home

Fox News Accuses US Generals of Betraying Our Troops

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:14:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Glenn Greenwald, Fox News contributor retired Col. David Hunt writes:

Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead Friday , September 28, 2007

By Col. David Hunt

Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again

Sorry, but I have to get your attention on this one. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States Army — not the much maligned “LIBERAL PRESS” or BILL CLINTON or the LIBERALS IN CONGRESS — NO, the UNITED STATES MILITARY is prosecuting its soldiers for doing their jobs.

. . . Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them. The Marines have actually prosecuted a Marine for shooting a terrorist too many times and the Army — well, the Army has the Pat Tillman tragedy, the Abu Graib disaster and many more to answer for, and now these courts martial. . . .

I condemn this offensive smear. Will the Right? Will the GOP? Don't hold your breath.

< Executions Stayed | "Phony Soldiers" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Fox News Accuses US Generals of Betraying Our Troops | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    you've GOT to be kidding me... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Michael Gass on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:23:16 AM EST
    The Generals have "betrayed" their troops because they are ENFORCING the UCMJ????  Give me a break!

    We need to get every political hack in a uniform out of the military and off the air... NOW!

    He is out of uniform (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by libertarian soldier on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 05:26:06 AM EST
    He may be listed as "COL" Hunt, but he is retired.
    He is also a few bricks shy of a full load.  When he took command of my battalion in Korea he used to buy goats from the farmers and take the officers out to shoot the animals so they could see the results of bullets impacting on living things.

    Parent
    It is a sign of the times (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Al on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    As the failure of the invasion of Iraq becomes more evident, there's going to be finger-pointing and recriminations between those who committed to this insanity. They desperately need someone to blame, and Jane Fonda is retired.

    This fellow says something quite interesting:

    We should be putting these generals on trial, first for going along with Rummy and just as important for not trusting their soldiers. . . .

    For going along with Rummy?

    Desperately Seeking.... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    Salvation?

    These Generals Are Phony Soldiers (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:09:40 AM EST
    These generals are all phony soldiers, unlike this guy.

    Right wing parlance (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by koshembos on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:24:02 PM EST
    Betrayal in righties parlance means "we did a great jobs and these traitors lost the war." Listening to parts of the Republican debate at Morgan State (historically a African American university), I was amazed to hear that the current state of the African American family is the result of the welfare state and the illegal immigrants. So, again the right clipped wing blames the Democrats and the government for yet another problem.

    Welcome to America the land of the scape goats.

    i suspect (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 05:52:53 PM EST
    that col. hunt's reception, at the next class reunion, will be a tad chilly. yeah, how could those guys not ignore the accepted rules of war? what do they think they are, some kind of organized, civilized military or something?

    where the hell is attila the hun, when you really need him?

    Col. Yingling (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 06:35:54 PM EST
    has a different idea of how the generals failed the troops. From the article:

    "Failures of Generalship in Iraq

    America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. First, throughout the 1990s our generals failed to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly. Second, America's generals failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq. Finally, America's generals did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq."

    I'm sure this makes Col. Yingling a "phony soldier" to wingnuts. It's typical of the perpetual war crowd to get it exactly wrong, but then a phony controversy is better than real debate any day to them since it takes so many people's eyes off of the real issue which is how to leave Iraq as quickly as possible.

    i don't buy it jim. (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 07:55:41 PM EST
    My comment stands. His point is that he believes that some of the troops have been thrown to the wolves in an attempt to be politically correct.

    that wasn't his point at all. you'd know that, had you actually read it. his point was that our soldiers can do no wrong, any accusations to the contrary are made up, politically motivated by those against the invasion. the failure of the generals to support those so accused constitutes, in his mind, political correctness run amok.

    the fact that documented evidence exists, supporting many of the allegations of war crimes, doesn't seem to bother him.

    that's the way i read it.

    as noted above, very few have been convicted, so the generals must be doing something right, as far as protecting their own.

    i don't know that i agree with col. yingling either. if there's been a failure of leadership, it's been at the civilian level, for the most part. the bush administration was told, in advance, that the successful invasion of iraq would require nearly 500k troops, by those "failed" generals. it would also require planning for the peace.

    it was the bush administration, in the persons of donald rumsfeld, pres. bush and v.p. cheney, who decided war on the cheap would be the order of the day; they were going to run a war like a business, cost effectively. and no peace planning; all iraqi's would immediately convert to american style democracy, so that wasn't needed.

    clearly, it was the generals who failed here, it couldn't possibly have been the civilians in charge.

    Good grief (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:20:41 PM EST


    Parent
    good grief nothing... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 01:25:55 AM EST
    SHOW us where merely FOLLOWING orders is what is asked... I'll show YOU where it reads LAWFUL orders.

    SHOW us where shooting unarmed civilians is lawful... I'll SHOW you where it isn't.

    You have NO leg to stand on and you know it.

