NationStates Jolt Archive

Is anyone else watching this? I think, so far, kerry's speech has been good. He's talked about his foreign policy some, such as doubling the special forces units to conduct anti-terrorist operations. I've only been listening for a little bit, but I've never been one much for actually listening to the speeches. I like listening to the tone and watching to see if he seems to mean it.

So, anyone who's watching, what's your interpretation and opinion of how he's doing?

Is anyone else watching this? I think, so far, kerry's speech has been good. He's talked about his foreign policy some, such as doubling the special forces units to conduct anti-terrorist operations. I've only been listening for a little bit, but I've never been one much for actually listening to the speeches. I like listening to the tone and watching to see if he seems to mean it.

So, anyone who's watching, what's your interpretation and opinion of how he's doing?

How will he double Special Forces units? They can't be doubled simply by decree. Special Forces soldiers are triple- and quadruple-volunteers. They go through an extremely tough selection process, in which the majority wash out and go back to their regular units. So how would Kerry accomplish this doubling? He can't just take regular soldiers or units and declare them Special Forces, that would be no real change at all. He can't very well "force people to volunteer," as that is a contradiction in terms and Special Forces only want people who really _want_ to be there. The only real course open to Kerry would be to lower the selection standards. And then they wouldn't be "Special" would they?

This pledge of Kerry's is nothing but an empty sop to people who don't know jack sh*t about the military.

This pledge of Kerry's is nothing but an empty sop to people who don't know jack sh*t about the military.

I don't think Kerry knows jack s*it about the military either.

notice the lackluster applause and no people behind kerry. He is not nearly as popular with members of the armed service ( past and present) as George W. Bush.

notice the lackluster applause and no people behind kerry. He is not nearly as popular with members of the armed service ( past and present) as George W. Bush.

I watched it, there were at least two, perhaps three rows of people sitting behind Kerry?? You sure you watched it?

oh my mistake, i was just watching it, im sorry, it was a close up shot. I apologize.

compare it to bush's legion speech. kerry got much less support from the audience. and also, he is double digets behind bush in support from veterans.

How a someone who failed to finish their Guard duty can bemore popular among veterans than someone who actually fought, won medals (which the Navy says are legitimate, no matter what any of you might think,) and came back to try to stop the War is beyond me. Oh, and read what Kerry actually said in testimony, minus spin, in it's entirety before you disagree with me.

How a someone who failed to finish their Guard duty can bemore popular among veterans than someone who actually fought, won medals (which the Navy says are legitimate, no matter what any of you might think,) and came back to try to stop the War is beyond me. Oh, and read what Kerry actually said in testimony, minus spin, in it's entirety before you disagree with me.

Why? Look at the Democrats history in regards to support of the military.

Carter....

Clinton....

Then ask yourself who YOU would support if you were either on active duty or a veteran.

Why? Look at the Democrats history in regards to support of the military.

Carter....

Clinton....

Then ask yourself who YOU would support if you were either on active duty or a veteran.


Well, I certainly wouldn't vote for the guy who slashed funding to VA hospitals, danger pay, assistance to families who have members on active duty and so on...oh wait, That's Bush!

Well, I certainly wouldn't vote for the guy who slashed funding to VA hospitals, danger pay, assistance to families who have members on active duty and so on...oh wait, That's Bush!

I keep hearing about that....yet I never see anything that actually passed.

VA hospitals? Ever been to one? They could throw ALL the money in the world at them and I would STILL refuse to go. Yes, I am a disabled veteran and I could get free healthcare there, but I would rather pay and get good care instead of waiting months for an appointment.

However, they are building new VA hospitals and funding has not actually been cut.

I would like to see some actual proof that all these programs have been cut though.

Why? Look at the Democrats history in regards to support of the military.

Carter....

Clinton....

Then ask yourself who YOU would support if you were either on active duty or a veteran.

Have you read One Perfect Op by former Navy SEAL Dennis Chalker?

