Bush loses ground with military families - Page 2

cnredd · #11 (**permalink**) 12-16-2007, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I found the conclusion poignant.

Over the centuries, restrictions on the accessibility of military
information during war time have changed. Such changes are necessary due
to various intervening factors, such as increased weapons capabilities,
better computer technology, and speedier communication devices. When
changes occur, the government and military’s policies regarding
restrictions on a soldier’s right to speech must be adapted to balance
competing interests.
There is a delicate balance between protecting military interests and a
soldier’s right to freedom of speech. Interests of the military, including
protecting national security, promoting order and discipline within the
military, and safeguarding military secrets must be balanced with a
soldier’s right to tell his or her story and the public’s right to know the truth
about the war on terror. The government should not be allowed to restrict a
soldier’s right to tell his or her story because it is unfavorable to
continuation of the war or the administration’s policies. Such restrictions
not only violate the soldier’s right to free speech, they also limit the
public’s access to information received directly from active participants in
the war.

Did you even bother to read any of it?
Or did you like the title, so you threw it at me?

Considering your quick response, it looks like you skimmed to find a sentence you agree with and throw the rest away...

In there was an example which correlates with my earlier hypothetical...

Quote:

U.S. Army Specialist Colby Buzzell, a Stryker Brigade gunner
formerly based in Mosul, Iraq, created a blog during his participation in the
most recent war with Iraq. Buzzell began writing a blog to escape the
boredom and monotony that he feels is ninety-nine percent of a soldier’s
life in a war zone; however, the blog also addressed situations where his
platoon came under fire. Buzzell’s blog recounting his time in Iraq
received much attention, especially his piece entitled “Men in Black,”
which recounted an insurgent ambush on his patrol.

In this new digital communication era, the military appears reluctant
to give up the traditional control they have maintained over information
released from the war front. When word about Buzzell’s blog reached his
battalion commander, Buzzell was ordered to clear all his blog postings
with his platoon sergeant because Buzzell had come “dangerously close to
violating operational security by mentioning that his unit had run low on
water during the hours-long firefight and describing some of the steps he
took to get more ammunition as the battle raged on.”

Buzzell emphasized that most responses to his blog were positive, and
he received emails from war veterans. Additionally, people with children in
the military found Buzzell’s blog as a source of information for what their
children were experiencing during their service in Iraq.

Now where can you show me examples of the president or anyone in the military intentinally closing down blogs because, as written in the link, "The government should not be allowed to restrict a soldier’s right to tell his or her story because it is unfavorable to continuation of the war or the administration’s policies."

Answer?...You can't...

The military can come out 700 ways 'til Tuesday explaining how a blog revealed (intentionally or not) locations, troopsize, or any other information detrimental to public knowledge (therefore, the enemy's knowledge), and the only response will be the SOP of saying "It's REALLY because Bush didn't like what was said!!!!!!"...

Right up there with the Republicans saying "We don't want illigal immigrants, adults, or middle class families that can afford health insurance to be included in the SCHIP program." and the Democrats running to the microphones yelling "Republicans hate the chiiiillllldddrrrreeennn."...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And predictably, absolutely NO definition of "combat" is given.
Meanwhile, I DID give a definition of combat, which has been steadily ongoing since the invasion of Iraq.

You capitalized "MAJOR" more than once...Unless you hve a definition for that in your back pocket, it's up for determination...

I don't consider an IED part of a MAJOR combat operation...Go through Google and look up the number of car bombs throughout the world...And not all of them are in places of war, therefore no MAJOR combat operations...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

What "hyperbole"?
YOU YOURSELF tried to claim water-boarding was not torture.

Never said that...

What I DID say was that in almost every case it is, but there is a very narrow window where it isn't...

Just like throwing a rock at a window and breaking it is vandalism in almost every case EXCEPT when trying to free someone from a fire...Then it's not vandalism anymore...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And again you avoid the issue.
Would you tell a military widow that her husband did not die in "combat"?
Or would that statement be something that you would avoid because of some word you used above...

If the IED exploded DURING some other operation, then I'd say it...

