Media response to the Honorable Mr. Bush's new Plan

[sdk87to91]

The Albuqueruqe new channel CBS that we get here in Northern NM reported on the Honorable Mr. Bush's new plan for Iraq imediately following the speech. They showed four of our congressperson's faces with the text of their comments on the screen. Domenici, Bingamen, Wilson, and Udall. Those four all had negative comments. Then almost as an afterthought before moving on to the next story, without showing his face the reporter said, almost under her breath, "Steve Pierce said he was behind the President all the way." Perhaps they got his comments too late to put his face on the screen.

They also had cameras in the home of a PFC home on leave from Iraq. They showed him watching the speech with his father. When they asked him what he thought he said something like "More troops will not help, that country has been having trouble for 1000's of years "
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a guy has been over there long enough to be home on Christmas leave, shouldn't he be higher rank than PFC? I did not get the feeling that he was a model serviceman who could be trusted to give an accurate account of the war zone. I do not remember if the Army uses the rank of "PFC", but If they do I bet that is his branch.

I dont remember the rules from my Days in the Corps, but now in the Forest Service we are not allowed to talk to the media, if they ask for example about a forest fire or something like that, we are directed to send them to the PR person who is trained how to deal with the media.

[Roogger]

Army PFC is an E-3

both e-1 and e-2 are privates

[Sgt Leprechaun]

The army is typically very "PR" conscious, whereas it's been my experience the Marine Corps is less so. A LCpl is expected to tell things like he/she SEE'S them, as long as it doesn't bring discredit on the Corps, the Country or the Mission.

The Army, on the other hand,seems to discourage it's troops from talking to the media, which, considering the caliber of some of the troops I've seen, is probably a good idea.

It's interesting that civilian employees of the US gov't typically have less freedom to talk to the "press", than do active duty military members.

[sdk87to91]

Thansk for the definition, I can give the opinion of that PFC a little more credit since he is likely an Army PFC thus a E-3 and has likely done his time over there.

[yellowwing]

Things are beginning to get weird out there with protests:


Warriors rally against Iraq war
Active-duty personnel join activists in Norfolk to ask for an end to the conflict

Hampton Roads Daily Press (http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-30016sy0jan16,0,3943439.story?coll=dp-news-local-final)
BY JOHN M.R. BULL
247-4768
January 16, 2007

NORFOLK -- Sgt. Jabbar Magruder spent 11 months in Iraq and turned into one angry soldier.

No weapons of mass destruction. Shifting rationalizations for a mismanaged war. Now a civil war among Iraqis.

He began speaking out against the war last year. He wants others in uniform to do so as well and wants civilians to support them.

Now a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, he joined other active-duty personnel and peace activists at a Norfolk church Monday to promote an "Appeal for Redress" that asks Congress to bring the war to an end.

More than 1,030 soldiers, sailors and airmen have signed the petition, which is to be presented to Congress today.

"We've served in combat, and we've seen the futility of this war," said Magruder, who serves in an Army National Guard unit based in California. "The soldiers want to resist. The soldiers want to come home. We need the citizens to back us up."

More than 100 people attended the protest. Roughly one-third of the crowd were active-duty service members.

While still relatively rare, a growing number of military personnel are coming out against the war, bucking a culture in the armed forces that frowns on public opposition to presidential policies. A recent poll shows that support in the military for the war is diminishing and that only 54 percent of those who wear the uniform now approve of President Bush's handling of the war.

The president says that the war can be won and that more troops are needed to prevent Iraq from being taken over by anti-American insurgents.

One message was repeated at Monday's protest: Dissent is not disloyalty, and those who object to the war are not traitors.

"It is not political, despite how others try to label us," said Liam Madden, a Marine who served seven months in Iraq. "Veterans often say, 'Not one more of my brothers should die for a lie.' This is not political. It is a call to conscience."

Service members are allowed to publicly oppose the war if it is done on their own time and they do not wear their uniforms while doing so.

"This is a movement," said Norfolk-based Seaman Jonathan Hutto, an event organizer. "We're not advocating an abandonment of Iraq, but we don't want to see more troops sent in, and we want a political solution to end this. Right now, Iraq is in virtual chaos, in a civil war."

Peace activists from the region welcomed the active-duty war protesters warmly, promising to support them.

"We have a message for the military brass: Any harassment or retribution of these people ... will be met with the full force of our resistance. These are our brothers and our sisters, and they do not stand alone," said Phil Wilayto, a member of the Virginia Anti-War Network.

Active-duty war objectors face ostracism among their peers and potential retaliation from their superior officers, said Fabian Bouthillette, a former Navy officer who joined Iraq Veterans Against the War.

"Supporting the troops means more than slapping a bumper sticker on a car," he said. "I think it is very difficult for active-duty men and women to protest, to speak out. They have that right. We're all in this together."

A soldier based in Fort Lewis, Wash., 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, is awaiting court-martial for refusing to be deployed to the war, to which he publicly objected.

Magruder says that he's had some hot debates with members of his California National Guard unit but that he considers the war and its management to be "the deepest betrayal of what we've been asked to do in Iraq." Military personnel have died in a war that "is pointless," he said.

Magruder said he will go back to Iraq if his unit is redeployed there. But, he said, he'll do it only to support his brothers and sisters in arms.

[3077India]

Back when I worked for the Lousyana Office of State Parks, I was told by my District Mgr that we weren't authorized to speak on behalf of the park we worked at nor on behalf of the Office of State Parks; all inquiries were to be directed to the HQ in Baton Rouge.

Now as for the PFC being of a high enough rank to even warrant his having a sufficiently educated-enough opinion about the situation in Iraq. His rank shouldn't detract from the fact (that's assuming he had been in Iraq in the first place) that he and those he served with talked about the deteriorating situation all around. Exactly how high of a rank must a person be to express an opinion on what they see going on around them? Do their ranks have to be as high these guys (see quotes below)?

Former Sec. of State Colin Powell on a Dec. 17, TV appearance:
“I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.” Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb put it this way:
“...we had a chance in the beginning to send the right number of troops. We didn't, and now I think it would only make the situation worse and it would make the Iraqis more dependent on us.” General John Abizaid's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in November in response to a question posed by Senator McCain:
“Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”

[10thzodiac]

Even though we as a society rarely take the time to do a cost-benefit analysis of this war, the evidence on the cost side keeps piling up while the benefits remain illusory. Maybe Saddam was in fact going to nuke me, my wife, our two cats, and the dry cleaners across the street. And maybe monkeys will fly out of my…

[drumcorpssnare]

Hey, I "understand" that there are troops who want to be back home. Nothin' new there. Washington's troops at Valley Forge wanted to be back home too. As did Pershing's troops in the trenches of France. And the sailor on the USS Hornet in the South Pacific. I'm sure there were men at Khe San who "wished they were home."
But ya know what. There's a freakin' WAR goin' on...and SOMEBODY has to fight it!
So, if you think we should cut and run...FINE! We hear ya already! Now, go sit in the corner and suck your thumb, ya little cry-baby!!!:evilgrin:

drumcorpssnare:usmc:

[YLDNDN6]

Ahhh, but for the old days, when TREASON enjoyed a much broader definition, and men in uniform could swing from the gallows for not supporting their leaders. What have we become???

[10thzodiac]

"A toast, yeah - to high treason...that's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Had we lost the war they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, oh and my personal favorite - have their entrails cut out and burned!"