along with the Bush Administration for lying to the American people and decieving us into a war which has cost over 4,000 American lives. How dare they! Prosecute these people! They are not supposed to be involved in political affairs, their concerns should be about protecting the country not trying to persuade America into a 3rd term Bush presidency!

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 11:44 PM

    Check out their "many,many news sources" in the "Daily Reads and Links of Interest". Well informed !!

    Posted by: VictorCharlie | June 12, 2008 11:47 PM

    How can you to expect a moral or neutral viewpoint from a group of people who kill as a career? This blog is the least of their offenses.

    Posted by: ChinaOwnsUS | June 12, 2008 11:51 PM

    Some one please ask to see the Budget Army briefing that is going around - on how obama or a Democratic president is going to come in and wipeout their jobs.

    Seriously - slides and all. Be prepared - be afraid of the Democrat - he wants to lay you off.

    Not in the least to say - that the DoD has been fat and happy and bankrupting the country.

    Posted by: Wow | June 13, 2008 12:00 AM

    This is disgraceful. First I heard that the Republicans are targeting Michelle Obama. Michelle has done nothing wrong but tell the truth. She is a very dignified lady and carries herself well.Cindy McSame is a tramp. A wolf in sheep's clothing.
    Now I hear the army is getting involved in politics. I think our president is behind these attacks. He knows his approval rating is low and Americans want change.

    Posted by: White Woman | June 13, 2008 12:04 AM

    Have Bush and McSame so stretched our Armed Forces that the Joint Chief of Staff can't even keep up with the Stand To staff and their obvious refusal to follow his directions?

    No surprise! Bush and company show everyday that there is no penalty for not following the rules so why should Stand To feel any obligation to do so.

    This is another example of politicization of the armed services that led us to war in the first place. Good Help America!!

    Posted by: vgirl1 | June 13, 2008 12:05 AM

    Have Bush and McSame so stretched our Armed Forces that the Joint Chief of Staff can't even keep up with the Stand To staff and their obvious refusal to follow his directions?

    No surprise! Bush and company show everyday that there is no penalty for not following the rules so why should Stand To feel any obligation to do so.

    This is another example of politicization of the armed services that led us to war in the first place. Good Help America!!

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2008 12:05 AM

    Have Bush and McSame so stretched our Armed Forces that the Joint Chief of Staff can't even keep up with the Stand To staff and their obvious refusal to follow his directions?

    No surprise! Bush and company show everyday that there is no penalty for not following the rules so why should Stand To feel any obligation to do so.

    This is another example of politicization of the armed services that led us to war in the first place. Good Help America!!

    Posted by: vgirl1 | June 13, 2008 12:05 AM

    This is disgraceful. First I heard that the Republicans are targeting Michelle Obama. Michelle has done nothing wrong but tell the truth. She is a very dignified lady and carries herself well.Cindy McSame is a tramp. A wolf in sheep's clothing.
    Now I hear the army is getting involved in politics. I think our president is behind these attacks. He knows his approval rating is low and Americans want change.

    Posted by: White Woman | June 13, 2008 12:05 AM

    Have Bush and McSame so stretched our Armed Forces that the Joint Chief of Staff can't even keep up with the Stand To staff and their obvious refusal to follow his directions?

    No surprise! Bush and company show everyday that there is no penalty for not following the rules so why should Stand To feel any obligation to do so.

    This is another example of politicization of the armed services that led us to war in the first place. Good Help America!!

    Posted by: vgirl1 | June 13, 2008 12:06 AM

    Posted by: Butler71 | June 12, 2008 11:14 PM

    What are you talking about? Seriously?

    How long ago was it that the only option for many youth was - Jail or the military?

    You want to claim the military is the Republicans but news flash it aint. Sure there are some conservatives - but there are a lot of progressives and "liberal" thinking people in the military.

    Serving your country - is not A poltiical so quite thinking it is.

    Oh and PS - I think I say a poll recently that a majority of the military have polled to lean towards the Democrats - Um interesting

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2008 12:06 AM

    A moronic article.

    Posted by: denizen | June 13, 2008 12:08 AM

    Don't forget this is the Same public affairs group that only authorized Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on Armed Forces RAdio.

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2008 12:09 AM

    My son is on his second tour of Iraq with the Army. It is time to bring these troops home from this war that never should have happened in the first place. I am appalled that the Army is taking such a partisan position during this election. I thought the military was supposed to stay out of politics.

    Posted by: cecilia | June 13, 2008 12:10 AM

    "We who lived through the gutting of the military by the democratic party in the 90's know that they DO not hold the same values as the military and will cut again when the chance arrives. The funds will then be shifted to social programs that will have nothing to do with national security."

    Butler get your facts straight.. the "gutting" of the military began with first Bush.. and Clinton was left to carry out his policies...

    "Having come from the Army background, I'd have to say that Obama has very few "friends" in the military. Nearly 75% of enlistees come from republican backgrounds, add another 15% as independents or unaffiliated and lastly 10% of democrats."

    I would like to see your links that support your theory on the 75 percent.. because I am active duty... YOU on the other hand.. say you come from an Army backgroud... have you actually served? Have you been to Iraq or fought in any war... served your country? From my perspective, you are talking out the end that emits a lot of gas.... I can tell you from fact that the military that I serve with do not support this war.. they support that constitution of the USA... Bring me some facts and I will give you a reasoned "listen" but to come on here with nothing but rhetoric is being a troll....
    So, I call you out...

    Posted by: Show Me | June 13, 2008 12:10 AM

    Good comments - and I appreciate those from the military. And I agree Senator Obama should have another visit to Iraq. Especially to listen to what Iraqi's and the boots on the ground think about Bush's plan for 58 PERMANENT BASES there in Iraq. I almost wonder if John McCain had some input in that decision.

