Bush Creates Kerry Voters in Colorado

[Rohirrim]

(I guess you could also call this, "More Chicken**** from the Chickenhawks")



Rocky Mountain News

GIs claim threat by Army
Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq
By Dick Foster
Rocky Mountain News
COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.

Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The effort is part of a restructuring of the Army into smaller, more flexible forces that can deploy rapidly around the world.

A Fort Carson spokesman confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under way and one of the soldiers provided the form to the Rocky Mountain News. An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don't re-enlist with the brigade were threatened.

The form, if signed, would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until Dec. 31, 2007. The two soldiers said they were told that those who did not sign would be transferred out of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team.

"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant.

The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately, essentially echoed that view.

"They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not," he said.

The brigade's presentation outraged many soldiers who are close to fulfilling their obligation and are looking forward to civilian life, the sergeant said.

"We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said.

A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty.

"I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq," said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon.

Sending soldiers to Iraq with less than one year of their enlistment remaining "would not be taken lightly," Lt. Col. Gerard Healy said from the Pentagon Wednesday.

"We realize that we deal with people and with families, and that's got to be a factor," he said.

"There's probably a lot of places on post where they could put those folks (who don't re-enlist) until their time expires. But I don't want to rule out the possibility that they could go to a unit that might deploy," said Healy.

Under current Army practice, members of Iraq-bound units are "stop-lossed," meaning they could be retained in the unit for an entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires.

A recruiter told the sergeant that the Army would keep them "as long as they needed us."

Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if a soldier signs for only three or four years of active duty.

The 3rd Brigade recruiting effort is part of the Army's plan to restructure large divisions of more than 10,000 soldiers into smaller, more flexible, more numerous brigade- sized "Units of Action" of about 3,500 soldiers each.

The Army envisions building each unit into a cohesive whole and staffing them with soldiers who will stay with the unit for longer periods of time, said John Pike, head of the defense analysis think tank Global Security.

"They want these units to fight together and train together. They're basically trying to keep these brigades together throughout training and deployment, so I can understand why they would want to shed anybody who was not going to be there for the whole cycle," Pike said.

But some soldiers presented with the re-enlistment message last week believe they've already done their duty and should not be penalized for choosing to leave. They deployed to Iraq for a year with the 3rd Brigade last April.

"I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky. Iraq has changed a lot of people.''

The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him troubled, unable to sleep and "filled with dread."

"For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said.

Soldiers' choice at Fort Carson

WHAT THE FORM SAID

• "Elect not to extend or re-enlist and understand that the soldier will be reassigned IAW (in accordance with) the needs of the Army by Department of the Army HRC (Human Resources Command) . . . or Fort Carson G1 (Personnel Office).''

WHAT IT MEANS

• Soldiers who sign the letter are bound to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team until Dec. 31, 2007.

• Soldiers who do not sign the letter might be transferred out of the brigade and possibly to Iraq.

(Man, this pisses me off. Only some stinking chickenhawk who never served would pull this kind of **** on a soldier.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bendog]

And even if their terms are up, can't they be stop lossed and STILL sent to Iraq?

[watermock]

How amusing.

Did they read what they even signed up for?

Troops can be recalled for 7 years.

[Rohirrim]

This story probably just proves that the services can no longer recruit enough replacements. After this kind of treatment, they'll get even less. Can you say "Draft?" I knew you could.

[watermock]

I brought up this concern two years ago.

It doesn't excuse recruits from their responsibilities. Get clue one.

[Mile High Shack]

Mock does have a point kind of...even after you get out of the service, you can be recalled at any time within 5 years I believe.

[watermock]

This story probably just proves that the services can no longer recruit enough replacements. After this kind of treatment, they'll get even less. Can you say "Draft?" I knew you could.

I have put up with you enough.

Listen you dumbass, when you sign up your signed up for 7 years. What part of this is beyond your comprehension?

It's not an issue of recruitment. It's an issue of fulfilling your obligation.

Jesus Christ.

[watermock]

Pull it up for me Ro.

Tell me how they can slip out after two years.

C'mon buddy.

I find it pretty funny since Bush served 5 years 4 months and was excused.

Now your crying for two year service? Get bent. I am done with this crap.

[Rohirrim]

Mock does have a point kind of...even after you get out of the service, you can be recalled at any time within 5 years I believe.