But if he/she was on a routine shift just traveling down the road and an IED went off, I would not say he/she died in combat...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Interesting.
You answered the question on when the major combat supposedly started up again, but avoided any qualification as to what would supposedly qualify as a lack of "major combat".

Again, that definition varies from person to person...You want the bar lowered to "any soldier within 40 miles" so it can fit your political position...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And considering Bush said that in May, his "heck of a good job Brownie" statement gives a whopping 5 months during which we were supposedly "not" in major combat.

One year and 5 months...the speech was in May, 2003...Fallujah was November, 2004...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Should I dig through the history to show you what happened in that time-frame?
Or is it all pointless because you won't give a definition for "major combat", ergo you'll just claim it wasn't "major" enough or "combat" enough?

see elsewhere above...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I'm amused you cut-and-paste around me using Merriam Webster's definition of "combat"...

Amused, but not surprised...

Your definition includes "controversy: conflict"...According to that logic, you can't name a country NOT in combat...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And once again, cnredd goes for the personal comments while ignoring the actual point of the comments made.

Consider it a sign of me getting fed up with having posts broken into 767 pieces so each response takes 45 minutes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

ROFLMAO!!!
Oh my gawd. That was funny.

Just out curiousity, do you think bin Laden gave back all the toys and $$$ we gave him for that "Soviet Union" thing?
Seriously!

So if I were to give a gun to somebody's kid, and they turned around and used it to mow down the school, I wouldn't be culpable at all....

What US weapons?...Are you telling me he left Afghanistan, went to Saudi Arabia, left Saudi arabia, went to the Sudan, left the Sudan, then went back to Afghanistan all the while having access to US weaponry?...I should start a Conspiracy forum for that comment alone...

Here's the scoop...

Quote:

Sudanese officials, whose government was under international sanctions, offered to expel Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1990s provided that the Saudis pardon him. The Saudis refused because they had already revoked his citizenship and would not accept him in their country. Consequently, in May 1996, under increasing pressure from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States, Sudan asked bin Laden to leave. Bin Laden was forced to make a distress sale of his assets in Sudan that left with almost nothing.

He returned to Afghanistan on a chartered plane and flew to Kabul before settling in Jalalabad after being invited by Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, leader of the Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan, a member of the Afghan Northern Alliance. After spending a few months in the border region hosted by local leaders, bin Laden forged a close relationship with some of the leaders of Afghanistan's new Taliban government, notably Mullah Mohammed Omar. Bin Laden supported the Taliban regime with financial and paramilitary assistance and, in 1997, he moved to Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold.

In Afghanistan, Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were able to raise some money from "donors from the days of the Soviet jihad," and from the Pakistan ISI which paid them to train militants for the fight against India in Kashmir. This was done at the old al-Qaeda camps in Khost which the ISI had persuaded the Taliban to return to al-Qaeda control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Okay. Riddle me this.

Shorthand for "Let's change the topic."...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

How many Iraqi people died in the five years BEFORE we invaded.
And how many Iraqi people have died in the five years AFTER we invaded?

When does war become a game of numbers?...

[quote=foundit66;10102]How much presence did al Qaeda have BEFORE we invaded Iraq?
And how much presence do they have there now.]/QUOTE]How much will they have if we leave?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And just out of curiousity, what could be worse than giving the guns and $$$ to the man who helped the planes fly into the WTC on 9-11???

What could be worse than marrying someone who eventually kills them?...Do you think they knew beforehand when they said "I do"?...

saltwn · #12 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 01:47 AM

I don't think GW is popular with any group at this point except is appointees.

cnredd · #13 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I don't think GW is popular with any group at this point except is appointees.

But here's the real question...

"How relevant is that to anything.?"...

My answer is "minimal at best"...

I don't want my president to make policy at the discretion of the mob...If that was the way things are to be done, then we wouldn't have a need for a president in the first place and evey executive decision would be made by ballot questions...

But that's not the way it works...Nor should it be...

saltwn · #14 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

But here's the real question...

"How relevant is that to anything.?"...

