VENT: Ted Kennedy!

[VampHeartless]

Alright here is some information on how George Bush supports our military:

ARMY TIMES

Almost every item on the list...you have a willing congress wants to pass a benefit, which George Bush wants to disapprove. He's against concurrent receipt, wants to cap next years military pay raises at 2%, and wants to reduce our numbers even lower than the 1.4 million we have now.

I especially like the last line, "new forecasts show the federal budget, once close to being balanced, is back in the red, and the Bush administration has put a higher priority on tax cuts than increased defense spending."

As far as program cuts, well, they're trying to cut the B-1's by a third, get rid of an unquoted number of B-52 bombers, one of the most successful designs ever. Everyone knows about the Crusader system, and the Navy's Area Wide missle defense system. Not to mention the administration wants to get rid of heavy brigades entirely, all of which can be read about here.

Yes, you have to be wounded to get a purple star. Everyone knows that..."shot" was just me wording things wrong.

Also, from the manual of courts martial's explanation of article 88:

"It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article. Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged."

A list of things that can and can't be charged under article 88 is here

Now, how about we all stop worrying about the legality's of my opinions and more about debating the matters at hand. The "barracks lawyer" comment was VERY offensive. I'm a SSG who's been in for six years now, and I don't need people treating me like I'm some buck toothed PFC running around looking for a fight. I pride myself on being a damn fine NCO, and I don't need to be treated like a less mature person because of my liberal leanings.

So, once again, Ted Kennedy/John Kerry/George Bush is the matter at hand....not SSG Thompson. He's going to bed now.

 

[MICKEY88]

Ya'all can think I'm naive if you want, but I guarantee I've done and seen more in 23 years than you will in your entire lives

since this is a guarantee..let's here it......

 

[MICKEY88]

hmmmmmmm bush has hurt Military more than any other president...

No Patriot Here

For example, the Patriot missile was not improved during the Clinton years. The repeated pleas of U.S. military leaders that we needed some means to protect ourselves from the ballistic missile threat fell on deaf ears inside the Clinton White House.

Proposed upgrades to the Patriot were not tested, delayed or canceled by the Clinton administration in its feverish attempt to salvage the obsolete ABM treaty with the former Soviet Union. American national security came second to the wishes of Moscow.


The facts show that the Clinton administration traded and sold advanced U.S. military missile technology to China while denying funding to U.S. anti-missile systems that can counter the ballistic missile threat.



Era of Delay and Decay

The Clinton administration proposed that the B-1 bomber be retired early. The very same B-1 that recently dropped four 2,000-pound bombs on a bunker where Saddam may have been having dinner.

The Clinton administration delayed the Global Hawk, the Predator, the GPS-guided bomb systems and the Long Bow Apache, and wanted to trim the number of aircraft carriers down to eight.

Many of the weapons that the U.S. should be fielding now are still in development because of Clinton delays and under-funding.

The Clinton administration delayed the V-22 Osprey, F-22 Raptor, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Comanche attack helicopter. In addition, the U.S. military is still trying to make up critical shortages in the Milstar space communications program.

The Air Force, Navy and Marines are also scrambling to make up critical shortages in air-refueling tankers, frequently cut out of the Clinton budget requests.

During the Clinton years, the U.S. military had to cut valuable training, live-fire exercises and flight hours in order to meet demanding deployment funding spent in Haiti and Kosovo.

In fact, the U.S. Air Force had to turn to the United Arab Emirates in order to upgrade the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The UAE agreed to purchase advanced versions of the F-16 that the USAF could not afford. The UAE export funded further development of the F-16, which eventually made its way into the U.S. Air Force inventory.

Bill Clinton never helped the U.S. military and often hurt American national security

 

[Nancy]

Thanks for the link Mickey 88...interesting reading again.

 

[ripleysmom]

Mickey, that article, while interesting reading did not back up this statement....

"had Clinton not made some of the biggest military cuts in US history"

The article complains that there was no development done during his Presidency but where are the cutbacks? Also I'd be interested to know what years these cutbacks occurred.

 

[AirForceRocks]

A list of things that can and can't be charged under article 88 is here

Though it is pretty obvious that your reading skills are lacking, I'll try again.

You cannot be charged under Article 88. However, you can be charged under Article 92. Now, you can cry "political freedom" all you want, but calling the CINC a "genocidal maniac" is indeed contemptuous speech, and if you choose to continue to be in violation of DoD directives, that's certainly your choice. Just don't be surprised if you called on it. And when that happens, I hope you have something other than a blurb from about.com to aid in your defense.

The "barracks lawyer" comment was VERY offensive.

Too bad. If you are such a tough guy, it should just roll off your back. I'm not trying to show you up for the immature punk that you appear to be, I'm trying to keep you from doing something that could potentially ruin your career. And when you come back with such inanities as "only officers can be charged with contemptuous speech", that shows me that you are not only ill-informed yourself, but that you are getting advice from people that are also ill-informed. In other words, barracks lawyers.

and I don't need to be treated like a less mature person because of my liberal leanings.

I'm not treating you like a less mature person because of your liberal leanings, I'm trying to tell you that when you call the President of the United States a genocidal maniac and make accusations of AWOL against him, you are violating a DoD directive, and it could result in you being charged.