In it, he recounts how several recent Presidents have come to San Diego for a photo op of them running on the beach with some of the SEALs. With Presidents Reagan and Bush (41), the team members would fight to go on the photo op, and spots were given out as rewards to the highest achievers in training exercises. But with Clinton, no one would volunteer. The officers daily increased the pressure of their "suggestions" that someone volunteer, but still no one did. Finally, in order to have any SEALs for Clinton to run with, the spots had to be handed out as punishments for those who made mistakes.

Quite a contrast.

Oh, and whose bill didn't provide for body armor for our people in Iraq, despite Kerry's vote against it? Once again the Bush administration.

Have you read One Perfect Op by former Navy SEAL Dennis Chalker?

In it, he recounts how several recent Presidents have come to San Diego for a photo op of them running on the beach with some of the SEALs. With Presidents Reagan and Bush (41), the team members would fight to go on the photo op, and spots were given out as rewards to the highest achievers in training exercises. But with Clinton, no one would volunteer. The officers daily increased the pressure of their "suggestions" that someone volunteer, but still no one did. Finally, in order to have any SEALs for Clinton to run with, the spots had to be handed out as punishments for those who made mistakes.

Quite a contrast.

Nothing new there....when Reagan went to Homestead AFB in 1982 we were there in droves to greet him.

Clinton came to Scott AFB in 1993 and we were ORDERED to a commanders call in the main hanger to ensure that we would be there. We were NOT told that Clinton would be arriving beforehand.

Democrats do not do well with the military because they have a bad record of going to bat for the military. Vetoed pay raises, cuts in education funding and other VA benefits are all on the doorstep of the Democrats. Is it any wonder that people will vote for those who take care of them?

Oh, and whose bill didn't provide for body armor for our people in Iraq, despite Kerry's vote against it? Once again the Bush administration.


Proof...references?

Look...you are arguing with a disabled veteran who served through the Reagan years through to June 2001. I have PERSONAL knowledge of which party takes care of the military.

You can keep throwing out all these charges, but without being able to back them up....they are useless.

Also...Al Gore tried to throw out my absentee ballot in 2000. How is THAT for taking care of the military. That little weenie actually tried to throw out my vote.

Have you read One Perfect Op by former Navy SEAL Dennis Chalker?

In it, he recounts how several recent Presidents have come to San Diego for a photo op of them running on the beach with some of the SEALs. With Presidents Reagan and Bush (41), the team members would fight to go on the photo op, and spots were given out as rewards to the highest achievers in training exercises. But with Clinton, no one would volunteer. The officers daily increased the pressure of their "suggestions" that someone volunteer, but still no one did. Finally, in order to have any SEALs for Clinton to run with, the spots had to be handed out as punishments for those who made mistakes.

Quite a contrast.

And yet it was Clinton's military that developed the Predators and the GPS guided missiles. The military was pissed that Clinton wanted to lower the number of personnel while using the benefits of modern technology to take their place. But yeah, I guess people are more expendable than machines.

And yet it was Clinton's military that developed the Predators and the GPS guided missiles. The military was pissed that Clinton wanted to lower the number of personnel while using the benefits of modern technology to take their place. But yeah, I guess people are more expendable than machines.

GPS Missles were developed before Clinton took office....and the Predator was in development in the 1980's as well.

Proof...references?

Look...you are arguing with a disabled veteran who served through the Reagan years through to June 2001. I have PERSONAL knowledge of which party takes care of the military.

You can keep throwing out all these charges, but without being able to back them up....they are useless.

Also...Al Gore tried to throw out my absentee ballot in 2000. How is THAT for taking care of the military. That little weenie actually tried to throw out my vote.

It was the Republican's version of the bill that passed, right? Were the troops provided with adequate armor? You tell me.

GPS Missles were developed before Clinton took office....and the Predator was in development in the 1980's as well.

proof?