My answer is "minimal at best"...

I don't want my president to make policy at the discretion of the mob...If that was the way things are to be done, then we wouldn't have a need for a president in the first place and evey executive decision would be made by ballot questions...

But that's not the way it works...Nor should it be...

Yes, but there comes a point in time when a leader's effectiveness comes in to question. The world sees how unpopular he is and are reserving some actions, no doubt, till the election if they can.
The British have to go along with us to an extent, but they are about it.
I agree, Bush may have a clear goal and it may be an honorable one, but he failed to get that message across to the people.

cnredd · #15 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Yes, but there comes a point in time when a leader's effectiveness comes in to question. The world sees how unpopular he is and are reserving some actions, no doubt, till the election if they can.
The British have to go along with us to an extent, but they are about it.
I agree, Bush may have a clear goal and it may be an honorable one, but he failed to get that message across to the people.

That may be true, and if it is, then I'd STILL want a president who does the right thing but can't get the message across rather than have a president do the wrong thing but is charming enough to make the mob like it...

saltwn · #16 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

That may be true, and if it is, then I'd STILL want a president who does the right thing but can't get the message across rather than have a president do the wrong thing but is charming enough to make the mob like it...

Think about what you are saying. And then realize why die hard Carter fans don't have a clue.
He was honest and did the right thing in a lot of people's eyes. Look at his views on saving energy/driving efficient cars.
He may have been ahead of his time, but he needed to be timely or he was (and he was) an ineffective leader.
I hear people say all the time he was under appreciated.
Another way of saying it is some got it some ain't.

Whoever gets in the white house is going to realize there's more to this "pull out now" business than meets the eye. Let's hope that person is a more effective communicator.

Adept1 · #17 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 03:40 AM

I postulate to you that the lack of communication GW is accused of is actually the fault of an entirely hostile media that has done NOTHING BUT slam him for 8 years now(yes it started before he was elected the first time). When the president speaks or has a press conference or has his spokespeople talk to the media and give them the messages that they wish to convey to the people the media does not carry the message. They give forth with poorly informed slants of what was said usually emphasizing the wrong points and leaving out the truly main points. I always marvel that when I see "this administration" address the public, and I see it directly myself that my "take" on what was said NEVER agrees with the reporting of what was said. If you are ever personally involved in a news story I promise you that the media report will barely resemble what actually happened and have several details exactly wrong.
This is why I also marvel at why everyone says that GW is a poor communicator. His job is to be president. The media's job is to communicate. Who isn't doing their job?

saltwn · #18 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 03:59 AM

Bill Clinton gave a very informative interview to Arsenio Hall during the campaign. Bill even answered the "didn't inhale" question as well as gave a good indication of his beliefs about running the country.
The news headlines around the country showed him playing the saxophone on the show and that was it!

Yes, the person is responsible to get through
to the media so they can eventually get through to the American public.
Ronald Reagan knew this, F. Roosevelt, Lincoln...
Popularity is not everything, of course.
But look at it this way-a person may be a beautiful singer, but if their persona isn't promoted, then most people will never hear the music.

cnredd · #19 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

But look at it this way-a person may be a beautiful singer, but if their persona isn't promoted, then most people will never hear the music.

But you have to look at it the other way, too...

A person may be a beautiful singer, but if the media hates him and wants him to fail, most people will never hear the music no matter how much the promotion...

Mikeyy · #20 (**permalink**) 12-19-2007, 01:41 PM

I am from a military family. I actually have a son in now. Luckily he hasn't been sent in to battle yet. Many of us supported the administration after 9-11. It was our adventure in to Iraq and the mismanagement of that effort that has turned people against this administration.

I think its about time some of you face the facts that this POTUS has done poorly. And some folks will never face the music. Case closed.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/war-terror/890-bush-loses-ground-military-families.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Celebrities list :: Arsenio Hall :: News :: BoardReader	This thread	Refback	01-03-2008 01:49 PM
Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	12-13-2007 04:13 PM

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
Adept1

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
AlicornsPrayer, crazyflamingos