NationStates Jolt Archive

At one point, when discussing Iraq, Bush mentioned a soldier's letter that he found inspiring:

Our troops know the historic importance of our work. One Army Specialist wrote home: "We are transforming a once sick society into a hopeful place The various terrorist enemies we are facing in Iraq," he continued, "are really aiming at you back in the United States.

This is a test of will for our country. We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists."

That young man is right our men and women in uniform are doing a superb job for America. Tonight I want to speak to all of them and to their families:

You are involved in a struggle of historic proportion. Because of your service and sacrifice, we are defeating the terrorists where they live and plan, and making America safer. Because of you, women in Afghanistan are no longer shot in a sports stadium.

Because of you, the people of Iraq no longer fear being executed and left in mass graves. Because of you, the world is more just and will be more peaceful.



Now, consider that soldier's words: "We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists."

Hmm, well that would make it one of GW's kids in Iraq? No? Soldiers of whose then? It's an odd choice of words for a soldier to use when writing home....

Oh - here is the letter! (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA500.html)

It is called "Keep the Faith" and was penned as an essay by Joe Roche who serves with the U.S. Army's 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq and is an adjunct fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think-tank.



Just your normal letter home from a soldier to mom...... if you mom is a think tank!



Of course, this Joe Roche fellow seems to have a lot of time on his hands in Baghdad. Hell, he even had time to critique Farenheit 9-11! His critique starts with: (http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/07/fahrenheit-911-and-its-impact-on.html)

Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is making the rounds here at U.S. bases in Kuwait. Some soldiers have received it already and are passing is around. The impact is devastating.

Here we are, soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, just days from finally returning home after over a year serving in Iraq, and Moore's film is shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed. Moore has abused the First Amendment and is hurting us worse than the enemy has.

There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren't familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven't been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore's.

There are others who joined for reasons of money and other benefits, and never gave full thought to the issues. For them, seeing this film has jolted them grievously because they never even knew where some of these countries were that we have been serving in. Imagine the impact this film has on them.



So - according to Roche, battle-hardened soldiers after serving a full year in-country are too young, impressionable, and stupid to possibly understand issues around reasons for wars, and even to stupid to know WHERE they are fighting! Poor dumb grunts shouldn't have to think about such things after all.....



What a guy.

It definitely seems a bit sketchy but it could just be an extemely partisan soldier saying what he needs to get people to think.

EDIT: Skimmed his critique...

Angry Leftists and Radical Leftists...

This guy is clearly partisan.

BLogger Oliver Willis (http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/494) notes a couple of things about Joe Roche's background.
"Joe Roche serves with the U.S. Army's 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq and is an adjunct fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington think-tank". What's the Nat'l Center for Public Policy Research? "The National Center helped change public opinion through vocal national campaigns aimed at supporting Reagan administration initiatives concerning the USSR, arms control, Central America and human rights". Tom Delay says "The National Center is THE CENTER for conservative communications."

Now, don't you think that in the interests of full disclosure that President Bush (thank God I'll only have to call him that for another couple of months) should have noted that in addition to being a soldier, Roche is a Fellow at a conservative think tank, especially one so conservative that Tom Delay calls it the "center of conservative communications?"

interesting indeed. what i don't understand (concerning Roche's critique of Moore) is how Moore is any more wrong than these conservative think-tanks and the biased media? If the first amendment is to be "abused" (his words not mine) by the "right" (for lack of a better term) why can't it be "abused" by Moore?


oh well, i'm sick of it. who's up for armed revolution?

EDIT: grammar.

It definitely seems a bit sketchy but it could just be an extemely partisan soldier saying what he needs to get people to think.

EDIT: Skimmed his critique...

Angry Leftists and Radical Leftists...

This guy is clearly partisan.

Yep.

The president should more accurately have stated: "One conservative political strategest wrote an essay that said...", but then people would have dismissed it. Presenting it as a soldier "writing home" makes it sound like a battlefield letter written by someone who ISN'T part of an established political action group.


Incidentally - could GW be contributing to problems for this soldier? We DID discuss this the other day that active duty soldiers are now prohibited from becoming involved in partisan politics.

The updates to these laws signed earlier this month preclude active duty soldiers from, amongst other things, "Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause."


Mr Roche best contact the President and suggest that by using his writings as part of a convention speech designed to sway voters, GW may have placed this soldier in violation of Directive DOD 1344.10 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d134410x.htm)

I would demand an immediate retraction if I were him....

