Military propaganda ban is stupid!

[RoSquirts]

You ought to get a grip and a little , just a little perspective. What are you going to do after January when Bush is no longer there-who are you going to rant at then and meanwhile you miss understanding world events or even perhaps notice them

Anyone in office that''s fucks up even half as much as him. We're not allowed to criticize our leaders in the USA? I've been very political since about 1990 and I've criticized any Prez and party that screws stuff up when I felt it was warranted. I also put my money and my time behind the officials I believe in.
I write my representatives and let them know my viewpoint regularly. I vote regularly and as many times as I can,lol. I read the NY times, The Wall St. Journal daily, I watch FOX and CNN and read everything I can get my hands on online from all over the world and did this before Bush.

I think it's my privilege, duty and right to 'rant' about any government policies and institutions that I feel are doing the wrong thing, regardless of who the man in office is. I feel it's my privilege, duty and right to support what they do well, regardless of who the man in office is.

It's unfortunate that most of us don't. Maybe we'd have a government more of, for and by the people if we did.

 

[metalore]

This is to RoSqurts especially but also to everyone else...

My original post was meant to express frustration at Congress (the legislative branch) for attacking military commanders in lieu of the executive branch (the president and his military liasons). This has come in the form of persistently attempting to place blame on General Petraeus and passing the military propaganda bill. The propaganda bill I speak of is intended to prevent the military from espousing information that alters the public´s perception for political purposes. There is already an anti propaganda law, by the way, but this one is supposed to be even more strict.

The problem is that Congress is beating a lame horse. The military is taking orders from the executive branch (this includes the defense secretary, who is a liason for the president). Congress is accusing and threatening the military for carrying out orders, but Congress isn´t actually achieving anything. In the end the military is going to continue to take bad orders from the executive branch, and Congress isn´t doing a damned thing to stop that. It´s all smoke and mirrors. Maybe Congress just doesn´t have the power to stop the executive branch, but if that is the case then they should simply ADMIT IT (that´s how you get real change). Instead, they are using it as an opportunity to show off the power they do have to fool the American people into thinking they are solving the problem at hand, and NOBLE MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN, THE ONLY NOBLE PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT, SUFFER BECAUSE OF IT. It´s just continual corruption.

The executive branch is lying to the public about the war, and Congress is lying to the public about doing something about it. Two opposing sides. Both liars. And the good people are being blamed for it. The American people are fucked.

Do you guys know about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent who´s cover was blown BY THE GOVERNMENT because her husband made political remarks against the Bush adminstration? Her cover was blown purely out of vendetta against her family, AND THE LIVES OF SECRET AGENTS UNDER HER JURISDICTION (SHE WAS A SENIOR HUB WITH HER OWN RECRUITS) AROUND THE WORLD WERE PUT AT RISK AND PROBABLY DIED!!! The government doesn´t give a DAMN about the people doing the life or death work, nor do they give a DAMN about the 300 million American citizens whose lives were being protected by these agents! That´s fucking corruption for you. Just totally heinous. That is fucking TREASON punishable by nothing short of DEATH but what do you do when the President and/or (MAYBE the /or) his closest aides are the one´s commiting the treason?

 

[RoSquirts]

Metalore, I agree totally with that frustration. I do think you're losing a little perspective on it though. I don't think they're really going after the military commanders but the civilian leadership of the military. Remember, most of this stuff really occured under Rumsfeld's watch and under his direct orders. Rumsfeld, who was never held accountable by the executive branch for his many mistakes running the Pentagon. So far, thanks to public indifference and partisan politics, congress has not been able to hold the executive branch accountable for anything. It is frustrating.
All that being said, I don't think there's a need for a new law either. One way or another it's not going to be passed anyway.

And a side note to Will. I have lots of problems with Obama and can assure you that although he will get a honeymoon as any new president would, I'm going to be watching him closely. No one knows what he will really do, since speechmaking seems to be his only accomplishment to date. I gave Bush a 2 year honeymoon, so I can give Obama some time too though.

And I don't loathe Bush, I loathe his incompetency and ownership by corporations. Big difference. Most of all I loathe people that blindly defend him while Rome burns.

 

[metalore]

I agree Rumsfeld is probably responsible for much of the problems (though he is acting on behalf of the President). But you say they are "going after" Rumsfeld but then you say in the same paragraph that he was never held accountable. So they´ve never actually gotten a hold of him.

What I do know is that General Petraeus has had to defend himself against questioning from an angry Congress. Has Rumsfeld had to do the same?

Also, even if the propaganda law is intended to stop the "civilian leadership", it WON´T!! We´ve already established that Congress simply doesn´t have power over the executive branch. They can´t stop Bush´s Cabinet from doing what they do!