GPS Missles were developed before Clinton took office....and the Predator was in development in the 1980's as well.
The system wasn't complete until...oh 1994. (GPS)

It was the Republican's version of the bill that passed, right? Were the troops provided with adequate armor? You tell me.

Your going to have to face it, when it comes to votes, you're just going to have to accept that the military will favor Republicans, who favor bigger military, translating into better job security and pay for the military. This does not mean the Democrats aren't right, that when times change a big military is sometimes a waste of resources that could be used in much better places, but if you are in the military, you're going to get better pay from a Republican Administration than a Democratic one (at the moment), regardless of whether or not the country needs either an expanded military, or a smaller one to meet it's needs.

proof?

They were used in 1991 in Desert Storm for the first time. There is an article on them in Airman magazine from around that time.

Same with the Predator in the 1980's.

I will try and find those if they are still online but I don't think they have back issues past 1995.

http://www.af.mil/news/airman/

proof?

Iraqi soldiers surrendered to the unmanned drone of the USS Missouri during Gulf War I.

The system wasn't complete until...oh 1994. (GPS)

And took how many years to develop, from the beginning of the program? (Which is when the authorization and appropriations would have been done.)

The system wasn't complete until...oh 1994. (GPS)

Yes, and like ALL military systems, the development time is measured in years....the GPS guided missle and bomb program was started in the 80's under Reagan. All part of that "star wars" research. ;)

Proof...references?

Look...you are arguing with a disabled veteran who served through the Reagan years through to June 2001. I have PERSONAL knowledge of which party takes care of the military.

You can keep throwing out all these charges, but without being able to back them up....they are useless.

Also...Al Gore tried to throw out my absentee ballot in 2000. How is THAT for taking care of the military. That little weenie actually tried to throw out my vote.


Bush succeeded in having ineligible absentee votes from heavily republican counties counted. If you had sent your ballot in before election day, your vote was never an issue.

http://www.carvercodfl.org/articles/NYTballot1.htm

You were fed a lie by the Republicans, my friend. Also, I salute your service, whether you agree with me or not on issues. You bravely did our country a service.

How will he double Special Forces units? They can't be doubled simply by decree. Special Forces soldiers are triple- and quadruple-volunteers. They go through an extremely tough selection process, in which the majority wash out and go back to their regular units. So how would Kerry accomplish this doubling? He can't just take regular soldiers or units and declare them Special Forces, that would be no real change at all. He can't very well "force people to volunteer," as that is a contradiction in terms and Special Forces only want people who really _want_ to be there. The only real course open to Kerry would be to lower the selection standards. And then they wouldn't be "Special" would they?

This pledge of Kerry's is nothing but an empty sop to people who don't know jack sh*t about the military.

Like you, for instance.

The selection process for these special forces units is well...selective indeed.
However, they are also only done every so often.
They way to incease thier numbers is simply to double the training schedule.
Furthermore, there are several special forces reservists, wich can be called up.

Navy Seals.
Army Rangers.
Marine LRRP's
Etc...

Bush succeeded in having ineligible absentee votes from heavily republican counties counted. If you had sent your ballot in before election day, your vote was never an issue.

http://www.carvercodfl.org/articles/NYTballot1.htm

You were fed a lie by the Republicans, my friend. Also, I salute your service, whether you agree with me or not on issues. You bravely did our country a service.

I always sent mine in on time, It was widely reported that Gore attempted to have the military absentee ballots thrown out. Why would he do that?

Well, SOME were postmarked late. This due to that varied locations that military people are in. However, why would he single out just the military votes? Because he KNEW the military would not support him no matter what. The Democrats just don't understand WHY the military does not like them and yet it is so easy to see why.

I am not so sure that I was fed a lie....Clinton/Gore all but declared war on the military and held a contemptuous attitude toward it for 8 years. THAT is undisputed and Gore was certainly desperate in 2000 as he had NOTHING else to fall back on. He was raised in a political family and expected to become president. His timing SINCE the election has been awful....