    Parent

    Col. Yingling (none / 0) (#15)
    by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    understands the balance of authority in policy making with respect to war. He puts responsibility on "statesmen" and the general staff both.

    From the article:

    "Popular passions are necessary for the successful prosecution of war, but cannot be sufficient. To prevail, generals must provide policymakers and the public with a correct estimation of strategic probabilities. The general is responsible for estimating the likelihood of success in applying force to achieve the aims of policy. The general describes both the means necessary for the successful prosecution of war and the ways in which the nation will employ those means. If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence. The statesman must then scale back the ends of policy or mobilize popular passions to provide greater means. If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results.

    However much it is influenced by passion and probability, war is ultimately an instrument of policy and its conduct is the responsibility of policymakers. War is a social activity undertaken on behalf of the nation; Augustine counsels us that the only purpose of war is to achieve a better peace. The choice of making war to achieve a better peace is inherently a value judgment in which the statesman must decide those interests and beliefs worth killing and dying for. The military man is no better qualified than the common citizen to make such judgments. He must therefore confine his input to his area of expertise -- the estimation of strategic probabilities."

    Of course, Gen. Shinseki was fired for disagreeing, while Gen. Petraeus was advanced for being a poster boy. That demonstrates the nature of the unstatesmanlike behaviour of Rummy, Cheney, Bush and the sort of failures of military leadership that Yingling rightly condemns.

    Parent

    tnthorpe (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:03:53 PM EST
    I am not at all sure that his comment isn't just a way of saying, "Not my job...."

    Yingling's  point, that Generals are always fighting the last war, has become a cliche, and like all cliches has an element of truth in it.

    The problem with using this as your guide is that it is quite possible that the next war may require exactly what the last war required, thus your visionary war genius is quite capable of leading you into a disaster.

    It should be remembered that the in vogue military theory 10 or so years back was that the military should be made smaller and quicker with a greater amount of fire power in the hands of the lower ranks. Our mission was not take and hold, but to enforce a political decision for a relatively short period of time while the situation was being brought under control, with other UN forces to hold if needed.

    The application of over whelming force was part of that.

    Now we see that what we needed was a much larger force to take and hold, and that overly aggressive ROE guidelines largely neuter the increased fire power.

    Parent

    Col. Yingling (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:51:25 AM EST
    is quite clear that the generals didn't do their job. He is talking about the failure to properly advise the president and the secretary of defense and the failure to train the armed forces both.  Sect. Rummy fired those who challenged him and the rest fell into line docilely.

     It is the generals' responsibility to be brutally honest, not to be yes men. "The history of military innovation is littered with the truncated careers of reformers who saw gathering threats clearly and advocated change boldly. A military professional must possess both the physical courage to face the hazards of battle and the moral courage to withstand the barbs of public scorn. On and off the battlefield, courage is the first characteristic of generalship." The generals failed on both counts as has been seen, unfortunately. As Col. Yingling puts it, "After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilization, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public." Failure upon failure, continuing through today with the Congressional reports by Gen. Petraeus.

    Col. Yingling's point is that objective assessments of the military situation need to be conducted as each conflict has its peculiar challenges. The past is no guide to the future necessarily. If it were the case that successive conflicts required similar strategies then that would be evident in analysis. The Iraq war debacle was created in part through a failure to insist on a large enough army to stabilize the country and a failure to prepare troops for the very different roles of military conflict and foreign occupation. Col. Yingling's criticism is that the military did not challenge the poorly thought out plans of Secretary Rumsfeld and thereby gave the army an impossible task to accomplish.

    The point you make about the rules of engagement is a result of the generals' failure to prepare soldiers with counter-insurgency training as well as stemming from the basic error of not securing the country with sufficient soldiers. Soldiers occupying a country are required to perform tasks for which they are not necessarily suited, even while they are being targeted by hostile forces. There is a difference between policing and soldiering. No amount of firepower solves that dilemma, and relying on fire power, a la Blackwater, may in fact make things much worse. Having levelled such cities as Fallujah, the insurgency has simply moved. It has also persisted and strengthed. The presence of civilians "neuters," as you say, firepower. That's an insurgent's best defense, the innocent shield. To remove that defense requires that the connection between the insurgents and the civilian population be disrupted, but the generals have spectacularly failed to do that. The Maliki government has failed to do that. Further, the Iraqis' various tribal and religious affiliations, so clearly discussed by Scott Ritter among others, make such a task enormously difficult. Sect. Rummy and Wolfowitz told us there would be flowers in the streets, but blood flows instead.

    The army failed to prepare for an asymmetrical engagement. It did not arm for urban action. It did not secure the country. It did not repair infrastructure. It failed to understand its enemy. The Bush Administration made of Iraq a neocon, flat-tax, privatized economic experiment, which has spectacularly failed the Iraqis. Most Iraqis want us gone yesterday. The US has been in Iraq longer than WWII with precious little to show for it. It's time to leave.

