ABC News hints: Troops votin’ Democrat this year
posted at 11:27 am on April 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A welcoming present for Petraeus and Crocker from Charlie Gibson and the boys, seizing on CNN’s dopey Iraqi focus-group idea and taking it to its logical conclusion. No grand conclusions about which way the force is leaning are drawn, but the implication is clear enough from the soundbites ABC chose to include (the lone McCain supporter has the silliest justification of the bunch). How representative is the sample? I can’t find any recent polls of military sentiment on the election but an LA Times poll of military families last year found plenty of disgruntlement towards Bush. Doubtless there’s been some erosion of Republican support as the war’s dragged on, even within a profession that’s always skewed a bit right, but to the extent suggested here? With Republicans generally overwhelmingly predisposed to staying in Iraq? Even the left acknowledges that most troops are gung ho to win the war, and that was before 10 months of security gains. Maverick’s surely doing better than this.
Exit question: How angry do you suppose Jon Soltz will be when he sees these men and women in uniform singing Hillary’s and Obama’s praises? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Reservists!!!!!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I met one Liberal when I was in the Marines. He was a Reservist.
pseudonominus on April 8, 2008 at 11:32 AM
More bias from the MSM. Disgusting behavior from ABC. But, what more can you expect from the lib media?
jencab on April 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM
The military is skewed “a bit” to the right?
lol, it is apparent you never served.
pseudonominus on April 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I want to see the sample numbers.
irishspy on April 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM
They finally found the interview they’ve been searching
6 yrs for.
Texyank on April 8, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I’ll tell you what. Let’s allow the troops to select the next Pres. If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.
ABC shouldn’t object, right?
JiangxiDad on April 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Right now I am just shaking my head at Allah.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
We’ll see.
p40tiger on April 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
After reading what he wrote, would you want him too?
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Remember the Time Magazine blub from way, way back on Saturday saying the large majority of Iraqis were hoping for a McCain victory in November? This is ABC’s rejoinder.
jon1979 on April 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
how long till they start lying about the samples though? The purpose of this is to gradually and incrementally change opinions, starting with lying news reports which down the road make those reports eventually ‘true’.
jp on April 8, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Wow, what a bunch of hacks.
I guess the only people ABC WANTED to hear was the ones that agree with them. Fellow Democrats.
ikez78 on April 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
They probably had them raise their hands if they supported Obama and then interviewed only those.
saltydogg14 on April 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I believe this story as much as the Hillary sniper story. The majority of the military boots on the ground can’t stand Hillary or O’Bama. Come Nov. they will be pulling for McCain. I would bet my next paycheck on it!
Winebabe on April 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I don’t know if you posted about it, but I saw this story a while ago and was pretty surprised: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542
Apparently members of the military contributed the most money to Ron Paul and Barack Obama.
Yoosaion on April 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
No, no, this is good. If the dem’s really think the military is going to vote for them this year; they might actually LET them vote! No more lost overseas ballots or “sorry, you took too long”.
Ob1stogie on April 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Uhhhh, consider the source.
And we’re skewed more than “a bit” to the right, and proud of it.
RMCS_USN on April 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM
The left (meaning all of the MSM) are continually introducing premises based on their view of a perfect world, facts and evidence be damned.
They have since the beginning of the Iraq war been confused by the lack of dissent from our all volunteer armed forces when they had hoped for a Vietnam war redux.
This “report” is an absolutely shameless attempt to convince the public of a complete falsehood.
And Allah, the other posters are correct, the military is not skewed “a bit right”. Try 60-40. At worst.
Alamo on April 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM
actually that was disproven, for one its illegal for current military members to contributed. As for Veterans, the data was deeply flawed and wrong, the Corner also posted alot on that.
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/05/do-the-troops-support-ron-paul/
jp on April 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM
…”within a profession that’s always skewed a bit right…”
The military is skewed “a bit” to the right?
lol, it is apparent you never served.” (Or know anyone who’s in the military).
pseudonominus on April 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Be nice and be grateful that he’s, (I assume he’s a young man), is skewed, just a bit, to the right.
Christine on April 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM
You know I think it is funny Allah put this on right at this moment, with Patraeus.
I have noticed that Allah and Ed both don’t seem to like the military, via many of their comments. Always “stirring the pot” so to speak.
Just makes me wonder about people… who say one thing yet don’t back themselves.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Oh boy, they found half a dozen or so liberals in uniform who want to go home. Because none of those troopers would rather be home of course. Surely that is front page news.
*roll eyes*
Yakko77 on April 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Released the day before Patraeus and Crocker testimony.
I question the timing.
swami on April 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Remember the photo of John Fn Kerry sitting all by his lonesome in a mess hall in Iraq?
