Bush admin attacks troops and reporter that gave them a platform
Some of you may have read the stories coming out of Iraq quoting the troops as saying they are unhappy with the Bush admin, want to come home and even asking for Rumsfeld's resignation. Stories like this one:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/4757366.htm
Well, check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul17.html
Jeffrey Kofman did one of these stories that aired on ABC Tuesday night and included interviews with troops saying they were demoralized and question the credibility of those that sent them in to fight.
What did the White House do? Nothing less than call Matt Drudge and alerted him that *gasp* Kofman is a gay canadian.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul17.html
Oh, but that's not all.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/N...rticle01.shtml
The message is clear. While the Bush admin continues to lie by saying troop moral is up, they are at the same time using underhanded and bigoted tactics to undermine the troops' voices.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/4757366.htm
Well, check this out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul17.html
Jeffrey Kofman did one of these stories that aired on ABC Tuesday night and included interviews with troops saying they were demoralized and question the credibility of those that sent them in to fight.
What did the White House do? Nothing less than call Matt Drudge and alerted him that *gasp* Kofman is a gay canadian.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jul17.html
Oh, but that's not all.
Quote:
The new commander of the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq warned Wednesday, July 16, that any soldier who criticized U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would face ?possible verbal reprimand or something more stringent? from his commanders, as he admitted that these troops face ?guerrilla? war in Iraq.
The new commander of the U.S. occupation forces in Iraq warned Wednesday, July 16, that any soldier who criticized U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would face ?possible verbal reprimand or something more stringent? from his commanders, as he admitted that these troops face ?guerrilla? war in Iraq.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/N...rticle01.shtml
The message is clear. While the Bush admin continues to lie by saying troop moral is up, they are at the same time using underhanded and bigoted tactics to undermine the troops' voices.
Comments
Several Americans: "You didn´t experience 911 so please shut up okay?"
American: "this war is wrong"
Other americans: "BAD AMERICAN. Don´t criticise while our troops are in a war. Its un patriotic towards our soldiers"
Soldiers: "This war is wrong"
So whats the answer this time?
Originally posted by 709
Government: BAD SOLDIERS! Shut up and kill like we pay you to do.
Although this was meant mostly in jest, it is very much the truth. The men and women in our armed forces have accepted the responsibility and the burden bestowed upon them. They carry out acts of aggression which is supposedly in the best interest of our country, because we the people are supposed to trust our democratically elected leaders to act in our best interest.
But part of a soldier's job is to maintain a little discipline and respect and follow orders. They're not really being paid to think, but they are free to do that on their own time. Openly criticizing your CO, Commander In Chief, or the Secretary of State is... well, quite frankly, these soldiers should know better, and they deserve the reprimand they get. Whether what they are doing in Iraq is right is not and should not be of their concern. This keeps the military functioning properly, folks.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be interested in seeing the law/regulation that troops can't criticize their commanders.
As far as the Bush administration is concerned, it's called the Third Commandment.
this is good reading.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i can tell you have no clue about military protocol.
I can tell you completely missed the points, and superkarate monkeydeathcar showed that your cockiness is out of line in the one thing you did latch onto. But hey, being dead wrong is your specialty.
As for the points that some of you so pitifully missed, not only is the Bush admin lying, they also are willing to use bigotted underhanded tactics in an attempt to discredit those that let the truth out (and this example is mild).
As for what these troops have been saying, I'm curious whether folks like scott and SDW think they are 'anti-american'.
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
It turns out that O'Dell was wise in his choice of targets as well. For if he had "behaved with disrespect" toward a superior commissioned or non-commissioned officer - from Gen. Tommy Franks down to his own platoon sergeant,. he could have been subject to court martial under Articles 89 and 91 of the UCMJ. These articles apply to all soldiers, including enlisted men and women. But the civilian officials who are specifically protected from criticism in Article 88, including the Secretary of Defense, are not mentioned in Articles 89 and 91.
again, that would qualify as military proticol in my book.
sure, he can complain and not get in trouble legally, but in reality odds are he's going to find his life just got a lot rougher.
Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, he can complain and not get in trouble legally, but in reality odds are he's going to find his life just got a lot rougher.
And isn't that just wonderful? Go team!
Oh , and rummy ain't a 'senior officer'. That's kind of the point.
Has everyone forgotten the Hersh article during the war quoting all sorts of generals basically saying rumsfeld was careless and impossible to work for.
Originally posted by giant
And isn't that just wonderful? Go team!
Again, this comment meant in jest, but you're absolutely right. This is wonderful, go team! The last thing you want in a combat zone are your troops questioning why they are there. It has the potential to demoralize the soldiers, and also shows a lack of respect and faith in your superior officers. That is not only demoralizing, but dangerous. This is how people can get killed.
As far as the soldier is concerned, they swore to uphold the orders of, as much as they may not like it at times, the President of the United States, among others. All they need to know and worry about are the orders they have received. This keeps a unit functioning efficiently. It's not a soldier's job to think and question orders. If they wanted to do that, they should have gone into another line of work.
So yes, actually, this is just wonderful. I for one am quite glad the military enforces discipline in its soldiers and expects them and trains them to not question orders. Again, these soldiers should have known damn well what they were signing up for. Being in the military strips you of a lot of free will. You sacrifice that to serve your country, and if you can't "play ball" as it were, there are ways to get out of the game.
Originally posted by alcimedes
sure, he can complain and not get in trouble legally, but in reality odds are he's going to find his life just got a lot rougher.
Does this mean you're recanting your original criticism?
EDIT: Added the smilies.
Of course soldiers' opinions on these matters are very important [in terms of the rest of us knowing exactly what's happening on the front], but this individual went about it in completely the wrong way. He deserves to get knocked down a rank, period.
Originally posted by Moogs
He deserves to get knocked down a rank, period.
what's lower than Private?
but if he thought his current assignment was tough, add latrine duty.
Originally posted by Moogs
If you're a soldier, you don't openly criticize the Secretary of Defense and then expect there to be no repercussions. That's just retarded.
Of course soldiers' opinions on these matters are very important [in terms of the rest of us knowing exactly what's happening on the front], but this individual went about it in completely the wrong way. He deserves to get knocked down a rank, period.
and you must not have read the item i linked above. if every time a soldier bitched about his superiors, they'd be holding field court-martials 24/7.
my wife's cousin has been over almost a year now (he's a sergeant, i think) and they've now told him and his unit that they'd be rotated home three separate times, and on the third time instead of going home they were moved to a hot zone in southern iraq (i can't remember the city, my wife will remember) where they're getting shot at periodically. gee wonder why moral is low. i think his comment was "he would be much happier staying if they just would quit telling them they were going home."
edit: the city is fallujah and it's west of baghdad. another soldier was killed there today
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
and you must not have read the item i linked above. if every time a soldier bitched about his superiors, they'd be holding field court-martials 24/7.
[/URL] [/B]
It's not bitching about their superiors, that is totally different. They openly questioned superiors through a very, very public means. They can bitch all they want, but you start doing it to reporters on the record, and it becomes a problem.
I'm sure morale is lower than it should be, but it can definitely get lower, and these soldiers mentioned in it are contributing to it.