    Parent

    tnthorpe (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    Col. Yingling's point is that objective assessments of the military situation need to be conducted as each conflict has its peculiar challenges.

    That is a rather basic point, and one that is true. But he would have been better suited to not bring out the Vietnam example, given that:

    Q: How could the Americans have won the war?
    A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

    Link

    As in the invasion of South Korea, and Vietnam, it is the failure to isolate the battlefield in Iraq that has caused so many problems. You may remember that, early on, Libya publicly pulled out of the "nuke ownership" club. That would not happen now. Why? From Yingling's article:

    The greatest error the statesman can make is to commit his nation to a great conflict without mobilizing popular passions to a level commensurate with the stakes of the conflict.

    To the extent that Bush was able to do that in the build up to the war, the actions of the Left, the Democrats and their water carriers in the media has destroyed that, as it did in the Vietnam war.

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

    BTW - Since you didn't, here is a link to Yingling's article.

    Yingling's complaint seems to be that we trained and planned for the wrong war. He writes:

    The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq......Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public.

    I would think, based on Yingling's comments, that he would agree that "the surge"  is a belated attempt to go from a "hit and run" type of war to a more traditional war of "take and hold." It appears that the latter is the model we should have pursued.

    Like you, I am an outstanding intelligentsia on many subjects.... After I have seen the results of another's plans and attempts. ;-)

    Unlike you, I am willing to try a change in strategy. The Left in general desires to declare a surrender and leave. This is also supported by the hardcore Leftist Democrats, especially the leaders... and many in the media..To date the attempts to do that have been rejected.

    Col. David Hunt's complaints follow along the line of Col Yingling, that the support has not been proper.

    The question of ROE training also turns on the type of war to be fought. I return to my point, and Yingling's, that in the previous 15 years (or so), a highly armed quick hitting mobile force was created. The expectation was that every LZ would be hot and the enemy would be attacking. When you train for that and then put the troops in a situation in which location X is secure one day and hostile the next, the ROE's are stretched to the limit. On the other hand, a "take and hold" strategy clears the area involved and allows the troops to have a reasonable expectation that a secured area will remain secure.

    But, along with that strategy, the civilian leaders must not allow outside countries/groups to enter into Iraq. We did that in the proxy war with China and the proxy war with the Soviets with horrible results.

    But, since Bush as shown a willingness to try different things, I am hopeful he will show the ME, through a strong show of force, that the terrorist enablers will decide that it would be best to be on our side. To do that Iran's nuclear works/labs must be destroyed.


    Parent

    As for "water carriers" (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jondee on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    prolonging wars unnecessarily, See Nixon, Mitchell, Madame Chennault vis a vis the Paris peace talks.

    Scum throwing lives into the fire in order to carry elections and avert October Suprises.

    Lower than the scum are the one's who carry the scum's cover stories.

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:30:20 AM EST
    I agree.

    The actions of the Left in the war in which a communist country, North Vietnam, invaded a non-communist country, South Vietnam in order to sway and control US politics was despicable.

    Hmmmm... remind you of anything now going on??

    LOL

    Parent

    the Vietnamese (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    characterize their conflict as a civil war. Even McNamara cottoned on to that finally.

    Remind you of anything going on now?

    nah, you'll never make that connection.

    LOL

    Parent

    And your point is?? (1.00 / 2) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 08:02:59 PM EST
    I understand that North Vietnam considered that to be the case.

    A few million or so in the south thought otherwise.

    Unfortunately the Left agreed with the north..

    As for McNamara trying to cover his mistakes..I can only grin.

    Give it up Mac. You never had a clue to start with.

    The war was easily winable had we used the power that we had. The failure to do so was Nixon's. The pressure to not do so was the Left.

    I don't who was worse. Let's call it a tie.

    Parent

    What (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:21:35 PM EST
    you understand has nothing to do with facts, reality, or anything else of value. Really, your posts are a waste of perfectly good pixels.

    Parent
    Ah the quotes showing the (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:13:15 AM EST
    facts always get you stirred up.

    Claiming something isn't true when the facts have been posted, and linked to, is very ineffective.

    The difference between then and now appears to be that Bush was willing to change strategies. Nixon wasn't.

    But only time will tell.

    Parent

    You call a fact (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:14:28 AM EST
    what John Birchers proclaimed as truth in the 70s. Vietnam was lost because like this war it was replete with presidential lies, fanciful conservative theorizing, and generals' incompetence. That whole domino theory was just words, words, words for which people like my cousin died. Your posts reveal you to be something of a far right dead ender with your pile of pointless ideological rantlets. At long last, have you no shame?

    Yingling is the opposite of Hunt in terms of what responsibility means. You can't, won't, refuse to see that, big deal, it's your right to be wrong.