He holds a referendum on global warming on the coldest day on record....

He grows a beard just in time for 9-11....

He has obviously lost his mind judging by his recent outbursts regarding Bush and comes across as a lunatic. It did not work for Dean either. ;)

clinton did nothing for the military, he downsized it alot, but that was necassary because we werent preparing for war against the USSR anymroe and the communists had no chance of comming back once Borris Yeltsin won his election. The only military actions Clinton did was attacking iraq with cruise missles whenever they built up. and a few other little skirmishes like that. clinton kept iraq from being a threat against america by blowing thier army and "WMD" buildings up whenever they were built. just ask any navy man stationed over in the meditereanean, theyll tell you about launching missles over there.

For those who don't want to read my link, here's a vital excerpt:


Republicans provided their lawyers with a detailed playbook that included instructions on how to challenge likely Gore votes while fighting for the inclusion of likely Bush votes. In some counties where Mr. Gore was strong, Bush lawyers stood by silently while Gore lawyers challenged overseas ballots, even likely Gore ballots.

The effectiveness of the Republican effort is demonstrated by striking disparities in how different counties treated ballots with similar defects. For instance, counties carried by Mr. Gore accepted 2 in 10 ballots that had no evidence they were mailed on or before Election Day. Counties carried by Mr. Bush accepted 6 in 10 of the same kinds of ballots. Bush counties were four times as likely as Gore counties to count ballots lacking witness signatures and addresses.

I think the military should be unable to vote personaly, and i am in the military (USMC). Getting votes by raising the pay for the military should be consider illegal, hey vote for me ill raise your pay. Soldiers and Politics dont get along together. money exchanged hands in with the m16a1, look what happened there. and then there was the bradley fighting vehichle, same thing. We, soldiers, should not be able to play an active role in politcs.

For those who don't want to read my link, here's a vital excerpt:


Well, I am not going to argue over the 2000 election. I am just thankful that Gore is gone. He, like Kerry, would be a DISASTER for the military as they would finally finish it off once and for all.

"He holds a referendum on global warming on the coldest day on record...."

I'm sorry Biff, and I'm not meaning to slight you here, but the fact that you included this shows that you do not have the slightest idea as to the science of global warming. Global warming NEVER means that regional variations in temperature will cease. Nor does it mean all places will get warmer. What it does suggest is that the average temperature of the planet as a whole will increase.

For example, if one were to add two extra aces to a deck of cards, does that preclude from ever being dealt a 2? No. Does it make it more likely that the value of a random card you are dealt will he higher? Yes.

The selection process for these special forces units is well...selective indeed.
However, they are also only done every so often.
Yes, just as often as they are required. It takes time to get enough volunteers to fill a class, and then select and train them.
They way [sic] to incease thier numbers is simply to double the training schedule.
There is no guarantee of enough qualified volunteers to fill this doubled schedule.
Furthermore, there are several special forces reservists, wich can be called up.
Not enough to double the Special Forces, by any stretch.
Navy Seals.
Army Rangers.
Marine LRRP's
Etc...

Army Rangers are not Special Forces, they are a conventional infantry force, albeit a good one. The Marines don't have LRRPs, they have Force Recon, which is also a conventional force.

I think the military should be unable to vote personaly, and i am in the military (USMC). Getting votes by raising the pay for the military should be consider illegal, hey vote for me ill raise your pay. Soldiers and Politics dont get along together. money exchanged hands in with the m16a1, look what happened there. and then there was the bradley fighting vehichle, same thing. We, soldiers, should not be able to play an active role in politcs.

Thats the way they do things in the UK. Their military are unable to vote. Therefore they have no say at all whatsoever in who their commander in chief will be. Do you really want to give up your right to vote?

"He holds a referendum on global warming on the coldest day on record...."