Now, consider that soldier's words: "We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists."

Hmm, well that would make it one of GW's kids in Iraq? No? Soldiers of whose then? It's an odd choice of words for a soldier to use when writing home....

...

Just your normal letter home from a soldier to mom...... if you mom is a think tank!


The National Center IS a conservative think tank. But Joe Roche really is an army specialist of 16th Armored Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division. Just because his letter was posted on their site doesn't necessarily mean that he's in cahoots with them. He's a real solider, definitely. Whether or not he's affiliated is unclear to me.

look here (http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRPresidentSoldierIraq904.html)

The tone expresses that they're covering news they like, which happens to be from him..not that he's making it for them.


So - according to Roche, battle-hardened soldiers after serving a full year in-country are too young, impressionable, and stupid to possibly understand issues around reasons for wars, and even to stupid to know WHERE they are fighting! Poor dumb grunts shouldn't have to think about such things after all.....


I don't think anyone will disagree with the fact that many soldiers are young and impressionable. And it is true that most of them are not fluent with, or even interested in the college style debate or Moore's be-film spliced twist on things. Moore has an agenda. The troops aren't responding well to it.

If I were a soldier in Iraq I would be heartbroken that there were people who thought all the time and energy I was exerting was wrong. I understand the legitimacy of there being a political debate about whether the US should've entered Iraq or not, but the troops should not be included in this. Regardless of how Americans feel politically, the military forces should always receive full support and honor.

Just look at whom Time Magazine picked as person of the year for 2003: The American Soldier. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/21/person.of.year.ap/index.html)

with the millions of letters written home from iraq, im pretty sure they could have found one or two written by those not employed by a think tank that would do just as well. ive read some in my local newspaper that were very moving. they must just not have tried very hard.

it must be very demoralizing for a 21 year old to realize that he is in iraq risking his life, seeing his friends get blown up, shooting at civilians, FOR A LIE. it sure does upset me sitting here in my comfy living room.

would it be better to continue to lie to them because it makes them feel better? or do we give them the respect that an american soldier deserves and tell them the truth?

The National Center IS a conservative think tank. But Joe Roche really is an army specialist of 16th Armored Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division. Just because his letter was posted on their site doesn't necessarily mean that he's in cahoots with them. He's a real solider, definitely. Whether or not he's affiliated is unclear to me.


The affiliation is accredited on his essay on that site where it describes him as: (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA500.html)

"Joe Roche serves with the U.S. Army's 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq and is an adjunct fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington think-tank. Comments may be sent to him via info@nationalcenter.org "


that's pretty darn clear....

If I were a soldier in Iraq I would be heartbroken that there were people who thought all the time and energy I was exerting was wrong. I understand the legitimacy of there being a political debate about whether the US should've entered Iraq or not, but the troops should not be included in this. Regardless of how Americans feel politically, the military forces should always receive full support and honor.


So - it is Michael Moore's fault that the soldiers are watching his movie?

How exactly do you have a debate and not include the soldiers? Do you ask them all to leave the room first before you can talk politics? Hide the newspapers from them?

And how does a political debate not support or honor the troops? I've never understood that. I can say "this war is stupid idea, but as long as it is going on I hope that the soldiers come home safe and sound." One does not preclude the other. If soldiers cannot understand that (along with the inability to understand a map if Mr. Roche is to be believed) then that is their problem - not mine.

would it be better to continue to lie to them because it makes them feel better? or do we give them the respect that an american soldier deserves and tell them the truth?

The truth? If it's the truth you're after, it wouldn't be to Michael Moore that you'd be turning. He has his own slant on things. That much is obvious.

For truth, you wouldn't turn to Republican sources, either. They probably have as much slant as the hollywood liberals that Moore represents.

I think the US, as a nation, would be much better off if people would learn to honestly and open-mindedly look at issues and evaluate them for themselves, rather than lazily identifying with someone else's spin they see in TV ads or in a "documentary" (which, IMHO, only documents how well Moore is at telling people what he wants them to hear).

But it's a lot more work to decide things for yourself than accepting a pleasing (but false) reality as presented by professional spin doctors. So, I see no really promising solution in sight.

Well, there's always the expatriate way to go. I hear Mexico's splendid this time of year.

So - it is Michael Moore's fault that the soldiers are watching his movie?


um...yeah! He didn't HAVE to make the movie. So, if someone watches it, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he holds the "blame".

How exactly do you have a debate and not include the soldiers? Do you ask them all to leave the room first before you can talk politics? Hide the newspapers from them?

I don't mean that soldiers should be restricted as far as what news they get, or what voices they hear, but I think that it's in the best interest of everyone if, in speeches or movies or what not, there is an attack on the ideology of the war that there is also a "I'm glad for the effort the troops are dedicating to the service of their country". This is what I mean. They are doing their duty. Mislead or not, they are doing it and that needs to be recognized. I feel any attempts to diminish their dedication to the US are wrong.


And how does a political debate not support or honor the troops? I've never understood that. I can say "this war is stupid idea, but as long as it is going on I hope that the soldiers come home safe and sound." One does not preclude the other.

I don't think the first precludes the other, either.

michael moore is kinda like that zell miller speech from the other night.

its not that moore has lied. he just has his own take on the subject that he isnt afraid to let people know about. its the truth through the moore filter.

most of what zell miller said the other night was true ( there were a few lies but who can be bothered to remember them). he gave his interpretation of things, which meant that kerry is bad bad bad. i listened to what he said and most of the time thought "gee im glad kerry did that"

i would not want our soldiers to be barred from hearing zell millers speech just because kerry might end up their commander in chief in a few months. (*crossing my fingers*)

if they are interested enough in politics to see F9/11 im glad they have a chance to do so. they are smart enough to see whats being done and ask around if they dont know "college -type political debate"

The truth? If it's the truth you're after, it wouldn't be to Michael Moore that you'd be turning. He has his own slant on things. That much is obvious.

For truth, you wouldn't turn to Republican sources, either. They probably have as much slant as the hollywood liberals that Moore represents.

I think the US, as a nation, would be much better off if people would learn to honestly and open-mindedly look at issues and evaluate them for themselves, rather than lazily identifying with someone else's spin they see in TV ads or in a "documentary" (which, IMHO, only documents how well Moore is at telling people what he wants them to hear).

But it's a lot more work to decide things for yourself than accepting a pleasing (but false) reality as presented by professional spin doctors. So, I see no really promising solution in sight.

Well, there's always the expatriate way to go. I hear Mexico's splendid this time of year.
Alright, some of these things have to stop-it's just stupid. Moore is from Flint, Michigan and makes his film in and about middle america. Miramax is a New York distribution house, which was the original funder of F9/11. It was the Hollywood parent, Disney, that tried to end the distrbution and the Canadian Lions Gate Films that stepped in and distributed the film. Just because it's a movie does not mean it's 'Hollywood.' Stop it, you sound stupid. (not you specifically, people who make that connection and in that specific context)

um...yeah! He didn't HAVE to make the movie. So, if someone watches it, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he holds the "blame".



I don't mean that soldiers should be restricted as far as what news they get, or what voices they hear, but I think that it's in the best interest of everyone if, in speeches or movies or what not, there is an attack on the ideology of the war that there is also a "I'm glad for the effort the troops are dedicating to the service of their country". This is what I mean. They are doing their duty. Mislead or not, they are doing it and that needs to be recognized. I feel any attempts to diminish their dedication to the US are wrong.



I don't think the first precludes the other, either.
Fortunately enough, in the film Michael Moore says that a soldier gives the greatest gift to their country by laying thier life on the line for it, and the only thing thats asked is that we only do it if it's absolutely neccisary. Moore's argument is that the administration betrayed that trust. Looks like it's covered.

um...yeah! He didn't HAVE to make the movie. So, if someone watches it, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he holds the "blame".


Ah. So you want to have political discourse, but only to allow opinions or presentations that suit your own set of standards. Freedom of expression be damned!


That is not what the Armed Forces are supposed to be defending....

If I were a soldier in Iraq I would be heartbroken that there were people who thought all the time and energy I was exerting was wrong. I understand the legitimacy of there being a political debate about whether the US should've entered Iraq or not, but the troops should not be included in this. Regardless of how Americans feel politically, the military forces should always receive full support and honor.

I agree with that last sentiment completely... and a good way to do this is by doing the best we can to remove President Bush from his current position so that he can no longer so needlessly waste their lives.

Just because it's a movie does not mean it's 'Hollywood.'