    Your link in support of your false claim that the surge is working documents the unnecessary deaths of 70 more fine young people in a war premised on lies, conducted for profit, with no end except through a political process that is nowhere in sight. If that's your idea of success, it sure as he!! isn't mine.

    You can call the earth flat and call that a fact, but those of us in the reality-based community don't buy a word of your garbage. People who support more war premised on the ideological manipulation of fear are disgusting. Sending troops to die and fight on such hollow grounds is the definition of moral corruption.

    Here are some things Bush can try. Bring the troops home now. Prosecute war profiteers. Resign his sorry a$$ from office.

    "Change strategies?" That koolaid must be good.

    Parent

    Col Yingling's (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    argument could not be more different than Col. Hunt's spurious tirade. Col. Yingling's assesses responsibility, while Col. Hunter's refuses it. But you know that.

    The surge is a failed gimmick in a failed war. At this point even you should be able to distinguish a marketing campaign from a military campaign. But here you are cheerleading for more unwarranted death and destruction with Iran, a nation you understand no better than Iraq. Criminal, really.

    Your insinuation that, as in Vietnam, it's the homefront that's losing the war is laughably beneath contempt. What a joker you are!

    Why is it that conservatives are still fighting the culture wars of the 60s? Talk about fighting the last war!

    Bring the troops home. Impeach the Bush/Cheney cabal. Prosecute war profiteers. In that order.

    Parent

    You are a gas, no doubt about that. (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:49:02 PM EST
    Tell me. If the surge works, will you be upset??

    US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures.

    The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll in July 2006 was 53.

    Link

    Your insinuation that, as in Vietnam, it's the homefront that's losing the war is laughably beneath contempt. What a joker you are!

    I only quote what high level officials who were there have said. People can draw their own conclusions...

    Parent

    Enjoy (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by tnthorpe on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:19:48 PM EST
    your koolaid

    Parent
    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:14:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Apparently the pertinent (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    earlier, U.S soldiers-disobey-orders thread has been deleted. So, like so many other shameless, bald-faced liars from your noble cause, you have plausible deniability.

    Congratulations. And be thankful someone here has your back even though most here would agree that opinions are one thing while lies and liars are something else altogether.

    Jondee (1.00 / 3) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:54:24 PM EST
    Wants some cheese to go with that whineeeeeee??

    Try harder! I was even going to help you out by noting that refusing to attempt to complete a mission just because you think your equipment is inadequate will get you a court martial...

    In the military, which you obviously know almost nothing about, you are required to follow orders. You don't get to pick and choose.

    Now, if you really cared about our troops, you would be screaming for Bush to take action against Iran for its providing munitions and people.

    But you won't.

    Parent

    Screaming (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by glanton on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:18:24 PM EST
    to take action against Iran.

    God what greenblooded comments you write.  I have said it before I'll say it again I cannot imagine what it must be like to think that way.

    Unaccountable, reckless, betrayers of everything good about the nation.  Betrayers?  Traitors.

    You smug prognosticators, you wasters of life and limb

    Harpy, rotten fisheye for a soul.

    It is known throughout that you stand on no moral ground.  Only zealots and cowards who cannot imagine a way out the mess you have created, except to let you press further, are with you now.  

    What is it like to have lost all moral credibility?

    Parent

    Desperately seeking salvation... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:24:13 PM EST


    Parent
    I know you are seeking (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    shall I send some LDS folks by to see you??

    Parent
    not bad glanton....but (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    you missed choking my cat and kicking my dog...

    ;-)

    Parent

    Looks like constructive criticism to me. (1.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    What he is saying is that what the soldiers have done don't deserve the treatment they got, and that their chain of command didn't stick up for them.

    I expected you would (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    You give all the appearaces of being a blatant dishonest hypocrite, and not too bright to boot.

    This is to be expected from you.

    Parent

    You know (1.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    your aggressive name calling is your hallmark, and frankly it doesn't play very well over the long term. Check out the number of people who no longer comment.

    You are supposedly a "leader" on this blog. Why don't you try to act like:

    1. A leader.

    2. An adult.

    As for your approval, since I have told you several times that I am mature enough to not give a flip what you, and most others, think, then your memory is poor or you are having an early attack of "senior moments."

    My comment stands. His point is that he believes that some of the troops have been thrown to the wolves in an attempt to be politically correct.

    Parent

    And yet you are here (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:55:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes I am. (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:11:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Ours is not to reason why. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:45:18 PM EST


    Parent
    And you do an excellent job.... (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:05:51 PM EST


    Parent
    My comment was a reply to BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 12:36:12 AM EST


    Parent
    If I took you wrong.... sorry (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:07:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Look, ppj. Try to grasp this. Honestly. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    "give all the appearaces of being a blatant dishonest hypocrite" is a statement describing and criticizing your actions, not a statement calling you names.