So what is the result of the propaganda law? If it has no enforceable effect on the civilian leadership, then the only people who could possibly suffer for it is the military. That is my point. It´s the creation of more scapegoats out of the people who put their lives at risk to protect the United States. Congress is spitting in their face even if that isn´t their intent (and it might be their intent).

 

[Subbie Joan]

Its your perfect right to rant. Go ahead. However, rational discussion with facts and rational opinion usually accomplishes more. But if you feel rants work for you, go ahead.

 

[Gohead]

Great Job Guys. Right now Gas is 4.45 a Gallon, People are going broke all over Who cares about the military propaganda, I am liberal and feel that if we never went to this war in Iraq and never had bush as president bending over for the oil industries that our economy would be alot better. Military has done enough it's time to stop fighting wars to defend Isreal and start taking care of the people of the United States.
That's how I feel.

 

[Bills Bush]

I am curious. I really like to know what you consider included among this 20% - "there is maybe 20% or less of his job he has done well" Actually very sincere in this. Like to see how other people view this disaster of a presidency.

 

[Subbie Joan]

Great Job Guys. Right now Gas is 4.45 a Gallon, People are going broke all over Who cares about the military propaganda, I am liberal and feel that if we never went to this war in Iraq and never had bush as president bending over for the oil industries that our economy would be alot better. Military has done enough it's time to stop fighting wars to defend Isreal and start taking care of the people of the United States.
That's how I feel.

Hey you might be right about "people going broke all over the place". I looked and see no figures to back that up. Unemployment is at 5% which historically is excellent. I would appreciate you giving me the source for your statement. From that statement sounds as though unemployment should be at 30% . Since you made the statement with such seeming certainty, please give me the sources. thank you.

 

[muleman]

Hey you might be right about "people going broke all over the place". I looked and see no figures to back that up. Unemployment is at 5% which historically is excellent. I would appreciate you giving me the source for your statement. From that statement sounds as though unemployment should be at 30% . Since you made the statement with such seeming certainty, please give me the sources. thank you.

Unemployment stats are bullshit. The reason being people that have been on it and there time frame has ended to be on benifits are no longer listed as unemployed they are dropped off this figure so you cannot say wwe have 5% unemployment it is totally a useless figure in the economy. Look at the inflation ratio between cost of living and income for people shit there is no middle class paying taxes much anymore you are either considered rich or poor. Look at the free lunches handed out in schools for children verses the students that do pay this economy sucks 1 in every 489 homes served papers on 1 in ten has past due house payments is it all the goverments or Bushes fault no some people live be on their means debt verses income isnt there as the old saying they want to drink scotch on a beer budget. As for unemployment why do you think Bush didnt extend the unemployment benifits because they expire they are off the record it doesn't look so bad then does it. Give the true facks of how many unemployed or underemployed in this country.

 

[missouri_hubby]

Fact is, the whole war's about energy... as in if it gets cut off, our economy tanks. So the solution is: Become energy independent, and TO HELL with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the rest of those worthless fucks. How do we do that? We drill like hell, we mine coal and turn it to oil, we build nuke plants and capitalize on the resources we have... while simultaneously working like the devil on next generation energy sources so that when the oil and coal give out... we're ready. Can't do it, you say? BULLSHIT. This country has never met a challenge it couldn't overcome if we had the balls to tackle it... and the government stayed the Hell out of the way.

And once we set our mind to do that... as far as I'm concerned we can unceremoniously pull out of Iraq and let them send themselves to Hell... which is what they'll do as soon as we're gone anyway. In fact, maybe we should give them a jump start by turning the whole region into a radioactive waste dump.

 

[CentralTXCPL]

Disaster...

I am curious. I really like to know what you consider included among this 20% - "there is maybe 20% or less of his job he has done well" Actually very sincere in this. Like to see how other people view this disaster of a presidency.

"Disaster"???....watching MSNBC and CNN, I see. Hmm, let's see.....we were attacked without warning, so we defended ourselves (Afghanistan)...and still kicking ass. Unemployment is around 5% which is about the norm for almost all industrialized economies/countries throughout the past 100 years. Stocks are down, but no "crash". A couple thousand Border Patrol agents have been hired to enforce the US/MEX border. National crime stats remain at/or below "norms" and/or at least is not out of control. No "race riots" or burning cities. Well, it does appear that after the Dems won the mid-terms in 2006 we now find ourselves with a "slowing economy"....but wait, it couldn't be THEIR fault. Hmmmm, let's see...what else....oh, Iraq....