I'm sorry Biff, and I'm not meaning to slight you here, but the fact that you included this shows that you do not have the slightest idea as to the science of global warming. Global warming NEVER means that regional variations in temperature will cease. Nor does it mean all places will get warmer. What it does suggest is that the average temperature of the planet as a whole will increase.

For example, if one were to add two extra aces to a deck of cards, does that preclude from ever being dealt a 2? No. Does it make it more likely that the value of a random card you are dealt will he higher? Yes.

I know....it was just funny thats all. ;)

Well cool. I'm glad we can agree to disagree Biff. I know we both probably encounter various factions that that concept is alien to. For that, I'm sorry. This country needs a greater ability to openly debate without getting it's hackles up. Good form!

Well cool. I'm glad we can agree to disagree Biff. I know we both probably encounter various factions that that concept is alien to. For that, I'm sorry. This country needs a greater ability to openly debate without getting it's hackles up. Good form!

Thats true....but if you had seen the difference in the military between the Reagan/Bush years and the Clinton/Gore years you would be amazed.

Pay issues aside....one of the things that REALLY tells the story is the shortage of spare parts during Clinton/Gore. Why? Money.

When Reagan was in office we might have one aircraft per squadron that we called a "can" bird. Meaning that we would cannibalize parts from this ONE aircraft to keep the others flying until the needed part was in stock. This was normal and did not reduce the combat effectiveness of the unit.

When Clinton was in office we routinely had THREE "can" birds due to a lack of parts. This greatly affected combat readiness AND effectiveness because pilots were unable to train as often and when deployed (we deployed to the middle east on 90 day on and 90 day off rotations) their skills were further degraded.

Clinton may have balanced the budget, but he did GREAT harm to the military. Kerry would just be a repeat of that mistake.

Well, as the US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and we clearly have the world's most powerful military, I think there are ways that the Military budget could be pared down wthout endangering our safety. One such measure would be to make sure the army isn't routinely overcharged for parts and services. This, of course, means making an example of Halliburton, who has bilked the US for billions and billions. Also, the practice of awarding contracts based on cronyism has to stop.

Now, I know you'd say that Kerry has repeatedly voted for reductions in military. This would be true. The same is true of all but the most obstinant members of Congress, as military cuts were necessary after the end of the Cold War. Also, because of the way Congress runs, a military funding bill could be attached to any other bill, and if that bill is poorly conceived, then the military spending bill will also get voted against, as a consequence. Government pork add-ons are reprehensible and are the biggest impediment to intelligently cutting the bidget. Part of Kerry's platform is to begin the use of the line-item veto...a veto still subject to the checks and balances of congress. Makes excellent sense to me.

Also, not every military spending bill is practical or advisable, but that doesn't stop critics for using them for their statistics.

Also, you have to admit that the Bush administration has often ignored the advice of Military personnel, to the detriment of the troops on the ground. All the funding in the world does not make up for poor planning. I honestly do not think that Kerry would make that same mistake. Kerry would also be less likely to involve our troops in another ill-conceived war, and that, in and of itself, shows more support for the troops than the Bush administration ever has.

I think we can agree that "support" can come in many different forms, but that BushCo usually jumps to money and compliance as the only ways to "support" things.

Thats true....but if you had seen the difference in the military between the Reagan/Bush years and the Clinton/Gore years you would be amazed.

Pay issues aside....one of the things that REALLY tells the story is the shortage of spare parts during Clinton/Gore. Why? Money.

When Reagan was in office we might have one aircraft per squadron that we called a "can" bird. Meaning that we would cannibalize parts from this ONE aircraft to keep the others flying until the needed part was in stock. This was normal and did not reduce the combat effectiveness of the unit.

When Clinton was in office we routinely had THREE "can" birds due to a lack of parts. This greatly affected combat readiness AND effectiveness because pilots were unable to train as often and when deployed (we deployed to the middle east on 90 day on and 90 day off rotations) their skills were further degraded.