That’s how the troops feel about all of the traitorous Democrats.
fogw on April 8, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Since when do Democrats or their MSM mouthpieces care about what the average military guy/gal thinks?
That great Liberal thinker, A. Whitney Brown had this to say about supporting the troops:
Asher on April 8, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Private Slater…please report for latrine duty immediately!
soulsirkus on April 8, 2008 at 11:54 AM
What sample numbers? This is nothing but selective propaganda by ABC supporting their leftist agenda which our military will not surrender to or play their anti-American games.
Rovin on April 8, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Yeah, I looked into that a while back. First of all, Ron Paul was the only anti-war Republican running. He didn’t have to share anti-war Republican donations with others. The pro-war Republicans, of which there were several, did have to share.
Second, the anti-war left in the military isn’t likely to support Hillary over Obama as Hillary voted for the war.
Keeping in mind that that’s the most of the troops…that have donated. Which two candidates have we seen supporters go absolutely ecstatic for and donate in troves? Obama and Paul. Last I checked, most of the military had yet to donate.
amerpundit on April 8, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I’m sure that as usual, what was edited out was more interesting than what ABC aired.
I couldn’t possibly care less about any “news” aired by ABC. They’ve proven time and time again that they are nothing but the propaganda arm of the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.
NoDonkey on April 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
So what? I bet there were a plenty of troops who during WW2 wanted to just go home. Who wouldn’t? Your family’s there, your friends are too.
Just because they say they want to go home doesn’t mean they have that choice.
They signed up for the military – it’s their fulfillment of their side of the contract to stay until the military says it’s time to come home.
mjk on April 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
There are some liberals in the military. It isn’t exactly right-wing conservatives who screwed up at Abu Ghraib, for example. The Iraqi scandals have been committed by soldiers with liberal ideologies. Sex without the benefit of marriage (SPC England, SPC Garner), disrespect, insubordination, violence, a gross lack of humanitarianism and so on are relative to liberalism.
The common denominator from all these soldiers is that they are young lower enlisteds. They couldn’t come up with a reason to vote for their candidate, Obama or Hillary, except a simpleton explanation that “change would be nice” or whatever. They are not politicially informed as you can tell by their comments. These are the soldiers who will be getting out after this tour if they are active duty.
Compared to active duty, reservists tend to have more moderate to liberal views. They like the extra money of being a reservist, the idea in theory of being patriotic but only committing on a part time basis and being able to deploy. I know a small handful of conservative reservists.
I don’t know people personally in our peer group who would even entertain the possibility of voting for either Hillary or Obama. Our enlisted friends go to Iraq over and over on repetitive tours and become more resolved that the mission in Iraq is the right course. The end up promoting and being excellent soldiers. The officer friends we have completely get it; the threat, the mission, the necessity to complete the mission. These are highly educated leaders who train and lead troops. They have to be informed, which is why their opinions are significant.
Married soldiers have a better perspective of life outside themselves than these young single soldiers. They see the future for their children and apply their mission to their families, not just their own personal inconvenience. The soldiers interviewed said things like, “I’d like to go home”, etc. The married soldier, by and large, thinks about defeating the enemy to prevent another 9/11 so his country, wife and kids will be safer in the future. The young single soldiers are more likely to think of themselves and their own comforts. This is why they are the target group for college money benefits.
My 72 year old dad told me the other day, “You know why I could never vote for Obama? He has so many college kids voting for him. What do a bunch of dumb college kids know?” In that same train of thought, these soldiers in the video, with the exception of one, were lower enlisted who like being deployed because they can’t spend their money so when they return home will have a large bank account.
And as Dread Pirate Roberts VI said, “Reservists!!”
Amy Proctor on April 8, 2008 at 11:58 AM
the sad thing is ABC is the least bias now of the 3 major nets.
jp on April 8, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Indeed.
Meanwhile, Nearly 600 Troops Reenlist in Baghdad on Independence Day …
How many times do you think that story was mentioned in the media (as compared to something like the reservists who want to go home) And relax, I was a reservist who was sent to Saudi Arabia in 1990, So I can back up what Dread Pirate Roberts VI and pseudonominus’s are commenting on from things that I saw as well.
wise_man on April 8, 2008 at 12:00 PM
When my son, Matt the Marine was home on leave two weeks ago, he said he did not know ONE Marine who would vote for either Hillary! or Barack.
N. O'Brain on April 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM
What utter codswallop! Admittedly, I retired 3 whole years ago but, it was about 75-25% conservative to liberal in the service. I pretty much knew these folks had to be Reservists (if Officers, JAG Corps).
Any wonder I refuse to watch TV news?