    The problem I have is with Cold War era thinking being applied to the middle east. They evidently don't think about how it looks for America to invade a country with no provocation, where the army surrenders within a couple weeks of the invasion, and then 6 years after 5 million people are displaced after having foreign fighters set them against each other (the Al Qaeda - not the Americans) and their economy is in shambles, let them know that we're setting up 58 PERMANENT BASES!! Come on!

    What scares me most is not the two different wars we're fighting now - but the fact that George Bush seems to be in a rush to get us committed to THREE wars before he leaves office.

    As if the financial destruction of this country isn't complete enough.

    I don't think the rest of the world is going to stand by this time. And frankly, they could pull the pin on the economic grenade and I think it would all blow up within 90 days if they chose to do it. Here's how:

    1. China decides that they don't really want to finance a war against a major oil supplier (and they have a massive earthquake and flooding to take care of), so they say no - they're not going to loan us more money. And second, they stop devaluing their currency. And third, if they really wanted to play hardball, they start dumping dollars.

    2. The other OPEC countries decide they won't take US dollars any more for oil purchases. (They've been talking about it for awhile). After Hillary's "obliterate them" comment, Iran announced that they won't accept US dollars and due to other reasons as well, oil is $16 higher than it was then.

    3. Other nations start to dump US dollars since they won't use them for oil purchases and it no longer looks like a safe investment, starting a stampede. (Our dollar is 50% of what it was 8 years ago against the euro - imagine what will happen if the major nations start dumping it quickly).

    4. Venzuela - who has sympathy for Iran - and who happens to be our #2 supplier of oil, cuts us off in sympathy with Iran.

    5. Russia - who has pipelines from Iran - supplies weapons to Iran.

    6. Europe, Syria, and Jordan - who have taken in over 2 million Iraqis and aren't anxious for more refugees - have no sympathy for a 3rd war.

    7. Israel - becomes the target for more attacks since the US is too far away, but they're close and represent us over there.

    8. The winners... Well, that would be Halliburton, KBR (who may be drawing up reconstruction plans and contracts already), and of course - Al Qaeda who hates Iran and 2 years ago had a 6 point strategy for inciting the US to attack Iran.

    No - I'm a conservative, white, Christian woman who has voted with the Republicans many times - and I don't regret many of those votes - except the 2 I cast for George Bush. And I am working as hard as I can for the Obama campaign for one reason - the third world war that this administration and John McCain seem so anxious to get us committed to.

    Posted by: ThinkFirstThenVote | June 13, 2008 12:12 AM

    So here we are on a sphere, circling a sphere of burning hydrogen etc., that one day, like ourselves, will burn no more. Yet, we delude ourselves in the folly of absolute ownership, even of truth! We think that if we can "kill" all our "enemies", we can then claim that we are "winners". Win what? There are never, under any circumstances, any winners in war; for war is an ongoing polar struggle, for whatever purpose it serves, between the collective human ego, and the One Self! How long are we going to be mystified by all that it is in plain sight?

    Posted by: DofG | June 13, 2008 12:18 AM

    Success in the middle east, to me, is finding and capturing Osama Bin Laden, who, of course, is probably in Saudi Arabia
    laughing his rear end off as we wander aimlessly around Afghanistan looking for him. I shudder to think how history is going to judge the goings on of the past 8 years and pray every day that our country can survive this. We are bankrupting ourselves, watching jobs hemorrhage from our country, witnessing the collapse of our currency, watching our children's children's future going down the drain, while supposedly patriotic companies have left our shores, enabled by supposedly patriotic business people. I think by November we will be running full blast to the polling places to vote out the republicans for the mess they have left. Don't waste another minute beating up Obama,his wife, his color, his lack of experience, or anything else about him. He will win by default , because the republicans have mortgaged our future, and we should all be praying that he is successful, for our grandchildren's sake.

    Posted by: patm | June 13, 2008 12:20 AM

    $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 + $527,0000,000 = $52,700,000,000

    that is one tenth of what this war has cost us so far. i'm sorry if i've miscalculated the total, it's so easy to lose a few billion here or there. i hope the troops will be given the best care we can provide for them once they are back home.

    Posted by: followthemoney | June 13, 2008 12:36 AM

    Its a good time to disband the army for good, these wars on terror are a joke and a waste of time and human life. The only role for the army in the modern nuclear age are policing quagmires, and personally I think average cops could do a much better job at that, especially where it really counts, here at home!

    Posted by: Alex | June 13, 2008 12:40 AM

    Whatever happened to Adm. Mullen's reminder to stay apolitical?

    I'm sure it only holds jurisdiction in situations that can only hurt the GOP. As a member of the E-4 mafia and Iraq Veterens against the War, I can whole heartedly say Mr.Hooah is some desk jockey spreading propoganda via keyboard, not an actual soldier.

    Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2008 12:41 AM

    One question please. How does one justify the deaths of over 480,000 women and children, non combatants and only 10 to 15,000 at most US and Al Queda combatants combined? How can anything, no matter wether you are a leftist or rightist, republican or democrat justify the blood of almost half a million innocents. We are currently an immoral nation in the eyes of the world.
    I would ask you to consider the real possibility that like Iraq and as our powers decline through continued mismanagement and greed by our so unpatriotic obscenely rich profiteers, we are seen as a threat to the world with our WMD's by some rising super power, and we are invaded to liberate us from our "evil government" and we suffered the casualties that Iraq has suffered, the deprivation, the terror, of losing everything, ones family, friends. Would you thank the invaders? And even if they did leave eventually leaving you bombed out, destroyed, burying your dead, with the long road ahead of rebuilding basic structures, detoxifying your environment, creating jobs, covering the basics at a primitive level.
    How would you feel? Grateful? How many deaths is Bush responsible for in waging this war? How many deaths Saddam?
    Between the two of them they have created more misery and death than all the death and suffering of Vietnam. Nobody ever wins a war. Everyone loses. So why continue?