I didn't agree with going into Iraq, but we're there now so we need to finish the job. I've been there twice and I speak with experience. The "Surge" worked, PERIOD. Believe the liberal media if you wish, but violence is down throughout Iraq. Funny how people throw the number of American KIAs (over 4 thousand) in Iraq in five years and say "Look, we're loosing". Bullshit. We lost about 2,400 at Pearl Harbor and another 2,500-3,000 at Normandy...those are two DAYS in a war we won... It's tragic that even ONE American dies in combat, but wake up. War is brutal and so was 9/11. We will never know how Bush would have done in office or if he would have served a second term if war wasn't brought to our doorstep. Iraq was a bad call based on bad intelligence, but not a disaster.

******You can stop here if you want. That's my short response*********

Anyone remember what happened on that cold, blustery day in 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office? After Carter whimpishly stood by for 440+ days when Iran took our Embassy personnel? Hint: The Iranian cowards put our hostages on a plane before Tehran felt thermal nuclear warmth.

Clinton had three or four chances to get Osama and didn't do it. Nothing of significance happened after the first WTC bombing in 1993. Nothing happened after the attack on Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Airmen and wounding over 120 in 1997. Nothing happened after our two Embassies in Africa were bombed in 1998. Nothing happened after the USS Cole was bombed killing 17 sailors in 2000. Only AFTER 9/11 did we STOP further attacks on US interests/civilians on our soil around the world. (Any of this starting to make sense?...if so, do the north/south nod).

We live in a world where radical ideological people fly planes into buildings and cut off the heads of those who "believe in the wrong God". They only understand one thing and it sure isn't "negotiating". Don't get me wrong, war is tragic and horrible....been there, done that. I too, want our troops home, but not until the job is finished.

Our economy was far worse under Carter when we had hyper-inflation, interest rates above 14%, and stag-flation all within four years. Hmmmm...that WASN'T a disaster?....Not to mention he gave up our control of the Panama Canal (effective 2000) which is why the Chinese now have a heavy influence over it today. Ya might want to think about their threat to our economy and national security if they decide to shut it down...hmmmm... (and don't think we wouldn't put up a fight over THAT piece of ground).

Call W's presidency a "disaster" if you will...TJ and the Founding Fathers never said Free Speech has to be intelligent (TJ=Thomas Jefferson). I am NOT a Republican and I do NOT agree with 100% or even 50% of what's gone on in the White House the past two terms, so I'm not saying Bush is "Da Man". However, don't be fooled by words like hope and change especially when they are not backed with experience.

A disaster is 15-20% unemployment, tens of thousands of dead Americans in combat, two or more "9/11s" with over ten thousand US civilians killed, $7p/gallon gas, $4p/gallon milk and bread lines.

Choose your words carefully given the circumstances Bush found himself after only eight months into his first term.

 

[Luv2Watch]

Everyone has Oppinion

No one had problem with going into Afghanistan. It was when little Bush invaded Iraq to finish up what daddy Bush started and should have finished when he had the chance to.

President Bush (present one) lied to the nation about his invasion of Iraq. That lie has cause thousands of deaths of American soldiers and civilians. This is nothing but another Vietnam and nothing more. It is a war on oil, which by the way, we are not getting any breaks on. The oil cartel just thumbed their noses at Bushes request to produce more to bring prices down.

Our presences in Iraq is having the same effect as it did in Vietnam and it will end up with the same results. Death and pain.

My big question is if President Bush hadn't stole the election from Gore would 9-11 still happened.

I support our troops. I do not support the war. And I served in the Army for 13 years with 2 tours overseas.

 

[whitesubhubby]

As a vetnam vet I can say first hand that war is hell. It should not be taken lightly by any one. The reason that George W went to war is all about oil. He takes war lightly because he has never been in one. George Sr. has been in war and he knows the horrors or war. That is why when he went to Kuwait he did what he had to and got the hell out.

Until one has been in war they cannot fathom what war really is. So to all of you that have never been in war. You can have an opinion but that is all it is, an opinion.

Also wars are political, always have been and always will be. All wars have been fought over greed, plain and simple.

If politicians would let the generals fight the wars they would be over quickly.

Just my 2 cents

 

[vtjames742]

You guys are so far off it isnt even funny but I wont waste my time educating you about the errors in your logic

(except letting the generals run war- that just good sense)

 

[Josetta]

Let the Generals play marbles, the winner to shout a beer to the loser.

On Christmas Day in the First World War, both sides ran up a white Truce Flag in France.
Both sides had Christmas Day lunch together, then went back to their trenches, took down the flags and started firing bullets at each other. When too many were wounded or killed, truce flags were often run up long enough to allow the wounded and dead to be moved out of the area. I guess there was a Code of Decency prevailing at times.

First World War started because a member of Royalty got killed. What a stupid reason.