Clinton may have balanced the budget, but he did GREAT harm to the military. Kerry would just be a repeat of that mistake.

Did well enough.

Did well enough.

Exactly. It's not as if our military might has been brought into question. Everything else has, though.

Your going to have to face it, when it comes to votes, you're just going to have to accept that the military will favor Republicans, who favor bigger military, translating into better job security and pay for the military. This does not mean the Democrats aren't right, that when times change a big military is sometimes a waste of resources that could be used in much better places, but if you are in the military, you're going to get better pay from a Republican Administration than a Democratic one (at the moment), regardless of whether or not the country needs either an expanded military, or a smaller one to meet it's needs.

Funny though coz I suppose its better the devil you know. For example, didnt GW Bush actually cut the pay of soldiers in real terms or atleast deny an increase in pay to accommodate inflation? I read that somewhere online... but dont know if it is a legitimate fact.

Also isnt military leadership worse off now under Bush? They dont know when to tell the truth and when to blame eachother and what lie to tell...

What ever happened to the idea of the best and the brightest, a few good men? Instead it seems to be a mix of twisted bible-belt theosophy and wishful thinking from the higher ups.

The fact is this: weither or not it's NEEDED at the time, if I was in the military, I'd want the guy who gives me more cash-republicans have a better record of doing this.

Now I'm no Bush supporter, but I can see why military personal would be mostly republican-republicans have shown that they put more money into the military then most democrats. It's alread been stated, but as good as Clinton was at other things, he really did suck for the military.


Now, naturally, there are other things to consider. WHERE they're being sent, why they're being sent there, who's in charge, and so on. But, in pure economic terms, republicans tend to treat the military better.

Funny though coz I suppose its better the devil you know. For example, didnt GW Bush actually cut the pay of soldiers in real terms or atleast deny an increase in pay to accommodate inflation? I read that somewhere online... but dont know if it is a legitimate fact.

Also isnt military leadership worse off now under Bush? They dont know when to tell the truth and when to blame eachother and what lie to tell...

What ever happened to the idea of the best and the brightest, a few good men? Instead it seems to be a mix of twisted bible-belt theosophy and wishful thinking from the higher ups.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is hurting our military a lot more than any President before, as you stated about the leadership, the increasing reliance on a certain few big businesses (Look at the French Military under the Third Republic, specifically in the 1930's, especially the Armee d'le Air, whose front line fighter was only in that position becuase of the company that created it held sway over a few key politicians and military leaders, whereas good fighters, like the Dewoitine 520, were only made in small numbers, until the outbreak of war when the Military finally realized how ill-prepared it was), and generally wasting it where it isn't needed.

But if you are in the military, you are simply more likely to vote Republican, becuase they do support either not-downsizing, or increasing the Military budget, usually regardless of whether or not it is needed.

Did well enough.

At what cost? Have you not seen the aftermath of the Democrats on the military? When Carter left office the military needed to be rebuilt at a cost of billions. Clinton left office with a MUCH weaker military than he came in with. We will be rebuilding for years to make up for it.

Look at it like a car....the Democrats do not do the routine maintenance and the car suffers for it. Then the Republicans take the car to the mechanic and the bill is much higher for the repairs because the preventive maintenance was not done.

So to say he did well enough is not seeing the true picture.

At what cost? Have you not seen the aftermath of the Democrats on the military? When Carter left office the military needed to be rebuilt at a cost of billions. Clinton left office with a MUCH weaker military than he came in with. We will be rebuilding for years to make up for it.

Look at it like a car....the Democrats do not do the routine maintenance and the car suffers for it. Then the Republicans take the car to the mechanic and the bill is much higher for the repairs because the preventive maintenance was not done.

So to say he did well enough is not seeing the true picture.

Rebuild for what? There is no other super-power, and a conventional military is not designed to fight terrorism. This "new war" needs flexibility and innovation that we will never get under the cronyistic and conservative leadership currently in power. They still insist on a Cold War-type military.