Well, it's like one of those arguments a lawyer would bring forward - the "letter of the law" kind of thing. In practice, this kind of shiite has never been pulled on soldiers - especially the Guard and Reserves - and even more especially on combat veterans - even during Vietnam. Any way you want to look at it, it's a low blow. I say again, I wish these guys luck on future recruitment. They're going to need it.

[watermock]

Well, it's like one of those arguments a lawyer would bring forward - the "letter of the law" kind of thing. In practice, this kind of shiite has never been pulled on soldiers - especially the Guard and Reserves - and even more especially on combat veterans - even during Vietnam. Any way you want to look at it, it's a low blow. I say again, I wish these guys luck on future recruitment. They're going to need it.

I finally got fed up and pulled rank. What part didn't you understand? It's not like "one of those arguments a lawyer makes". It's perfectly freaking clear.

I don't care how "you look at it" The fact of the matter is I am totally correct.

I don't care about Vietnam, I don't care about low blows, the fact of the matter is I blew you totally up with reality.

The argument about recruitment is a TOTALLY SEPERATE ISSUE.

[bendog]

When I was somewhere around six I had a older kid for a next door neighbor whose dad had been n the military and then recalled to Korea, where he was killed. The neighbor took me fishing one time, and I recall he was a hell of a nice kid. I imagine it sucked for him to have a dead dad.

[watermock]

Do you have a clue that when you sign up for the military you just might be killed or is that some side effect from the GI Bill?

[Rohirrim]

"I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky. Iraq has changed a lot of people.''

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's chicken crap for them to try and pull that on those guys. If the military needs personnel they better say it. Making guys pull more than one tour on policing Iraq is complete BS!!!!!!! Especially after our intelligence says it's basically a lost cause.

[bendog]

It's like vietnam. The war will continue until the politcal cost of ending it finally is less than the political cost of keeping it going. On that basis I think kerry might be worth a vote, because he can end it with less damage to his favorables than can JR.

[Mile High Shack]

that's insane, we pull out of Iraq now and the idiot terroists think they've won and will continue their rampage and probably bring it closer to home

[Paladin]

Further, it is doubtful that the total effort in Iraq was really worth the losses to date, let alone the future costs in lives and money. I know that all of us here hope that the administration can come up with a plan for getting the US and the Coalition Forces out of that place and home. I cannot blame the soldiers; since a clear objective cannot be identified, the "threat" against the Homeland was and is dubious and there is a strong current of belief among the general population that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake, there is little wonder that the ambivalence to serve there is reflected among the troops. To say that since they are "volunteers" and it is their responsibility to serve where sent is to be short sighted, IMHO. They are volunteers, not suicidal, brainless, vainglorious non-entities.

Given the assessment by the National Intelligence Council completed in August, I would assume that the Administration would now tell the truth to the American poeple. That should be somewhat difficult for Bush sense he would then be subject to be called a "flip-flopper". As you can probably surmise, I will be voting for Kerry because Bush has been so incompetent. None of the Neocons here have convinced me that Bush is otherwise competent in any sphere of leadership, and there is no other choice at this point.

I am done posting in the politics side of things since I have made up my mind and I have no need to read a slew of insults and mindless blather about "liberals this," or "liberals that." That sort of closed-minded blather does not add substance to any debate. In fact, that sort of blather simply gave me more impetus to read a bit more on the issues. And as I did so, the choice became abundantly clear.

Now, back to the Broncos......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's like vietnam. The war will continue until the politcal cost of ending it finally is less than the political cost of keeping it going.

And in the meantime, Smirk & Sneer and their Carlyle/Halliburton cronies will have made billions without having sent any of their own sons and daughters to die in Iraq.

And, yes, it is like Viet Nam in that respect.

These people are the moral and political descendants of the people who conspired to assassinate JFK.

[broncogary]

I have put up with you enough.

Listen you dumbass, when you sign up your signed up for 7 years. What part of this is beyond your comprehension?

It's not an issue of recruitment. It's an issue of fulfilling your obligation.

Jesus Christ.

Well, I'm with Jesus Christ, er, I mean, mock, on this one. :angel:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well, I'm with Jesus Christ, er, I mean, mock, on this one. :angel:
Why? How do you condone sending troops to police a country we invaded and are now policing, costing American lives and 100s of billions of dollars with no plan for withdrawal? Especially now since our own intelligence says that it's almost assuredly futile. How can anyone justify sending Americans over there to die in this hell-hole?????????????????????

