US Military Prefers Bush

[IowaSkinsFan]

Men and women in the military favor President Bush 3 to 1, according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, despite reservations about troop strength and an exit strategy in Iraq.
A significant majority of those polled also believe the country is moving in the right direction and that Mr. Bush has better plan for success in Iraq than Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.

But, what do they know?

Source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041015-114351-8866r.htm)

[GibbsRules!]

I have preferred Bush for as long as I can remember. It's Dick that I can't stand! (and Dick's buddy Addington, too!)

[Skinzaholic]

Robert - why do our troops hate freedom?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Robert - why do our troops hate freedom?

For the same reason they love higher taxes and a government run health care system.

[Jimreaper007]

The simple fact that active duty soldiers cannot take part in that survey tells you how legitimate it is....

The bottom line is soldiers are trained not to complain and do their jobs regardless of who the CIC is. When I was on active duty I favored republican presidents too because they always gave me pay raises.

The older I got the more I realized that their are a lot more important things than pay raises. When I went to war in 2003 I realized that bad leadership can get these soldiers/kids killed. Ask a soldier under fire about pay raises versus someone sending him to war without the proper equipment.

No matter how much Bush tries to wrap his bull-crap up in the American Flag, it still stinks

That poll simply cannot be true or someone violated the law


Nice try righties......Now you're publicizing a poll that violates the UCMJ

[IowaSkinsFan]

The simple fact that active duty soldiers cannot take part in that survey tells you how legitimate it is....

The bottom line is soldiers are trained not to complain and do their jobs regardless of who the CIC is. When I was on active duty I favored republican presidents too because they always gave me pay raises.

The older I got the more I realized that their are a lot more important things than pay raises. When I went to war in 2003 I realized that bad leadership can get these soldiers/kids killed. Ask a soldier under fire about pay raises versus someone sending him to war without the proper equipment.

No matter how much Bush tries to wrap his bull-crap up in the American Flag, it still stinks

That poll simply cannot be true or someone violated the law

While I am not a member of the military, my cousin whom I talk to on almost a weekley basis, is. And he is unequivocal in his support, and so are his fellow military members by the way, of President Bush.

Did you know that the handgun that Saddam was carrying when he was pulled out of that hole now belongs to President Bush, or, at least, it was given to him? You know who gave it to him? The Soldiers who pulled Saddam out of that hole.

If you don't believe me, I can provide for you an email link to my cousin and he will give you a first hand account of what members of the US Army think about President Bush. That's my source.

[Skinzaholic]

The simple fact that active duty soldiers cannot take part in that survey tells you how legitimate it is....

The bottom line is soldiers are trained not to complain and do their jobs regardless of who the CIC is. When I was on active duty I favored republican presidents too because they always gave me pay raises.

The older I got the more I realized that their are a lot more important things than pay raises. When I went to war in 2003 I realized that bad leadership can get these soldiers/kids killed. Ask a soldier under fire about pay raises versus someone sending him to war without the proper equipment.

No matter how much Bush tries to wrap his bull-crap up in the American Flag, it still stinks

That poll simply cannot be true or someone violated the law


Grasping... grasping...

According to Winston Churchill - the average person is liberal when they are young (since they have no money and enjoy the government handouts) and then turn conservative when they mature (because they suddenly bristle at the idea of the government using their hard earned money to fund said programs).

During my time in service I dont think I ever met a soldier who didnt complain...

[Jimreaper007]

Don't get me wrong Iowa Skins Fan,


I do think that if you could actually poll the active duty military members who average in age of 18-25 they would be dramatically Pro-Bush.

If you could poll National Guardsmen and Reservist who average in age 25 - 35 you would probably get a drastically different result. The guard and reserve are the ones who left families and high paying jobs. They are the ones a little more seasoned and understand this war and the BIG PICTURE.