But hey, it's your life - if you want to possibly flush it down the toilet in order to show all the girls how big your **** is, be my guest.

 

[AirForceRocks]

The article complains that there was no development done during his Presidency but where are the cutbacks? Also I'd be interested to know what years these cutbacks occurred.

There was a huge personnel drawdown during President Clinton's administration, but he was simply carrying out the policy that was begun under the previous administration.

 

[DisneyMarine]

I'm a SSG who's been in for six years now, and I don't need people treating me like I'm some buck toothed PFC running around looking for a fight. I pride myself on being a damn fine NCO, and I don't need to be treated like a less mature person because of my liberal leanings.

I think it's your attitude that has rubbed people the wrong way. I for one have more than 13 years in, and that is with a break in service. I joined in '83 and can tell you that under democratic administrations we never got adequate funding for supplies, nor did we get new equipment. You have not been in long enough to experience this. In '96 (the Clinton years) I was training with about 30 marines on the PRC 77 radio, we only had one, and it didn't work. Avation maintenace marines were working half days due to a shortage of parts so they had nothing to do. I could go on, but I hope you get the point. If you plan to make the military a career you may want to rethink your political position. Just some friendly advice.

Semper Fi.

 

[VampHeartless]

It's funny how whenever someone in the military decides to defend Bush or any other Republican as a war president, it always comes down to "Well, I remember when so and so was in, and things were a lot better back then". I know that my raises were bigger under Clinton, but, I don't tout that. I use the actual FACTS that I linked to in my post, where it talks about Bush wanting to cap pay raises at 2%, when Congress has a yearly mandate of 3.7%. Of course, that doesn't compare to anyone who's been in long enough to remember "it was much better under Reagon, etc, etc."

I'm not saying I'm more experienced that anyone...in the military there's always someone older, smarter, and stronger that knows more. I'm saying that I've been in six years, and don't need to be dressed down as someone naive because of political leanings. My website, my political statements (trust me, this is the just barely scraping the top of the barrel), have been constantly scrutinized by security, commanders, and IG. That's the price of having a job like mine. Yeah, it's an uphill battle being democratic and outspoken in the military. And, it's usually the first card Republican's pull out against me..."you can't talk bad about the president."

The fact is, yeah, you can get charged under article 92...but you can also get charged for wiping your a$$ the wrong way under article 92. For an enlisted man to get charged is a long and drawn out process that no command is willing to fight, since it would most likely go to court martial, and get appealed over and over, and over. It's easier to grab an officer because of Article 88. There was one in the army times a while back who wrote a deragtory letter Bush didn't like. Initially the Marines wouldn't even investigate him, but they were forced. He got a verbal admonition (which was what he gave Bush in the first place?), but even that was revoked upon appeal.

But once again, Article 88, Article 92, and even that DoD directive, are all designed to keep service members from actively campaigning partisan organizations. Not from expressing political opinions.

The funny thing is...all of you military people know damn well the chances of an enlisted man getting charged for "contempous speech" is 1 in a million. But, you'll sit there and argue anyways, just to distract from the issues at hand, and hoping maybe I'll shutup.

But, I've never been very good at keeping quiet.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I'm saying that I've been in six years, and don't need to be dressed down as someone naive because of political leanings.

No one has done that - you are free to express your political leanings. No one has said that you can't or that you shouldn't. But you do have the part of "political victim" down pat.

I know that my raises were bigger under Clinton, but, I don't tout that.

You shouldn't, because you would be wrong.

Clinton 1998: 2.8%
Clinton 1999: 3.6% increase
Clinton 2000: 4.8% increase
Clinton 2001: 3.7% increase
Bush 2002: from 6% to 15%, depending on rank, averaging 6.8%
Bush 2003: 4.8%
Bush 2004: 4.1%

If you think that you received higher payraises under President Clinton than you have under President Bush, I think you need to take a look at your math skills.

But once again, Article 88, Article 92, and even that DoD directive, are all designed to keep service members from actively campaigning partisan organizations. Not from expressing political opinions.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or do you not understand English? The DoD directive in question specifically prohibits contemptuous speech.

But, you'll sit there and argue anyways, just to distract from the issues at hand, and hoping maybe I'll shutup.

I don't care if you shut up, I just think it would be nice if you could present some correct information rather than the party line.

 

[Dan Murphy]

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by VampHeartless
I pride myself on being a damn fine NCO, and I don't need to be treated like a less mature person because of my liberal leanings.

.

a Damn fine NCO would set a good example for the soldiers under him, and keep his personal views private especially when it comes to badmouthing his Commander-in Chief

 

[TinkHappy]

The fact is, yeah, you can get charged under article 92...but you can also get charged for wiping your a$$ the wrong way under article 92.

I really think it is not your political view that makes people not willing to take what you say into consideration, I think it is your bad attitude. If you just make your point without the the bad attitude, I think people may not agree with you, but they might take what you say into account.
It is great that we live in a country where we can voice our opinion and not worry about getting shot.

 

[RNMOM]

Cutbacks began about 1987 or so... We were living in Champaign Illinois and had friends at Rantoul Airforce Base that were relocated due to that base being closed. I know it was either Regan or Bush #1 who did the major base closings in the mid 80's.