    You calling his statement "name calling" is blatant dishonest hypocrisy, and is typical of your regular intentional denial and misinterpreting.

    I don't expect you to get this. But try.

    This is not something that needs discussion, and it is not an invitation for discussion.

    This is something that needs thought and self reflection on yout part.

    Parent

    Edger (1.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:15:07 PM EST
    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Long ago you defined your view of free speech and discussion for all to see.

    I disagree with your position. It smacks of dictatorships and demands that we all fall in line.

    You use the word "hypocrite?"

    Look in the mirror.

    Parent

    No. It smacks of asking you to think. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:16:27 PM EST
    Sorry I asked....

    Parent
    I agree with the first part (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:04:37 PM EST


    Parent
    No, you're back to trolling again. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:27:08 AM EST
    It is not possible for you to have an honest or an intelligent discussion.

    You don't have the capacity for either in you.

    Parent

    I guess this notice above the commment box (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:54:40 AM EST
    is meaningless.
    Trolling is not tolerated here. Any comment may be deleted by a site admin, and all trolls will be deleted.


    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 09:06:59 AM EST
    Yes,I agree. You are back to trolling.

    Personal attacks highlighted by jumping into a discussion that had nothing to do with you.

    Parent

    I've changed my mind (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 09:15:06 AM EST
    You need to be banned. I think most if not all others here will agree.

    Parent
    Or ignored unless and until you smarten up. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 09:32:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    You wrote what you wrote.

    Either disavow it or live with it.

    Parent

    Disavow? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:35:06 AM EST
    Do I offer you respect? I tried to in this thread.

    You spit on the effort.

    What to do with trolls like you?

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Parent

    And that smacks of a dictatorship. (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    Of demanding strict following the rules.

    Such a statement should be rejected by every person who claims to be for free speech.

    You reveal your basic positions again and again.  Read again this excuse for terrorists killing other Iraqis. Other Moslems.

    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM

    (I had written)Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey.

    (Edger replied)That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq":



    Parent
    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jondee on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    recommended the public hanging of young American soldiers in Iraq who refused to enter combat areas improperly equiped, yet he "supports the troops" (Sgt. Cheney, Corp. Limbaugh), and the rest of us dont.

    "You said what you said" lol

    Parent

    Jondee smears again. (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    Can you provide a link for that?

    No?

    Please, please, try. In the meantime, here is a quote:

    Re: Military Lawyer Proves Iraq War is Illegal (none / 0) (#12)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM EST

    et al - It is amazing how these folks only discover their opposition after they are asked to do something that might be a small bit inconvenient. In case you folks don't understand, what he did was miss a movement. That meant that someone else had to do his job, whatever that was. If combat was involved, someone else took his risks. He not only failed to fufill his contract, he failed his country, the Navy, and his shipmates. Of all his failures, the last is the worst. On ships, in airplanes and in small combat units, each person must be able to depend on the other. The Navy is being far too easy on him.

    You see, in the military, you aren't given the option of deciding you aren't going to fight.

    If you miss movement, then someone else takes your place.

    If you decide you don't have the right equipment and don't attempt to complete the mission, someone else takes your place.

    If you don't want to play by those rules, don't join.


    Parent

    Come on Jondee (1.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    Put up or admit you are smearing.

    But that's typical for you.

    Parent

    bull... (bleeping)... sh(bleep)... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 12:48:44 AM EST
    The UCMJ is QUITE explicit...

    The Nuremberg Trials showed that merely "following orders is no defense".

    In FACT... BY the UCMJ AND the oath of enlistment... ONLY lawful orders are to be followed and EVERY enlisted person is taught BEFORE they deploy what international and American law allows.

    Shooting unarmed civilians or captured enemy soldiers who are in detention is NOT allowed.

    That this Colonel is faulting our military for ENFORCING the UCMJ shows EXACTLY how corrupt our military leadership has become.

    NOW>.. you want to talk to a VET about the UCMJ... BRING IT ON!

    Parent

    and... I'll tell you this up front... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 01:00:57 AM EST
    I don't doubt you served... or ARE serving... and that you know the UCMJ...

    That just means you're either A) part of the Pentagon's new blog patrol or B) an idiot ideologist.

    Either way, you want to match UCMJ Articles to International Law, the Geneva Conventions, and the oath of enlistment... YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE.

    That MANY enlisted folks are put into a catch-22 is IMMATERIAL... they KNOW the order is unlawful and follow it anyway under the hope they get away with it and escape punishment rather than take certain punishment for refusing.

    That this has occurred before... Mai Lai... is IMMATERIAL... it is.. and was.. WRONG.. PERIOD.

    I watched, PERSONALLY, an E-8 in my shop force, under threat, those under him to carry out what he KNEW to be an operation that was unsafe.  FOUR of my shop-mates went to trauma because of it.. and only ONE person said no... ME.  Yeah... he TRIED to have me court-martialed.  It failed.  He STILL got promoted to E-9.  That was 1992-1993.  