They are also the ones who are getting jerked around with activations and stop-loss policies which equate to a back door draft. The majority of the forces in theatre are guard and reservists so that poll is not to be taken seriously.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Don't get me wrong Iowa Skins Fan,

You can call me ISF for short. The other way is too time consuming.

[Jimreaper007]

Grasping... grasping...

According to Winston Churchill - the average person is liberal when they are young (since they have no money and enjoy the government handouts) and then turn conservative when they mature (because they suddenly bristle at the idea of the government using their hard earned money to fund said programs).

During my time in service I dont think I ever met a soldier who didnt complain...


Skinzaholic....yes soldiers still complain about everything, but if you remember it was about things like early morning formations, doing Physical Training everyday, inspections and getting off work late. That is what the average active duty soldier complains about.

Things are a lot more serious these days...

[Jimreaper007]

FYI:

Reservist/N. Guard soldiers make up the majority of forces in Iraq. Active duty soldiers were kept in other places around the world that we are committed (Korea, Bosnia,etc.)

The active duty divisions (82nd Airborne, 4th Infantry division,etc) was there for the war and then rotated out.

I do remember the 4th ID soldiers giving President Bush the Saddam Side Arm. Those soldiers were active duty.

HOWEVER,

I was in Afghanistan with the 5 Special Forces Group who was on the border of Pakistan when they were in hot pursuit of Saddam. I was there when they pulled all of their resources in order to go to Iraq. They lost Satellite time, they lost the 101st airborne and 10th mountain support and they lost the money they were paying the Northern alliance to keep the pressure on the Taliban hiding Bin Laden.

Basically the Special Forces Command down in Fort Bragg was PISSED at Bush because they had Osama and they were forced to let him escape into Pakistan.


I am sure that pistol ceremony for GW was very heart warming, but it does not make up for the HUGE BLUNDER of letting Saddam get away in order to find all those WMD's in Iraq. History will record that as a major F*ck up in military terms.

That is why Kerry is calling for an expansion of Special Forces because he would not make that mistake again. That is also why there are so many Generals, Admirals backing Kerry. They know military tactics and they know Bush f*cked up.

[GibbsRules!]

The hallmark of any totalitarian state: gaging criticism. It seems
to be alright for the Army College to criticize, in official
publication,
but god forbid a "simple" soldier in an unofficial publication give
their thoughts...

= = =

Soldier Investigated For Disloyalty After Criticizing Iraq Situation

An Army Reserve staff sergeant serving in Iraq may face up to 20 years
in prison after the publication of an article he wrote titled "Why We
Cannot Win" about the situation in Iraq.

The soldier, Al Lorenz, has told Salon.com that his commanders are
investigating whether the publication of the article constituted
disloyalty and insubordination.

If charges are filed, Salon reports the case could mark the first
disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War.

In his article that appeared on the site LewRockwell.com, Lorenz
wrote, "I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a
number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and
reality."

He then gave four key reasons for the likely failure: a refusal to
deal with reality, not understanding what motivates the enemy, an
overabundance of guerrilla fighters, and the enemy's shorter line of
supplies and communication. Lorenz has served in the military for over
20 years.

[GibbsRules!]

I couldn't agree with you more! If I was president, I would surely look to a bunch of civilians in the Pentagon to develop a war plan! What did Gen. Zinni know? He was only a Middle East envoy appointed by the Bush Administration! I know this is from CBS, but Fox had a more abbreviated version. Go figure!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

[Booser]

If you could poll National Guardsmen and Reservist who average in age 25 - 35 you would probably get a drastically different result. The guard and reserve are the ones who left families and high paying jobs. They are the ones a little more seasoned and understand this war and the BIG PICTURE.

They are also the ones who are getting jerked around with activations and stop-loss policies which equate to a back door draft. The majority of the forces in theatre are guard and reservists so that poll is not to be taken seriously.