Rebuild for what? There is no other super-power, and a conventional military is not designed to fight terrorism. This "new war" needs flexibility and innovation that we will never get under the cronyistic and conservative leadership currently in power. They still insist on a Cold War-type military.

Your post contains a couple false assumptions.

First, a conventional military force is not designed to face only "super-powers." A conventional military will always be needed to operate in conventional environments, which will always exist.

Second, this conventional force is far from a "Cold War-type" military. Cold War-era forces were designed to fight a high-tempo, mechanized battle on the plains of Central Europe. It is good that we retain some of this capability, as those operations are very similar to situations that may arise in the Middle East and parts of the Korean peninsula. However, large portions of the military (especially the Marine Corps, Army Rangers, and some infantry divisions) have been refit and re-trained to conduct what the military calls "operations other than war" (OOW), military operations in urban terrain (MOUT), non-combatant evacuation operations (NEO), security and stability operations, and other low intensity conflicts. We are conducting all of these types of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. There are also specialized units such as the 10th Mountain Division, trained and equipped to fight in specific terrain types. And then there are the true Special Forces, which are not a conventional force at all.

So your statement regarding the Bush administration's "insistence on a Cold War-type" force structure is absolutely false. Our current force structure is good at fighting terrorism, but could get even better.

Your post contains a couple false assumptions.

First, a conventional military force is not designed to face only "super-powers." A conventional military will always be needed to operate in conventional environments, which will always exist.

Second, this conventional force is far from a "Cold War-type" military. Cold War-era forces were designed to fight a high-tempo, mechanized battle on the plains of Central Europe. It is good that we retain some of this capability, as those operations are very similar to situations that may arise in the Middle East and parts of the Korean peninsula. However, large portions of the military (especially the Marine Corps, Army Rangers, and some infantry divisions) have been refit and re-trained to conduct what the military calls "operations other than war" (OOW), military operations in urban terrain (MOUT), non-combatant evacuation operations (NEO), security and stability operations, and other low intensity conflicts. We are conducting all of these types of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. There are also specialized units such as the 10th Mountain Division, trained and equipped to fight in specific terrain types. And then there are the true Special Forces, which are not a conventional force at all.

So your statement regarding the Bush administration's "insistence on a Cold War-type" force structure is absolutely false. Our current force structure is good at fighting terrorism, but could get even better.

Show where it was the Bush administration that enacted those OOW changes.

Conservatives can't have it both ways. If Clinton is responsible for the dip in economy, then he was also responsible for having the foresight to change the military for changing times. If you are going to claim that Bush didn't inherit the military, than you also have to claim that Bush didn't inherit the economy.

I'm pretty fascinated in veteran's attitudes toward the two candidates. It is true that Kerry took a hit in the polls as a result of the Swift Boat slander ads, but it seems probable that this will soon reverse itself since more and more people see these false allegations fall apart.

Contrary to what Karl Rove would have you believe, Bush is not doing very well among military families. They are enraged that this AWOL party boy is squandering their loved ones lives to fatten Haliburton's portfolio. Even The Army Times has written blistering editorials against Bush's slashing of veterans' benefits.

I thought I’d add some articles on the attitudes of many military families. They are mostly pretty old – cut and pasted from an email I sent someone in last summer – but I have also added Michael Moore’s (relatively) more recent article. Truth Out has been covering this issue throughout the war and there are tons of other articles like these on their site. This is just a small sampling.

“'Bring us home': GIs flood US with war-weary emails”
The Observer
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081103A.shtml

“Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq”
The New York Times
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503B.shtml

“Pentagon May Punish GIs Who Spoke Out on TV”
San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072003I.shtml

“Tour of Duty or Deplorable Deployment?”
The Los Angeles Times
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071703D.shtml

“Letters the Troops Have Sent Me”
Michael Moore
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122103A.shtml