    Few people have the balls to buck upper authority... that's their problem.  When an order is unlawful, they have ZERO obligation to obey it and EVERY obligation NOT to.... PERIOD!

    Don't quote me Article 91 or 92... I'll show you LAW!

    Parent

    Nice rant (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    But what is your point??

    My comment was merely that Col Hunt's words should be looked at as "constructive criticism."

    What is with all the UCMJ, GC and International law stuff??? Did you have a fever when you spewed that??

    Go read my comment to tnthorpe at Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:17:47 AM EST.

    And I do hope the fever went down.

    Parent

    BS... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Michael Gass on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    Your comment was:

    What he is saying is that what the soldiers have done don't deserve the treatment they got, and that their chain of command didn't stick up for them.

    They DO deserve the treatment they get because of the UCMJ... PERIOD.

    Their "command" OBVIOUSLY "stuck up for them" since the incidents were COVERED UP.  Once the cover-up no longer works, the soldiers are getting EXACTLY what they deserve for following illegal orders.

    Parent

    As Col Potter said (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:53:48 PM EST
    Horse Hockey!!

    Now. Let's see some proof of your claims.

    Parent

    proof? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 05:57:43 AM EST
    What... are you stupid?  The "proof" is in the court-martials and prison.  The "proof" is in people like you crying about there being no "proof" until, oh yeah, pictures of Abu Ghraib were released.  The "proof" you have already been given... and yet... you cry "where's your proof".

    You're an idiot.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:09:08 AM EST
    He's a troll, Michael, and he's been doing his damnedest throughout this thread to bait anyone he can and infuriate them into calling him names.

    You're right about him, but don't be surprised if Jeralyn deletes your comment....

    Parent

    He can't help it. (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:25:34 AM EST
    He's revolting and like Gollum, the truth is not in him. He deserves to be banned.

    Parent
    sorry... Edger (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:50:05 AM EST
    I realize that it may be deleted (and probably should be).  

    If being presented with facts isn't good enough, then I would agree with you the person should be banned.

    Parent

    I've been baited, and bit, (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:51:07 AM EST
    enough times by him too. ;-)

    Parent
    Michael (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:48:55 AM EST
    You should also know that Edger accused me of lying, and I promptly proved him wrong and asked for an apology.

    He did not,and would not. I have the complete comment string if you would like to see it.

    That should also tell you about him.

    I have been commenting here for over four years. I am a Social Liberal who is strong on defense. I have commented strongly in favor of gay rights, minority rights and women's rights. I am for National Health Care, tax reform and believe our drug laws need rationalization and reform. These are shown in the archives if you care to check.

    I spent 10 years in Naval Aviation long ago. I am also an ex-Democrat who is now an Independent.

    Parent

    More trolling and baiting. (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    You need to be banned.

    Parent
    Yes, indeed you said it. (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:24:10 PM EST
    Marginalize and run'em off.

    What a believer in free speech you are.

    Parent

    Name another "social liberal" (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    that you've ever defended here in 5 years, Jim.

    Meanwhile the only surefire why to immediatly get your blood up is to go after "Ole Jerry" and his ilk.

    Social b.s artist is more like it.

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    Name another social liberal.

    BTW - I am still waiting for you to link to some proof for that smear re the troops...



    Parent

    Michael (1.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:38:56 AM EST
    Hmmmm, first you call me an idiot and then stupid. I see that you fit the profile of a Leftie who likes to make personal attacks because they are inept at proving anything. Let's look at this.

    You made a claim. Since you are so well informed on the UCMJ, GC and International law, I thought perhaps you could provide some proof.

    I see that you cannot. No problem. Here is some information you can consider.

    My comment was that Col Hunt's comments should be looked at as constructive criticism. Let's examine what he said as proof.

    The Marines have actually prosecuted a Marine for shooting a terrorist too many times and the Army -- well, the Army has the Pat Tillman tragedy, the Abu Graib disaster and many more to answer for,

    Which one of the above do you disagree with??

    And beyond that, did you read my comment to tnthorpe in which I noted that the ROEs require training, and if you place a soldier into a situation that doesn't fit his training, the results will be bad. That, as Col Yingling pointed out, is a failure of the military.

    Now, what else did the Colonel say?

    The Special Forces soldiers were operating under the much-hated rules of engagement, which said to capture or kill the bad guy, who was a bomb maker and terrorist leader. The soldiers followed this killer to his house/compound, used guile and trickery and lured the waste of life out of his lair and put a bullet in his head.
    It was a perfect operation -- a "Nice going guys," high fives, take the day off, "Get ready for the next one," type of operation. So how do you think our Special Forces soldiers were rewarded -- or if not rewarded, treated -- after this? THEY ARE BROUGHT TO TRIAL, INVESTIGATED AND FORCED TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR LAWYERS.
    When the terrorist was first killed, the Army showed its trust in these bravest of the brave by investigating them twice. Both investigations, however unnecessary, found them innocent of any wrongdoing. So we now are so gun shy, so afraid and so massively politically correct, that we are treating combat like a police shooting.