I've got love for Jimreaper, but i would disagree with indignation about guard/reserve. it is an all-volunteer force; they could have separated at any time before the war. especially in the guard/reserve, where it is far easier to get out than from active duty. like i said in an earlier post, my uncle (a guardsman of 25 years) is complaining about his upcoming deployment... i don't want to hear that - he has been collecting a check for 25 years and now wants out rather than go to iraq.

also, last week we saw the latest numbers on troops in iraq - 43% are guard and reserve. clearly a large part of the force, but NOT a majority.

[RedskinsDave]

The simple fact that active duty soldiers cannot take part in that survey tells you how legitimate it is....

That poll simply cannot be true or someone violated the law

Nice try righties......Now you're publicizing a poll that violates the UCMJ

They did poll active duty members. Show me where in the UCMJ that prohibits participting in a poll.

[GibbsRules!]

Poll Shows Military Has Iraq Doubts
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap_on_re_us/military_poll

[Jimreaper007]

I've got love for Jimreaper, but i would disagree with indignation about guard/reserve. it is an all-volunteer force; they could have separated at any time before the war. especially in the guard/reserve, where it is far easier to get out than from active duty. like i said in an earlier post, my uncle (a guardsman of 25 years) is complaining about his upcoming deployment... i don't want to hear that - he has been collecting a check for 25 years and now wants out rather than go to iraq.

also, last week we saw the latest numbers on troops in iraq - 43% are guard and reserve. clearly a large part of the force, but NOT a majority.


Hey Booser,

Sorry we disagree...but those numbers on the troops in iraq vary with the rotation cycle. For example, if a large Active unit rotates out then Reserves may have the majority for 3 months until a large Guard unit rotates in.

If I am not mistaken....right now there is a large contingent of Guard about to deploy back to theatre from Fort Dix (I trained a bunch of them) leaving in about a week. When they get there, the majority will shift back to the guard/reserve.


I agree with you and I have no mercy for anyone who was collecting a check and is now whining because they have to go earn it.

Where we differ again is that the Reserves and National guard are being jerked around with rotations and stop loss. When a soldier does his/her time in theatre and they are made to stay past their ETS (Get out of the Army Date) or their retirement date then that is wrong.

Yes the Army is all volunteer, that should be even more of a reason to treat soldiers with diginity and respect after they have served their time in hell.

Unlike their active duty counterparts, the Reservists and Guardsmen have employers that they also are accountable to. Now if the reservist has a government job he is safe. The problem is if you work for a private company your job is safe unless the company does a RIF. Unfortunately because of this sh*t-box economy that is what a lot of companies are doing.

Example: There is one National Guard unit from West Virginia that had 110 soldiers victimized by a RIF because they were involuntarily extended. The private company counted on those guys coming home and they got screwed so they had to release those guys. They could only do it in a RIF action

That is what I am talking about....

Because of piss poor leadership and planning Reservists are losing Jobs and more...

The active Duty soldiers do not have that problem since they are employed by DOD.

[Jimreaper007]

Poll Shows Military Has Iraq Doubts
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap_on_re_us/military_poll


Now this poll I would believe because the families of soldiers do not fall under the UCMJ.

[Jimreaper007]

They did poll active duty members. Show me where in the UCMJ that prohibits participting in a poll.


In the initial entry contract that every soldiers signs at the MEPS Station before departing for Basic Training, it expressly forbids all servicemembers from participating in any political activities or joining any political groups. The contract goes on to give examples like Greenpeace etc. It says that any violation of these DOD regulations is subject to UCMJ action.


I know and remember this because I wanted to volunteer at the DNC while a soldier/student at GWU. I asked my commander who said it was ok, but he spoke to the Public Affairs Officer at the Military District Of Washington who said it was a big no-go. The Colonel showed me exactly where to find it in my contract.

[GibbsRules!]

They could probably use General Article 134. It encompasses almost everything.

[Jimreaper007]

Yes article 134 is the catch-all article

As an MP I found that one very handy as it is sort of the ethics catch all.