    Posted by: Prema Rachel | June 13, 2008 12:44 AM

    Just a few facts:
    The drawdown of the nineties were instituted by the first Bush administration under then SecDef Dick Cheney. So Butler71 you're full of it.
    Second, being an army brat doesn't entitle you to be some expert on military affairs.
    I find this type of behavior typical of the military. As a member of the Army, you find many instances where there is considerable right-wing propoganda being spouted from various PAO and IO mouths. The ironic thing that I have noticed is that there has been a considerable re-enforcement of Article 88 of the UCMJ which basically says that you cannot criticize the chain of command or the commander-in-chief. You see these commercials all over Armed Forces Radio and Televise Service outlets. I rarely if ever saw these commercials during the Clinton Adminstration. It is extremely important for the military to stay apolitical, but it is plagued with right-wing mouthpieces and functionaries on both civilian and military sides. I see it all the time

    Posted by: gwot vet | June 13, 2008 12:46 AM

    It is against military regulations and policy to say anything disparaging against the government and it's policy while in uniform. It is refreshing to know that they are aloud to criticize opposing political views to the government while in uniform and on my dime. I can guarantee that there isn't ONE WORD against the Bush administration in these military newsletters. So much for the free speech and democracy our troops are fighting for in other countries, we can't even get it in our own.

    Posted by: Yoli | June 13, 2008 12:58 AM

    in every military facility hosiptal, gym, or commissionary (grocery store) fox news is playing on all tvs... trust me it is.. one or two may be turned to local news or other channels but a majority 99 percent of the time i have had my teeth cleaned, hospital check up or just grocery shopping fox news has been playing. thats clear bias.

    Posted by: Ericka daughter of two military parents | June 13, 2008 1:02 AM

    Dear 'Claire',
    Your use of 'phenomenon' caught my attention. It really doesn't make any sense in your sentence. In addition to the question of whether or not you have ever read Mr. Obama's speeches and know what he is saying on Iraq, have you read over your letters before posting them?

    "Milblogs are phenomenon to this time and era, and leaders need to know what they are about."

    I am noticing this particularly lately because I have heard or seen media people use this word wrongly twice in this week alone. I think you might mean phenomena, the plural? The sentence structure is still awkward and you may want to take another look at it for clariy for your readers. Maybe you meant 'A phenomenon'. And 'of' 'this time and this era'. (?)

    Anyway, phenomenon is the singular form and phenomena the plural, for all those who weren't exactly listening in English class or got mixed up along the way.

    Posted by: Claude Thibodeau | June 13, 2008 2:35 AM

    Hey ISEnglish
    Your rant filled with dis-proven and false info IS the reason the US armed forces answers to civilian authourity.
    The falsehoods you spout are a disgrace ... and you are a great example of why modern TV's have parental controlls. By the way ... is it time to take your meds?

    Posted by: GParks Castro Valley, CA | June 13, 2008 2:43 AM

    Obama is still talking pulling out.

    That would be surrender.

    If your over there fighting for your country.

    Our Servicemen and woman are disgusted with the home front.

    They think is unpatriotic for someone who wants to be President to run around Blaming, condemning and putting down the President of the United States, and setting an example for all others to do.

    They do not understand how Obama can continue to do that. Since The President is his boss. That if he truly wanted to be president He would at least respect the position of the President. If he ever becomes President will he want someone going around doing the same to him?

    Also with him blaming, condemning and bad mouthing the government. If he did not notice or does not know, he is government even as a Jr Senator. So in doing this he is saying it about himself and all other senators, congressman and others working in the government.

    They are perplexed as to how he gets away with it. Why not one has stopped him and let it go on for so long.

    I have 3 boys in the middle east right now.
    They are just amazed of the things going on here. One asked if all the other Senators and congressmen are afraid of him or something.

    My sons last email worried me, said he was going to sleep and he would pray for home.

    His thoughts and prays should be on being safe. That is sad.

    So if no one else will tell Him, I will

    Mr Obama If you do not have nothing nice to say about your president, don't say anything. If you do not have anything nice to say about the government which is all the people working for it, again do not say anything.

    Mr Obama Show some respect and honor.

    Posted by: seah | June 13, 2008 3:14 AM

    "How can you to expect a moral or neutral viewpoint from a group of people who kill as a career? This blog is the least of their offenses."

    Does WaPo think the comment above is appropriate? It was not moderated, so I am assuming you approve of it according to your own policy. Let me guess, you support the troops even if they "kill as a career". Give me a break.

    The military is not the only one showing their colors.

    Posted by: Claire | June 13, 2008 3:40 AM

    A clear message to the misinformed: There is NO war in Iraq. It is a military OCCUPATION, undifferentiated from Hitler's occupation of Poland, or of Czechoslovakia, of France, of Belgium or of the Netherlands. And there is absolutely no way to WIN what has been from the onset an ILLEGAL and ruthless occupation of a sovereign nation following an equally brutal and illegal invasion; an invasion and occupation which has so far killed approximately 1.5 million Iraqi civilians, whilst creating countless enemies whilst destroying most of the nation's culture, history and infrastructure in the process. Now we are confronted with the choice of either trying to continue the tragic folly of a futile and monumentally costly occupation indefinitely as the GOP proposes or to see plainly the handwriting on the wall and withdraw as expeditiously as possible while paying appropriate indemnity for loss of life and reparations for the re-establishment of destroyed infrastructure. In order to move our nation forward we must immediately begin by bringing the lying coward Bush and his accomplices in these supreme and nefarious crimes to justice. An orderly withdrawal can be achieved with the help of the United Nations along with the EU and regional powers INCLUDING Iran which will be called upon to help avert civil strife and anarchy during the time necessary for a provisional coalition government to attain the confidence and support of of all Iraqis; Kurd, Sunni and Shiite; support which at present the fascist Bush and his Maliki collaborationist puppet regime does not, nor will at any future moment be able to garner or maintain.