Perhaps, before jumping to conclusions, you should try to get your facts straight. I was not trying to assert that Moore had strong ties to Hollywood in a regional/commercial/whatever else sense. I meant this as a reference to the Natalie Portman/Ben Affleck/Michael Moore group of people that are using their high profile as a front for political persuasion. I was just using them as a reference point for a pole. A pole which you obviosly identify with. My intent was to point out that both sides use subterfuge and the like, and often they don't even realize it. Once someone if convinced that one thing or another is right, it is almost impossible to get an unbiased, unslanted opinion, observation, or comment. It cannot be denied that Michael Moore has thee personal convictions. Just as it cannot be denied that Zell Miller, or Schwarzenegger, or Joe Roeche do. My point is that to get any sort of accurate opicture of the situation you can't rely solely (or even minimally) on these sources. Everyione in America is in a catch-22 because in order to get information, they need a middle man (be it the media, a conservative think tank, or Moore). This middle man will take his profit of the truth away from this information and pass it on as fact.

I'm not saying I have solutions to these problems. I'm really not. But I fell that if we don't recognize them as problems then there can be no positive, non-partisan dialogue in the US. None. At least, none that doesn't involve OSU-sized riots.


Stop it, you sound stupid. (not you specifically, people who make that connection and in that specific context)
I would be very interested in a stop to name-calling. I would like to discuss this rationally and as unbisaedly as possible. I really appreciate that you did not directly direct that at me. I think that there is compromise that can be made and common ground that can be forged even in this the most heated of election years.

Directly direct? I sound almost like Yogi.

At one point, when discussing Iraq, Bush mentioned a soldier's letter that he found inspiring:



Now, consider that soldier's words: "We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists."

Hmm, well that would make it one of GW's kids in Iraq? No? Soldiers of whose then? It's an odd choice of words for a soldier to use when writing home....

Oh - here is the letter! (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA500.html)

It is called "Keep the Faith" and was penned as an essay by Joe Roche who serves with the U.S. Army's 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq and is an adjunct fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think-tank.



Just your normal letter home from a soldier to mom...... if you mom is a think tank!



Of course, this Joe Roche fellow seems to have a lot of time on his hands in Baghdad. Hell, he even had time to critique Farenheit 9-11! His critique starts with: (http://www.nationalcenter.org/2004/07/fahrenheit-911-and-its-impact-on.html)




So - according to Roche, battle-hardened soldiers after serving a full year in-country are too young, impressionable, and stupid to possibly understand issues around reasons for wars, and even to stupid to know WHERE they are fighting! Poor dumb grunts shouldn't have to think about such things after all.....



What a guy.I guess since Bush figures hes gotten by all his life by never thinking thats what everyone else can get away with too--but not everyone was born with a silver spoon up their nose the way Bush did

Ah. So you want to have political discourse, but only to allow opinions or presentations that suit your own set of standards.

No that isn't what I want. And I don't really see how you came to that conclusion.

If you're looking for "fault" for the soldiers watching the movie...this is really, really simple. Even though there isn't anyone really to "blame", since "blame" has a negative connotation (as does "fault"), there are two real choices involved. Moore chose to make the movie. The soldiers chose to watch the movie. They share the "responsibility" and are "at fault".

There may have been some commanders involved an between there, but that isn't really important.

Is what you want me to say something like "I hate michael moore and all his liberal cronies"? I didn't say that before. I don't say it now. I'm simply refuting the idea that michael moore has no part in the soldiers' watching of HIS movie. I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory.

I guess since Bush figures hes gotten by all his life by never thinking thats what everyone else can get away with too--but not everyone was born with a silver spoon up their nose the way Bush did

::confused::

I think this is a problem, too. But it's shared with essentially all politicians. Many of them, at least. And if they weren't born rich, then they almost definitely are now. I feel that this removes them, our representative force in the government, too much from us.

Again, I don't know the solution to this...pay cuts? mandatory poverty for politicians? but I feel that it IS a problem.

I like the tag your nation has received from Jolt--"adminbots boyfriend"--I've never seen that one before. These tags are pretty original. And funny

Now, don't you think that in the interests of full disclosure that President Bush (thank God I'll only have to call him that for another couple of months)
You finaly doing America a favor and renouncing your citizenship? Your man (No, Kerry, not Dean) is down by ten points and falling, and is firing all the people doing a great job for him. Maybe the problem is him, not them. Perhaps the Kerry fool should fire himself.

Kerry Fled