[RedskinsDave]

Wrong, there is nothing in 134 that covers answering some questions. Participating in a poll is not actively participating in politics. I fall under some of the same ethics rules so I know. For someone who clearly violates the UCMJ with your insults of the CiC while telling us you are a soldier, I'd think you'd know that.

[GibbsRules!]

U.S. Military
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 134—(Disloyal statements)
(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. Certain disloyal statements by military personnel may not constitute an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2385, 2387, and 2388, but may, under the circumstances, be punishable under this article. Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration.

[RedskinsDave]

Answering a poll in no way brings discredit to the armed services. As usual, Jim was wrong.

[Jimreaper007]

It is written to be a grey area article for a reason....

I know military law because I am a Military Policeman

RedskinsDave reviews security clearances for punctuation mistakes.....Just because you carry a badge for DSSA and review files, does not make you an expert on miltary law...



Case closed

[Axegrinder]

Are we going to have to take this outside again?:D

[Jimreaper007]

I'm done and moving on Axe grinder....

RedskinsDave thinks he is the expert on everything military and has not put on a uniform....

Please....

I guess he tells the pilots how to fly planes because he might have worked on the security clearance for a pilot.

Next RedskinsDave will perform heart and brain surgery because he worked on a Doctor's security clearance....

What's next RD?

[RedskinsDave]

No, you are a CBS gopher.

You have no idea what I do.

[Chief Seeway]

RedskinsDave you are right. The person who was told he couldn't go to a political convention was given some bum dope. Military personnel are restricted from wearing uniforms to such activities but they can still attend. Military personnel can participate in a poll as long as it does not violate DoD directives.

[Jimreaper007]

Judging by all your posts you do everything RD....

[Jimreaper007]

Ok, believe that if you want to.


I will say this though...When I was in processed at Fort Bragg with the 18th Airborne Corps last year. The Public Affairs Officer stood in front of a Theatre full of people and went over what we could and could not participate in.

She left very little room for interpretation.

Now if the rules have drastically changed since then I will admit I am wrong because unlike some, I bring no ego here.

I will say no more on the subject because it's obvious we disagree and I would rather not get into another pissing match.

[GibbsRules!]

for two years. Had plenty of opportunity to discuss the UCMJ with some NIS agents. Article 134 is very vague for a reason...

[RedskinsDave]

This is a very good article that sums up what can and cannot be done:

link (http://www.mccoy.army.mil/ReadingRoom/Triad/03102000/military%20political%20activities.htm)

[Chief Seeway]

The Public Affairs Officer stood in front of a Theatre full of people and went over what we could and could not participate in.

She left very little room for interpretation.

Now if the rules have drastically changed since then I will admit I am wrong because unlike some, I bring no ego here.

No rules have changed but it sounds like your PAO was practicing CYA or she was ignorant to the regs; not surprising, PAO isn't exactly a "career enhancing" collateral for JO's.

[Jimreaper007]

Thanks RedskinsDave,

I think these two apply to this thread....

10. Conduct a political opinion survey at the direction of or in support of a partisan political group.

I think this puts to rest the validity of that poll

12. Use contemptuous words against the president, vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, or the governor or legislature of any state or territory.

Although I am not currently on active duty I am walking a very fine line. From now on I will temper my words when it comes to the President and his cabinet.

Thanks again Redskins Dave for the good source

[RedskinsDave]

Exactly, they can answer a poll but they cannot conduct one themselves in support of one party or another.

[Jimreaper007]

I still disagree because the participation in the poll give the appearance of impropriety which brings other articles into play.

You have to remember that anything done to disrupt unit cohesion, dicipline or espirit de corps is grounds for UCMJ action. A unit commander can take action against any soldier if this becomes an issue. Considering most career officers do not want to risk any public scrutiny, commander generally err on the side of caution and "HIGHLY ENCOURAGE" their troops to shy away from such activities.


These rules are gray so that commanders can keep troops inline with the full weight of the UCMJ behind them. You have to think like a commander in order to fully understand the UCMJ..

If you have ever seen a court martial...you know what I am talking about.