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How can anyone justify sending Americans over there to die in this hell-hole

Remember how the ditto monkeys piled on Clinton for Somalia (which was actually Poppy's mission?)

Yet they give Smirk a pass for the Iraq debacle and >1,000 Americans KIA.

These people have absolutely no morals and no conscience.

They will put partisan politics over country every single time.

[broncogary]

Why? How do you condone sending troops to police a country we invaded and are now policing, costing American lives and 100s of billions of dollars with no plan for withdrawal? Especially now since our own intelligence says that it's almost assuredly futile. How can anyone justify sending Americans over there to die in this hell-hole?????????????????????

So you trust "intelligence" now, eh? :~ohyah!:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So you trust "intelligence" now, eh? :~ohyah!:

Yeah, what was he thinking?

Everybody knows it's better to trust Fox News.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Looks like it's not just the intel community.

Far graver than Vietnam

Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html

'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."

[patteeu]

that's insane, we pull out of Iraq now and the idiot terroists think they've won and will continue their rampage and probably bring it closer to home

Yep. Bin Laden believes he can beat us because he believes we are cowards who can't tolerate even minimal casualties. He learned this lesson from observing our actions over the past 30+ years. He saw us immobilized when hostages were taken in Iran. He saw Reagan turn tail when we lost 200 marines in Lebanon. He saw GHWBush refuse to push on to Baghdad in Gulf War I. He saw Clinton retreat from Somalia after Bin Laden's own forces put his America-is-weak theory to the test in the Blackhawk Down incident. He considered us a paper tiger prior to our response to 9/11 and compared US soldiers unfavorably with their Russian counterparts with whom he had fought in Afghanistan:

"The Russian soldier is more courageous and patient than the U.S. soldier. Our battle with the United States is easy compared with the battles in which we engaged in Afghanistan."

I suspect that our response to 9/11 was a little surprising to him, but I doubt that he has completely abandoned his belief that we can't sustain a fight. I'm not sure I believe we can either, but I know we should if we don't want to encourage more terrorism. I don't give a rip about increased recruiting opportunities for Al Qaeda caused by the destruction that we cause. Let them recruit, and let us continue to kill them off until they realize that we are in this for the long haul (if we are capable of that kind of dedication).

Bin Laden thinks he learned the lesson that America is weak and will run from a fight by studying our history. It's a shame he was right about so many of us.

[patteeu]

Further, it is doubtful that the total effort in Iraq was really worth the losses to date, let alone the future costs in lives and money. I know that all of us here hope that the administration can come up with a plan for getting the US and the Coalition Forces out of that place and home. I cannot blame the soldiers; since a clear objective cannot be identified, the "threat" against the Homeland was and is dubious and there is a strong current of belief among the general population that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake, there is little wonder that the ambivalence to serve there is reflected among the troops. To say that since they are "volunteers" and it is their responsibility to serve where sent is to be short sighted, IMHO. They are volunteers, not suicidal, brainless, vainglorious non-entities.

You don't speak for all of us Paladin. I'm not interested in a plan to retreat from Iraq. We've cast our lot, the time to debate the rationale for war is over. Now the war must be won. And we must be willing to stick it out as long as it takes. We aren't being defeated on the battlefield. We are being defeated (or at least some of you are) in our heads.

Given the assessment by the National Intelligence Council completed in August, I would assume that the Administration would now tell the truth to the American poeple. That should be somewhat difficult for Bush sense he would then be subject to be called a "flip-flopper". As you can probably surmise, I will be voting for Kerry because Bush has been so incompetent. None of the Neocons here have convinced me that Bush is otherwise competent in any sphere of leadership, and there is no other choice at this point.

I am done posting in the politics side of things since I have made up my mind and I have no need to read a slew of insults and mindless blather about "liberals this," or "liberals that." That sort of closed-minded blather does not add substance to any debate. In fact, that sort of blather simply gave me more impetus to read a bit more on the issues. And as I did so, the choice became abundantly clear.

Good riddance.

[patteeu]

Why? How do you condone sending troops to police a country we invaded and are now policing, costing American lives and 100s of billions of dollars with no plan for withdrawal? Especially now since our own intelligence says that it's almost assuredly futile. How can anyone justify sending Americans over there to die in this hell-hole?????????????????????