    Do you believe that the "command" was protecting these guys?? Do you believe that a lawyer should be placed with each combat team and determine how the combat team should react? Do you think a known bomb maker and guerrilla terrorist should be warned that he was "under arrest" before he is shot by a combat team?

    Remember that this isn't a bank robbery or Jack Bauer's DUI. Try to apply some logic accordingly.
    Finally I note that non-indicted co-conspirator Congressman Jack Murtha is often held up as an example of a fine military man.  Now this.

    A Marine Corps sergeant accuses the 16-term congressman of falsely accusing him of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" in connection with the deaths of Iraqi civilians.
    The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.
    U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha's testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.

    Source NewsMax from Associated Press

    Do you think the DoJ is on the Marine's side? Do you think Murtha is on his side??

    That's just a snapshot. I am sure there are more.

    Your turn.

    BTW - I see that one of my fans, aka Edger, has joined in to make an ad hominem attack. Whenever you read a comment by edger you should remember that he is such a progressive (sarcasm alert) that he posted this:

    First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    I keep telling him that smacks of dictatorships and should be rejected by everyone who believes in free speech, but he just can't seem to grasp the concept.

    Parent

    Thread crapping. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:58:01 AM EST
    Michael is right.

    Parent
    You're the one (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:08:43 PM EST
    trying to get rid of discussion...

    Parent
    gee... let's see... point by point... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:41:44 AM EST
    My comment was that Col Hunt's comments should be looked at as constructive criticism.

    Noooo... your "comment" was TITLED that... your ACTUAL comment was

    What he is saying is that what the soldiers have done don't deserve the treatment they got, and that their chain of command didn't stick up for them.  

    which you have so conveniently left out TWICE now.

    As for me not "providing proof"... gee... I guess you just cannot be bothered to google???

    Soldier faces courtmartial

    Soldier faces courtmartial over Abu Ghraib

    Soldier courtmartialed over Iraqi killing

    Now... being ex-military... you SURELY know a soldier can't FACE courtmartial unless they have broken a law covered under the UCMJ, right?  BTW... we usually call this a "d'oh" moment.

    I mean... come on... how many of these 2 second googles do I have to do for you?????

    As for what I "disagree" with?  I disagree with his notion that the shooting was JUSTIFIED and LAWFUL.  

    We have already heard testimony that a conspiracy existed to kill an unarmed person and plant evidence to the contrary.

    881. ART. 81. CONSPIRACY
    Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    We already have soldiers in prison for abuse.


    893. ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT
    Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    That doesn't even cover the cover-ups and lies.

    907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS
    Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    Or the death...


    918. ART. 118. MURDER

    Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -
    (1) has a premeditated design to kill;
    (2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
    (3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
    (4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
    is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

    919. ART. 119. MANSLAUGHTER

    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.
    (b) Any person subject to this chapter who, without an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being--
    (1) by culpable negligence; or
    (2) while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense, other than those named in clause (4) of section 918 of this title (article 118), directly affecting the person;
    is guilty of involuntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    or the rape...

    920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE

    (a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
    (b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
    (c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

    and if they are an officer...


    933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

    Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    or merely accessory...

    878. ART. 78. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

    Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    And that is MERELY the UCMJ at a glance... shall we go into the Geneva Conventions?

    As for whose side who is on...

    Last month, a separate investigation into the military response to and reporting of the incident concluded that senior leaders failed to sufficiently investigate the killings in spite of conflicting information, according to a defense official.

    Gee... lets just NOT investigate it right the FIRST TIME and MAKE there be numerous investigations to get the TRUTH.

    Can you HANDLE the truth???  

    While Bargewell found the reporting of the incident untimely, inaccurate and incomplete, according to a Defense Department source, Chiarelli questioned the motivation of senior Marine leadership in failing to investigate the incident properly.

    I mean, sheesh... how much PROOF can one man overlook????   


    Parent

    He's not looking for proof. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    His request for it is just a trolling tactic...

    Parent
    Glass (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:32:11 PM EST
    Now... being ex-military... you SURELY know a soldier can't FACE courtmartial unless they have broken a law covered under the UCMJ, right?  BTW... we usually call this a "d'oh" moment.

    Hmmmm. And here I was thinking that people were presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    Oh well, so much for the constitution...

    BTW - How punishment did that mean ole Master Chief see that you got???

    And you seem incapable if understanding, but I'll try one.....more....time....

    It is Col Hunt's comments that I consider constructive criticism... And my comment reflected what he was saying... There now. Don't strain so hard??

    Parent

    when you learn our justice system get back to me (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:48:40 PM EST
    Oh wait... you have no idea how to google... let me help.