    Posted by: thislaptopdesignedtodestroyfascists | June 13, 2008 3:59 AM

    Yeah, this is typical Bush tactics. The longer he's in office, the more corrupt our government gets. Can't wait until Obama is our leader and we can go back to life with our constitution in tact.

    Posted by: NotSurprised | June 13, 2008 4:20 AM

    Your article is misleading. This is a mash-up of Army-Related.

    Emphasis on the related publications. These articles are written by right-wing racist organizations that more than likely base their opinion on little more than a hint of fact. I'd like to see the speech transcript where this was written.

    If you would've done your homework as a reporter you would've researched this speech they are referring too, also done a better job at identifying that these are not official army publications.

    For your information and others, the military is not allowed (BY LAW, mind you) to have any stance whatsoever on the political mindings of our great country. Our only job is to do what our leaders ask of us.

    The only opinion the military is allowed to express is thier opinion in the voting booths.

    Posted by: Jay | June 13, 2008 8:17 AM

    THE MILITARY, LIKE THE CHURCH, NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF POLITICS.Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    --Hermann Goering

    Posted by: captain dick | June 13, 2008 8:33 AM

    I served my time back when, and I don't care WHAT you call it, Obama has the right idea. We are not friggin Spartans, every battle is not a battle to the death, and retreat is not surrender.

    So it is pretty clear the Iraqis were not as glad to be rid of Saddam as we thought they would be. Or they were so glad to finally get a bite at the apple they all decided to grab the whole apple. Whatever. We tried to clean up the mess we caused, but like spoiled brats they refuse to do anything until forced. C'mon, FOUR YEARS to train Iraqi troops? My boot camp was six weeks!

    I refuse to accept the Iraqis are this stupid. The problem is that the decisions they make can cost them their careers and even their lives, so they make none, fritter away their time and money forever. To make the decisions they must be put in a position where they get screwed by NOT making a decision. The only way to do that is measured withdrawal and deadlines.

    That will probably increase civilian violence as their civil war erupts, but it is the pain of that violence in small battles that will force one side or the other to capitulate and end the civil war without genocide.

    I admit I didn't read the history until 2004, but check it out. These three cultures were NEVER meant to live together in harmony, they were jammed together by Saddam and now he's gone and they are going to revert to their distinct and separate ideologies. The violence that forced them together is going to replay itself in separating them. Period. That is inevitable, but we don't have to be in the damn middle of it.

    Our job is protect AMERICA, not the world. It is not to spread democracy, it is not to protect foreigners from each other, it is not to jump into a bar brawl between people we don't even know. Maybe those other tasks are worthwhile if they don't cost us too much, but crap, ten dead soldiers a week and thirty permanently maimed is too damn much.

    The truth is, the Iraqis WILL stand up when we stand down. Let THEM pay Blackwater mercenaries if that is what they need to maintain control. Obama will do the only responsible thing. We tried to help them get back on their feet and they fought us. This is their fault, not ours. It is the Iraqi goverment's constant safety plays that has made them parasites on America, and keeps us from doing our mission: Protect America and root out terrorism.

    Who cares what Iraq becomes? We made a fair 3 trillion dollar effort to set them up, they refused it. If they start hosting or funding terrorists or pursuing nuclear weapons or chemical weapons we will go back and kick their ass. Besides that, let them fight out their divide or hold it together, I don't care. Let them be ruled by Mullahs. We are not surrendering anything, we are terminating an aid program that is costing too much money, too many lives and limbs, and which we should realize right now has zero chance of ever working.

    Force is not the answer. Iraq needs Iraqi political heroes that risk and sometimes lose their lives for their followers (like our own founding fathers) and few will come forward without a power vacuum to step into (as our founding fathers had). With us in Iraq at full force there is no power vacuum at the top, and never will be, and you will be fighting until the nation is exhausted, the dollar is worthless (it is already down 50%) and we are in a depression and literally cannot afford to pay our military anymore. Then the real Al Qaeda will step in and start bombing a defenseless America. And thus the military, by an adventure in nation building, will have utterly failed in its first mission: Protect America. We call it the department of DEFENSE for a damn good reason, and it has not been doing its job for six long years.

    Posted by: Tony C. SA TX | June 13, 2008 8:50 AM

    The praetorian guard is starting to select the incoming emporer. I wonder what they'll do when Obama wins.

    Posted by: Greg | June 13, 2008 9:04 AM

    If I were not very cognizant of the strong bias in the military towards evangelical christianity and the massive efforts to suppress any notion of freedom of worship, I might consider this an aberration. The US military tends to demand conformity to a sick degree. I hope that some balance is maintained and the uberchristians are shown the door to go forth and prosyletise on someone else's tax dime, not mine. Lying on behalf of religion is just as wrong as lying against it. In our country it seems the right likes to be in the wrong.

    Posted by: Kal Pal | June 13, 2008 9:12 AM

    As a Veit Nam Vet - I'm really tired of the Military using MY TAX DOLLARS for their political purposes, namely to support the Republican Party.

    Soon we will be assembling a DEMOCRATIC MILITARY COUNTER PUNCH - How do you like them Apples - America if this is what you want just keep it up! Lock and loaded! we know a thing or two about guerilla war fare to.

    If you think this is over the top - Then for Chrissakes stop the politicalization!

    Posted by: RHfactor | June 13, 2008 9:27 AM

    The Army has no ethics, that should be completely obvious by now - whether it's lying to high schoolers in order to recruit them, lying to families of slain soldiers, or smearing Presidential candidates. No offense to the troops, but the people who run the Army are classless clueless jerk-offs.

    Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2008 9:46 AM

    The Iraqis want us out. We are losing in Afghanistan. We have not captured bin Laden. The Talaban is regaining strength. Why are we wasting the bulk of our resources on Iraq?

    I support Obama because he wants us out of Iraq and to end Pakistan's support of the Talaban and refuge for bin Laden.

    I want the troops out of Iraq, with better medical and educational benefits. Obama supports this too.

    Posted by: deb | June 13, 2008 9:47 AM

    the people in the army have the same right as all Americans. They have the freedom of speech to say anything they want about Obama. He is not their commander.

    Posted by: David | June 13, 2008 9:53 AM

    I thought our Armed Forces were supposed to be slightly neutral in a coming election. This must be emmiting from the now rotten to the core Pentagon under the vile Bush and Cheney.

    Posted by: Mary M. Mansour | June 13, 2008 10:00 AM

    Seah: "Obama is still talking pulling out.

    That would be surrender."

    Sometimes when one wants to win a war one has to accept defeat in a particular battle.

    And, can someone who holds with the above quote please answer the question: what is not "surrender"?

    Posted by: BRoberts | June 13, 2008 10:07 AM

    I read a few years ago the Military in general would not allow soldiers in Iraq and Afghan to read websites such as Wonkette. Where do they get off on restricting access to websites while spouting off partisan stuff on their own?

    Claire, honey deep done in your heart, do you want your son to go back for continued deployments for the life of his military career? Let's be honest, Iraq is not like Germany, Italy and Japan. You are never going to be able to live there like in these countries. You won't be able to bring your family with you and you know it. It will continue to be on alert with bombings and terror for the next 100 years, even if it is minimalized.

    The objective of our enemies is to keep us tied up and tired while wanning our supplies and economy. The way to defeat is thru our economy and any hairbrain can see that.

    Posted by: vix | June 13, 2008 10:26 AM

    A lot of blood sweat and tears has been spilled over in Iraq by people who care pretty deeply about success there.

    Where do I start with this comment? For one it's jaded. The myth of "we can't let them die in vain" clouds what's best for America. It's about what's best for our nation and only that not what blood we have left there should be the mission.

    Posted by: millionaire | June 13, 2008 10:38 AM

    I would generally advise that those promoting the notion that pulling out of Iraq is "surrender" better familiarize themselves with 20th century global history. Throughout the twentieth century, America and Great Britain have done so much to earn the ire of the Arab world that a Japan-style occupation or stationing of troops throughout the region is entirely counter-productive, and merely fuels violent (and justifiable) resistance.

    Any domestic regimes that emerge under the aegis of a Western occupation will be seen as a puppet regime. Fueling pan-Arab nationalism has lead to the conflation of the domestic agenda for the insurgents with the lofty "ideals" of religious extremists.

    Rather than dividing groups with divergent interests against each other, we have forcibly united them by dint of our botched occupation and the spurious logic behind our intervention.

    Regardless of whether or not we "win" in Iraq - whatever that means, since we successfully decapitated the ancien regime and obliterated their standing army - Iran's transformation of Iraq into a client state is all but certain. So what have we gained? A relatively weak regional hegemon with no peer competitors?

    It's this kind of myopia which is making America weak - an obsession with "winning" at all costs has turned the serious gravity and lasting impact of global conflict into a spectator sport, flanked by throngs of ill-informed boorish fans.

    What about a re-insurgent Russia, fueled by oil-wealth? What about a China growing its military budget by double-digit spending annually? What about a consolidating Europe that has begun to regard it's American ties as a vestige of the Cold War?

    Continuing our presence in Iraq "just to prove a point," with no real policy objectives or integration into a coherent grand strategy will bankrupt us, hasten the rise of actual competitor states, and leave us a bankrupted, bitter ex-superpower.

    When we were pitted against the Soviets, we wanted to prove that we were smarter, more compassionate, and true allies of freedom and justice.

    Now that we perceive ourselves as pitted against fanatics, we want to prove ourselves more fanatical. It's childlike, really.

    Posted by: grandstrategy | June 13, 2008 10:44 AM

    The nexus of politics and military has always been part of our political landscape. It's nothing new; the surprise is that you haven't gotten outraged until now. And, for those who do like the facts:

    It wasn't Democrats who "gutted the military." It was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney who "gutted the military." Cheney wanted to cut the number of US servicemembers by 27% but ended up settling for 20%. He cut the Army by 25%. The Air Force by 22%. From the Department of Defense's own Web site, in Dick Cheney's official bio as Sec/Def:

    "In subsequent years under Cheney the budgets proposed and the final outcomes followed patterns similar to the FY 1990 budget experience. Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office...."

    "Over Cheney's four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent."

    http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htm

    Posted by: Dick Cheney "Gutted" the Military | June 13, 2008 10:44 AM

    I was taught to put my hand over my heart with the Pledge of Alligence not the national anthem. I was born and raised in a red state so I am really confused here.

    Posted by: vix | June 13, 2008 11:08 AM

    This fits in nicely with the Christian right-wing effort to turn the good old US Army into the Army of God.

    I heard all the officer corps was being purged of non-believers and anyone else who doesn't adequately subscribe to the new code of religiosity, which the Bush regime has been so active in pushing throughout the ranks.

    And we criricize Muslims for being crazy fundamentalists?!!

    It would seem we have adopted the ways of our enemies.

    Posted by: thesuperclasssux | June 13, 2008 11:10 AM

    Of course Cheney gutted the military, it was Rumsfeld too. They only looked at the costs of retirees soaking up all that money and medicene and supplies (commissary). Rumsfeld even said why is he in the grocery business. They want the toys a military has to offer and the big budget so they and their friends can make money with contractors, but they don't want to give that money to the actual military memebers.

    Posted by: vix | June 13, 2008 11:13 AM

    Well buying off the mahdi army and the bathist sunni awakening counsels with cash and GUNS is whats "winning" in Iraq right now, not the surge.

    In ancient Rome they called that "tribute" not vicotry.

    Posted by: feckless | June 13, 2008 11:16 AM

    What other job does the military have other than to be used as what it's meant for, winning wars by usual method of killing the otherside. Sorry if you don't like it and you know what I'm a military wife, so I can possibly know wht it feels like.

    Posted by: vix | June 13, 2008 11:39 AM

    feckless, is that what Gen. Petraus did with all those guns he lost at the begining of the war?

    Posted by: ??? | June 13, 2008 11:40 AM

    When McCain was asked on NBC television - given the drop in Iraqi violence -- if he had a better estimate for when American forces could leave the country.

    "No, but that's not too important," McCain said. "What's important is casualties in Iraq.

    "Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. ... But the key to it is we don't want any more Americans in harm's way."

    The United States IS a party to more than 80 such bilateral agreements in countries where American forces are stationed, BUT its proposals for the Iraq accord far exceed the terms of any of the others.

    Signing the BUSH proposed status of forces agreement would mean that the Iraqi government had given up its sovereignty by its own consent. That's not spreading democracy. That's occupation.

    Maintaining 60 permanmnt bases, authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system, immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors, and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government, continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air. That sounds like the United States is preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

    And we're also supposed to forget a recent Pentagon audit disclosed $23 billion may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

    Both Bush and McCain seemed to have forgotten what Bush said in May 24, 2007.
    President Bush said if the Iraqi government were to ask the United States to leave Iraq, he would grant the request.

    "We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice,'' the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say leave, we would leave."

    They're asking us to leave. That's hardly surrender.

    Posted by: Informed | June 13, 2008 11:43 AM

    from zzim : "....A lot of blood sweat and tears has been spilled over in Iraq by people who care pretty deeply about success there. Obama swears to us all that he will not hesitate to throw that away. If he becomes president and follows through on his promise, he is going to deeply, deeply alienate the US military and the vast majority of their family members. These disgruntled troops will cause enormous problems for the leaders of the Army and the other services. It is critical that our military leaders keep an eye on this sort of thing."
    Like a doubletime HUH and SAY WHAT ? Obama has stated need for being more careful GETTING out than we were in our carelessnessings going IN !!! Seems ALL "WANT / WISH FOR" success, but few if any DEFINE "success" and certainly with no measurements that will lead to such !! Stying indefinitely is NOT THE BEST OPTION, and to want to get our military OUT of "harms way" and on missions that WILL assist and determine our national security is what our military is all about !!! To use them up in Iraq is reckless and disregards the purpose of the military ranks. It also abuses them needlessly , THEY perform and do THEIR duties, they follow the "orders" directed by the helmsmen who are SUPPOSE to oversight and properly strategize for the GOOD of ALL this nation..be it citizens or military rank/filers/fillers/etc. TO "stay" just because...well, none are any too sure WHY other than presently none want it appear as if it a "surrender" despite the continued losses in life, limb as well as p[ower and prestige of this homeland...we look like fools folks, foolish fools who thing FACE is saved by staying despite all the realities that point out the necessity of our exiting that country as our presence does but incentivize those who DO wish us greater harm and allow them to drain us dry and extraxt it. WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO STAY INDEFINITELY, that is an actual REALITY. We do NOT have the ability to AFFORD it , not in constant military forces, not in economic measures. (do ANY see a similarity as to what the USSR had in their conflictions with Afghanistan and how it "broke" them and led to THEIR demisement ? Similar to what WE are doing in Iraq presently, and just regander a look to our homeland and its present economic problema's and the continuing consequences of the failed policies the Bush/Cheney regime instigated !!!0

    Posted by: Boz | June 13, 2008 11:44 AM

    Here's who has the most to lose. The DOD and it's $300 billion dollar in excess spending budget for SAIC, Northrop Grumman, Booz Allen Hamilton, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Halliburton, Boeing, Bechtel and the Bush family-connected Carlyle Group, and the congressmen who are in their pockets.

    And McCain speaks about the need for fiscal responsibility for domestic programs on the campaign trail, when there is NO MORE PORK THAN IN THE PENTAGON? John McCain is the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committe.

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2008 11:55 AM

    this stuff smells of propaganda..
    Obama's defense is the most powerful
    weapon of all the truth and fair dealings.

    Posted by: sillywilly | June 13, 2008 1:09 PM

    Besides Ron Paul, Barack Obama has gotten the largest amount of donations from active military members. Seems the leadership is tone-deaf and still living in a Limbaugh-induced fantasy that all military folks are Republicans.


    Posted by: Maria | June 13, 2008 1:16 PM

    As the comments above show, active military have voted with their pocketbook overwhelmingly for the "surrender monkey" candidates. Is it any wonder that the current administration and their party have sought to marginalize the actual votes of these active service members serving overseas?
    Political operatives have succeeded in removing many service members from the voting rolls through a residency challenge. They target service members registered to the opposition party by sending letters to their stateside address that can not be forwarded to their overseas post. The returned letter is used as "proof" that the service member is not a resident of their address on their voter registration and the operative requests that they be removed from the voting rolls.
    This technique was used very successfully in Florida over the last several federal election cycles and has resulted in tens of thousand disenfranchized active duty voters serving overseas.
    If you are active duty, please confirm with your home state election board that you are indeed still registered.

    Posted by: teknikAL | June 13, 2008 1:56 PM

    I for one, being ex-military, am working hard to educate my daughter in a way that allows her the choice to enter the military or not. Many poor decisions as a young person forced me into service and left me with few options as a civilian afterwards. McCain's vote against giving GI benefits to Iraq vets is a classic example of how the Govt refuses to stand behind (support) our troops, and I hope all vets see him for the back stabber he is.

    Posted by: 3Gs | June 13, 2008 2:20 PM

    I wouldn't get too worked up about any of this. The fact is when Mr Obama takes control of the American Presidency these people like this blogger will be dealt with in short order and no doubt receive the punishment they deserve in a rational and just manner.

    Posted by: AbuBakerSmith | June 13, 2008 2:58 PM

    Two thoughts...

    I would love to see where people are getting these numbers for our planned future presence in Iraq. 40, 58, 35 bases...What tripe. Consult a map or talk to someone who's actually been there before you regurgitate this garbage. There's no chance we'd have more than four or five enduring locations, if that. (Baghdad, Al Asad, Mosul, Tallil, and Balad come to mind).

    Perhaps some of you could take a moment to listen to those who have actually DONE something here in Iraq and, who knows, base your opinion on truth and not your chronic mind-melting BDS. It is so juvenile to refuse to admit progress because it doesn't fit your talking points.

    Posted by: SJD | June 13, 2008 3:03 PM

    I hope that when obama,become pres. that he put gen.Honore chairman of the joint chiefs! I meet this leader at the custer hill parade field at ft.riley ks. in the 70's shorttly after coming back fron nam, then I see's this comander again after katrina, doing the same thing performing hands on leadership, the type of leadership, that Patton would be proud of we have to get Bin Laden, so that we can have real power with the emergeing armies/navies like china.and when will we demand that Mclame release his top nva.films because it will come out,even if we petition the Govt. of north vietnam so same us the time and effort and be transparent. i'm just an ole grunt, that was taught that as an american fighting man
    never surrender without A fight,and always try to escape, that is your primary general order, and Mr. Mclame I think that you are really a KING RAT, and A ZERO, no Heroe. CHANGE! CHANGE! (08)

    Posted by: Hannity | June 13, 2008 3:19 PM

    I am Sick of this omnipresent PROPAGANDA!!!

    These military officials who get PAID to misinform our citizens and destroy our democracy are TRAITORS!!!

    Posted by: Sick of PROPAGANDA! | June 13, 2008 4:19 PM

    I hear words such as "winning, surrender" etc and can't really figure out what they're talking about. We invaded Iraq who was not our enemy, had not made any threat to attack us and who, it turns out had little means to attack even its neighbor. How do we consider winning? Obviously they can't defeat us unless and until we can no longer borrow the money to keep military and equipment there. Surrender---to whom. All we have to do is walk away so there is no such thing as "surrending" in Iraq.
    Meanwhile we provide wealth to the industrial complex, provide a means for our oil companies to get their contracts with the Iraqis (giving Iraq the usual
    13% and putting the other percent into their pockets). That makes those "haves and have mores" which Bush claimed was his base very rich and very happy. Plus the army is voluntary so we have a disposable military to send wherever and whenever one man decides....like pawns in a game of chess.
    So perhaps someone might actually look at what they're saying and stop trying to win arguments with slogans.

    Posted by: Elisabeth | June 13, 2008 7:35 PM

    SJD: "I would love to see where people are getting these numbers for our planned future presence in Iraq. 40, 58, 35 bases...What tripe."

    The Iraqis say the U.S. wants 58 bases. The U.S. does not deny that.

    SJD: :There's no chance we'd have more than four or five enduring locations, if that. (Baghdad, Al Asad, Mosul, Tallil, and Balad come to mind)."

    Did that figure come to SJD in a dream? What tripe!

    Posted by: grandpaw | June 13, 2008 9:30 PM

    To finish the above. Iraqis say the U.S. wants 58 bases. How does the U.S. respond? Not be refuting the number, but by saying we don't want any permanent bases there. How long is permanent?

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 13, 2008 9:36 PM

    Soldiers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution... It just so happens that support of conservative politics goes hand in hand with this. To ask a soldier to accept or consider any of Baracks Commie policies is the same as asking him to violate his oath.

    Posted by: Kurtasaurus | June 13, 2008 9:57 PM

    Hey Steph, Bush served in the National Guard, AND, can you tell me where President Clinton served???????????.....He ran away overseas, to college, so he wouldn't have to be in the military, he loathed the military, he protested against the USA while overseas.....gee what a great guy.

    Posted by: Sandy | June 13, 2008 11:03 PM

    heh heh heh, if you believe the military is unbiased, I got a war I'd like to sell ya. heh heh heh

    Posted by: dubyabusch | June 13, 2008 11:43 PM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Has any one heard of the Apostasy of the children of Israel? Well then, history dose repeat it's self and we are, here in the U.s., in the same condition as they were then. That is without God, just look around and recognize
    the distruction that is happining here in this country
    as well as the enemy of this
    country is making life more difficult for our citizens.
    Therefore, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

    Posted by: Alvin | June 14, 2008 3:12 AM

    Seems the author believes in freedom of speech for everyone but the ones who defend that right.

    Posted by: Sarka | June 14, 2008 6:52 AM

    Just out of curiosity, what does everyone think of Maliki's US-propped government calling off negotations with the US for a continued presence in Iraq to the tune of more than 50 bases? Hmm, that's the elected, US-PROPPED UP government in Iraq telling us to get out now.

    Maybe if some of your folks who think the war over there is about "freedom," "liberty," and "democracy" would actually get past the Administration's spin and think a little more clearly about our motivations for being in Iraq, you might have a revelation about our mission there. Or more likely not.

    Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2008 7:45 AM

    # 1 statement a politician makes when running for any office... "WE TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR!" Not Obama nor McCain is electable without our Nation's constitution. Unfortunately Americans hsrdly if never paid attention to our country's documents. We should all be concerned to know what is replacing our constitution and stop our government from actions against the people and our country. Be very concerned as to what is still OWNED by Americans of this country. 42% of San Francisco and 21% of NYC is now owned by foreign investors. This is but the tip of the iceberg. Owners make the rules and by the way, foreignors have a different tax structure than Americans. So we can call America without America never changing its name. Iss this still our country? Better check the reality of this as the country's next president isn't going to be president of America. Check with AIPAC and other lobby groups.

    Posted by: Christine | June 14, 2008 8:47 AM

    When Obama becomes President is when the lowest of low slime merchants will begin their attacks and continue until he is removed as President.

    Have we not learned from when Bill Clinton became President?

    They will begin calling for IMPEACHMENT of Obama by the end of February 2009, on the smallest of missteps and mis-statements.

    By 2010 the Neocons will have duped all Americans into believing their smears and will take control of The House and Senate again.

    So if you naively believe that the smears will stop once he is President, you are sadly mistaken!
    They will NEVER stop until they reach their goal of completely destroying this country!

    Posted by: Arliss | June 14, 2008 11:39 AM

    Have you guys been on myspace to check political blogs and sites....I found an interesting one called troops against mccain. You can just google "myspace, troopsagainstmccain" and it will come up. Some rather interesting links and blogs from what appears to be a military member or veteran.

    Posted by: Victor | June 14, 2008 11:29 PM

    STAND TO has replaced the link. It now reads:

    Our deepest apologies for linking to a blog on June 10 by a military member's father that had political overtones. It is now removed from Tuesday's edition. The military and other government organizations are prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity. While the appearance of hyperlinks to external web sites does not constitute any form of endorsement by the U.S. Army, linked sites involving politics could be perceived as partisan. In the future, we will strive to avoid any appearance of political debate.

    For more information on political activity by federal employees, see the Hatch Act.

    Well done.

    Posted by: Capybara | June 15, 2008 1:28 PM

    "Would you expect anything less from a mercenary army of poor, uneducated, racist, baby-killers?"

    High calibre of readership here - NOT! If this poster had done even a small amount of research, they would have a far clearer knowledge of the ACTUAL demographics within today's military.

    "The fact is when Mr Obama takes control of the American Presidency these people like this blogger will be dealt with in short order and no doubt receive the punishment they deserve in a rational and just manner."

    Wooohooooooo.. yes - sic Obama on all the individual bloggers - we all are shaking in our boots - NOT!!! I wonder if any of you "people" commenting here would volunteer to "receive the punishment [YOU] deserve in and rational and just manner"..for exercising YOUR right to freedom of speech? I could presume that you hold to the line that unless we ALL speak in support of Obama, we will be "dealt with". Puleeeeeeeeze..give your head a shake.

    "...but I would hope they'd be fair and balanced and represent the thousands of military who DO support Senator Obama as well. This man doesn't speak for the U.S. Army. And if he thinks he does, someone needs to stand up and correct him."

    Let me stand up and correct YOU! YOU all apparently have trouble with reading skills. Mr Hooah has NEVER ever said he speaks for the US Army. He speaks for himself, a right enshrined, for him as well as you, in the Constitution.

    Neither Claire not Mr Hooah, nor any other milblogger for that matter, speaks FOR the US military, OR any politician. They speak for themselves - period.

    As is typical of you folks who cannot read, you foam at the mouth like rabid dogs, without doing your research. Oh, and by the way, to the poster who said career military people are misfits? You, also, need to do some research. Just sayin'.

    IF you had read Stand-To on a regular bais, as I have (and yes, I have been linked to by them numerous times myself), you would know that within the section called "What is being said in the blogs" has consistently highlighted links to all viewpoints on the spectrum. Yes "fair and balanced". ;)

    To the poster who hopes that Claire's son come "home in a box"?? You are a coward. Typical of the armchair critics, you spew venom like that, knowing that there are sites like this one that obviously support or condone such threats. The fact they allowed that, and other threatening comments to appear here, is supporting such obscenities. But hey, freedom of speech for you at least.

    Regardless of which political party or candidate you support, I suggest you do some real research before November. Maybe if you read more than just pieces like this one written solely to elicit the knee-jerk reaction you all gave right on cue, your vote might mean something. Oh wait, in the US, voter turnout is abysmal. Maybe you guys are too busy spewing bs on sites like this to go and accept your responsibility to vote intelligently.

    So much more I could say, but really you guys aren't worth my time.


    Posted by: tankerbrosbrat | June 15, 2008 10:31 PM

    Re:Arliss-
    I hate to be so pessimistic, but I do share your concerns, to a degree.

    The ruling by fear, being bludgeoned with patriotism if you don't drink their poison brew, the fact that asking questions and requesting accountability is considered seditious by these people.
    Making a mistake can be allowed, and we have made plenty. Bet no one remembers when we blew up the Chinese Embassy in Baghdad cause we had 'old' maps.
    Making a mistake and not recognizing and learning from it is our failure here.
    Afghanistan was justified, Iraq destabilized the area in a way that our withdrawal would be disastrous.
    You break it, you bought it. (Colin Powell)

    Posted by: RicksterInGulfport | June 16, 2008 1:26 AM

    The comments to this entry are closed.

     
     
    RSS Feed
    Subscribe to The Post

    © 2010 The Washington Post Company