What makes you so confident in our intelligence now. It's not like they have a great track record lately. But I guess when you hear what you want to hear it is pretty easy to accept it as Gospel.

BTW, back on the topic of this thread, I don't see any big deal regarding the choice these soldiers are being given. If they aren't going to re-enlist, then we should get some value out of the training investment we've made. By sending them on an overseas deployment, we are reducing the overseas time of those who will be re-enlisting thereby reducing the overall stress level of our troops and their families. The re-enlistees will get their chance eventually, but we might as well recoup training costs on those about to leave and save the rest for future use. Makes all the sense in the world to me.

What wouldn't make sense would be to encourage departure from the military by rewarding that choice with easy duty stateside at the same time re-enlistees are being shipped out to do the heavy lifting.

[patteeu]

So you trust "intelligence" now, eh? :~ohyah!:

Sorry to repeat you, I hadn't read this far yet. My bad.

[patteeu]

Looks like it's not just the intel community.

Far graver than Vietnam

Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html

'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."


Good old Sydney Blumenthal. ::)

[Elevation 5280']

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

Worst president in history?

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point:

We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost….an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

Street crime in America and the situation in Iraq.

Now that's an equation only an alkie propping up another alkie could come up with.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

Interesting to know you have such a blasé attitude about the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen, Bubba.

Since getting killed is no big deal for you, then perhaps you should head on down to your local recruiter's office, enlist, and volunteer for duty in Iraq first thing in the morning.

[Elevation 5280']

labf,

Maybe a prostitute would do you good.....since you can't seem to find a date on your own.

Maybe we could take up a collection for you since you probably can't afford one on your welfare check...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

.....since you can't seem to find a date on your own.

Then I guess that would that explain your presence here as well, Bubba.

[Rohirrim]

This is the person to blame for making the original charge that Bush is "The Worst President in U.S. History."

http://aurig.us/images/thomas.jpg

Her name is Helen Thomas

"Regarded as the dean of the Washington, D.C., press corps, reporter Helen Thomas (born 1920) served as White House bureau chief for United Press International (UPI) from 1974 to 2000.

To those who regularly watch presidential press conferences, Helen Thomas was a familiar figure. Usually dressed in red (a tradition dating back to the administration of Ronald Reagan) and always seated in the front row, she was invariably the first or second reporter the president calls upon. It is an honor she earned by virtue of her long and distinguished career in Washington, and it was one she relished. Besides, it afforded her the perfect opportunity to do what she does best--bluntly challenge the president (and other public officials) to tell the plain, unvarnished truth. "We (reporters) are not there to curry presidential favor, nor can we respond to efforts at presidential intimidation," she asserted in her memoir, Dateline: White House. "Our priority is the peoples' right to know--without fear or favor. We are the peoples' servants."

[patteeu]

Interesting to know you have such a blasé attitude about the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen, Bubba.

Since getting killed is no big deal for you, then perhaps you should head on down to your local recruiter's office, enlist, and volunteer for duty in Iraq first thing in the morning.

Interesting how you use the deaths of American servicemen as a political football, big guy.

[patteeu]

This is the person to blame for making the original charge that Bush is "The Worst President in U.S. History."

http://aurig.us/images/thomas.jpg

Her name is Helen Thomas

"Regarded as the dean of the Washington, D.C., press corps, reporter Helen Thomas (born 1920) served as White House bureau chief for United Press International (UPI) from 1974 to 2000.

To those who regularly watch presidential press conferences, Helen Thomas was a familiar figure. Usually dressed in red (a tradition dating back to the administration of Ronald Reagan) and always seated in the front row, she was invariably the first or second reporter the president calls upon. It is an honor she earned by virtue of her long and distinguished career in Washington, and it was one she relished. Besides, it afforded her the perfect opportunity to do what she does best--bluntly challenge the president (and other public officials) to tell the plain, unvarnished truth. "We (reporters) are not there to curry presidential favor, nor can we respond to efforts at presidential intimidation," she asserted in her memoir, Dateline: White House. "Our priority is the peoples' right to know--without fear or favor. We are the peoples' servants."


Helen Thomas should have retired back in the 1980's. Give me Sam Donaldson over her any day (not for his politics but for his performance as a White House correspondent).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Interesting how you use the deaths of American servicemen as a political football, big guy.

Not even close, Bubba.

It's called "supporting the troops." (Something the chickenhawk misadministration you're backing knows absolutely nothing about.)