    Laws are written by the legislative branch.  

    Those laws may be challenge for their constitutionality.

    People are arrested under those laws (note just for you: this does not mean they are guilty of the crime, only that they committed a crime and were arrested).

    Wait... why am I trying to explain anything to you... you are the one who can't handle the truth or proof...

    Nevermind...

    Parent

    It doesn't get any better than this... (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:06:12 PM EST
    Now let me see. First you tell us that

    a soldier can't FACE courtmartial unless they have broken a law covered under the UCMJ,

    I mean, why have a trial??

    and now you tell us that:

    People are arrested under those laws (note just for you: this does not mean they are guilty of the crime, only that they committed a crime and were arrested).

    Oh, really?? Could you say that again?? They have committed a crime and were arrested?? Really? What if they haven't committed a crime??

    You sure don't seem to put much faith in the "innocent until proven guilty..."

    May I suggest you Google the US Constutution and BOR???

    Parent

    Don't forget to google Guantanamo Bay (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:10:03 PM EST
    It's a good place for trolls, I hear. They all seem to love it

    Parent
    Which shouldn't be surprising (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:23:25 PM EST
    Since no trolls are innocent till proven guilty. More like all guilty all the time....

    Parent
    I did! I did! (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:28:18 AM EST
    And you know what, they have reviews and tribunals..

    Our good friend Michael appears to not believe in those. He believes:

    a soldier can't FACE courtmartial unless they have broken a law covered under the UCMJ,

    Apparently it never occurs to him that soldiers don't have to break a law to be arrested...

    Of course I'm sure both of you would be most anxious to tell me about those GITMO prisoners who were just "picked up."

    Parent

    Ahhhhhh. I see. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:49:46 AM EST
    So you don't believe that you and other wingnut trolls, and Bush and Cheney and the rest of the morons, deserve better treatment than the Gitmo prisoners have been and are given?

    Nice to see you finally coming around. You must be back on your meds again?

    Parent

    Willfully misunderstanding (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:41:09 PM EST
    is your specialty..that and trying to run people off.

    But, since I am in a generous mood... my point was....as you know....

    What Glass is wanting for our troops is much less than what the members of Club Gitmo have.

    In a nutshell.

    Parent

    It's not that hard a question. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:48:39 PM EST
    Sorry to tax you, but let's try it one more time.

    I have faith in you.

    So you don't believe that you and other wingnut trolls, and Bush and Cheney and the rest of the morons, deserve better treatment than the Gitmo prisoners have been and are given?

    Do you?

    Parent

    Are you having vision problems? (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:27:33 PM EST
    Fainting spells? Numbness?

    It is Glass who wants our troops to have less than what the occupants at Club Gitmo get..

    Parent

    now see... there you go (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Michael Gass on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:02:19 PM EST
    You just don't understand the difference in breaking a law, being arrested, and being CONVICTED of breaking that law.

    You just can't understand the simple concepts.

    If you can't understand those simple concepts, understanding the constitution is far beyond anything you'd be able to handle.

    Parent

    It gets better... (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 08:21:09 AM EST
    You just don't understand the difference in breaking a law, being arrested, and being CONVICTED of breaking that law

    Look, you're the one who wrote:

    a soldier can't FACE courtmartial unless they have broken a law covered under the UCMJ,

    Again. Why have a trial? At least the terrorists in Club Gitmo get a review and a tribunal....(sarcasm alert)

    People are arrested under those laws (note just for you: this does not mean they are guilty of the crime, only that they committed a crime and were arrested).

    Again.. Why have a trial? (sarcasm alert)

    BTW - Here is a new word for you to learn. Accused:

    to charge with the fault, offense, or crime (usually fol. by of): He accused him of murder.  


    Parent
    Wish I had said this.. (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 09:02:04 PM EST
    A picture is worth a thousand words.

    Parent
    He called them traitors (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Al on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 03:28:56 AM EST
    Do you really think that's "constructive criticism"?

    Parent
    I read it twice (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:24:55 AM EST
    and I didn't see the word "traitors."

    Can you give us a quote??

    Parent

    I even copied it to Word (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    and did a search and didn't  find "traitors."

    Parent
    Come on Al.... (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:54:33 PM EST
    Let's see some proof!

    Parent
    grrrrrr... doesn't (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 01:05:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, duh. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by manys on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    Where were all of these critics when Abu Ghraib was going on, chalked up to a few bad apples?

    Parent
    Another smearer.. (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    This must be an epidemic...

    Come Walter.. show us some proof.

    Parent

    walter (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    Yes, you did tell us.

    And I am sorry that you have had these problems, but you should not let them color your judgment about other things.

    Read my response to Michael Glass on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:38:56 AM EST for some evidence of the military NOT taking care of their own.


    Parent

    Fox News Accuses US Generals of Betraying Our Troops | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment