Yet another meaning for "Army of One".

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.

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

I may have missed your answer in your response.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"Mission accomplished."?

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

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.

//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.

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.

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????

"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?

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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...

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.

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.

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!

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

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

The desperation of the chicken hawks is quite entertaining.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

"Too bad neutrality in journalism is obviously dead."

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!!!

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.

".....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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!!!!!!

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?

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.

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.

cantrevealname.....alias Karl Rove

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

A: The Republican nominee for President.

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?

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?

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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...".

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.

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.

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 !

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,,

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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

(poor dumb bast**ds)

Neanderthals

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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 !

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!

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.

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?

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.

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?

civilian authority is the key here

civilian

if you want to run the country, run for office

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Army of IQ of 1.

-Wexler

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.

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.

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 nec