MCPO Airdale on April 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Heh. McCain is much more popular in the military than with the general public. Major landslide that would be. As a military wife, it works for me!
funky chicken on April 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
funky chicken on April 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
At least McCain wouldn’t cut the budget to the point of food stamps.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM
The more I read this site, the more I disagree with Allahpundit.
kirkill on April 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Bull!
I’m sure there are some liberal Democrats in uniform and they’re probably non-regular. ABC is a left wing propaganda machine and they’ll do whatever is necessary to enhance the liberal/leftist cause. The wormy, pandering, cut-and-run behavior of the left isn’t popular with the vast jority of our military . . . at least it wasn’t during the 35 years I spent as a soldier.
rplat on April 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I don’t see this post as anti-military by Allahpundit. I think he is hinting that ABC’s hinting is a bit biased. I can’t speak for the man though. Maybe you can provide links to other posts where Allah and Ed have been anti-military.
p40tiger on April 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Am I missing something? What did Allahpundit say or do that’s disagreeable?
I’m curious.
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM
entitlement to my opinions. Just something I have noticed and it seems others have a well.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 12:17 PM
In a word: sickening.
argos on April 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Mind if I ask what part of this post, specifically, you disagree with? I gave you a video, suggested that the sample underrepresents Republican troops, and then snarked on the left for having a double standard about politicking in uniform. Where’s the damage?
Allahpundit on April 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I don’t care what you think about me but a smear on Ed like that demands a little proof. Point me to one anti-military comment he’s made. Show your work.
Allahpundit on April 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Is this supposed to be considered ‘news’? This was as biased as they get. They hit on the liberal agenda’s every note. Immigration. . . well I like Mexicans.
Iraq. . . you want the war to end? WHO DOESN’T?! The difference is that conservatives want it to end without us running away with our tail between our legs and with the need to go back in in the future.
Editors are an amazing bunch. They can make a story sound like anything and most Americans are too stupid to care that they are editing in bias. That reporter sure didn’t seem to be in fear of her safety in that war zone. I’d say we must be doing something right.
ThackerAgency on April 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I agree AP, I don’t understand where this vitriol for you comes from either. It started with you accurately reporting the ridiculous Rudy campaign (I still believe you are a Rudy supporter and would have preferred him). I guess it is just a matter of wanting to kill the messenger.
I think you do fine. . . otherwise these people wouldn’t be here commenting.
ThackerAgency on April 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM
No worries, they are probably participating in OPERATION CHAOS!!!
Brat on April 8, 2008 at 12:30 PM
To me it seemed more like 90-10, but then again that was in the Marines. Presumably the Air Force might be more “cosmopolitan”.
PS I was not disparaging Allahpundit, just observing he does not know the military culture as well as he thinks he does.
pseudonominus on April 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Allahpundit on April 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM
If you want me too Allah. The only time I think Ed has said or done anything good concerning anyone/thing military is when he posted Prof Blather’s note, which I totally agreed with. But unlike you, Ed keeps his quiet about it.
As for being constantly “snarky” towards people. You aren’t objective, you are judgemental.
If you want to ban me, that is fine. But I haven’t said anything against the TOS or even cussed or called you a name.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I also recall a picture of a service member shaking hands with Mrs. Bill Clinton when she was there. She didn’t see it, but he had his fingers crossed on his other hand.
FYI, the last data I saw indicated the enlisted military politics are something like 60% Republican, 40% Democrat. The gap is nuch wider in the officer corps, with only 8% identifying themselves as Dems.
Del Dolemonte on April 8, 2008 at 12:36 PM
And 10% of the people think Elvis is still alive. There is always that 10%…
right2bright on April 8, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Interview them to the extent, that, sooner or later, your agenda can be achieved. The news media does this well.
Let’s surrender and all go home pronto. — ABC News
Travis1 on April 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Where did I ever claim to know military culture well? I freely acknowledge that I don’t.
That’s no argument. You said he doesn’t seem to like the military. He’s written several hundred posts here over the last month and thousands upon thousands at Captain’s Quarters. Shouldn’t be hard for you to find one where he expresses some dislike.
Allahpundit on April 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Upinak
I don’t know much about Allahpundit but as far as Ed Morrissey goes, well I followed Captains Quarters for over three years and can’t think of any blogger (outside of milblogs) more committed to supporting the troops. To put your opinion out there that somehow Ed is anti-military is a shameless smear. You should retract the opinion or show some proof. Doubt you’ll find even a smidgen in Ed’s entire body of blog work.
JonPrichard on April 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM
About 10% of my highschool graduating class entered the military and they were almost exclusively liberal. It may be skewed to the right but to downplay the service of liberal-minded people in the military is pretty abhorrent.
crr6 on April 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Where in this country are they breeding these pro-military liberals? Or did you go to high school in France?
fogw on April 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Allahpundit on April 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM
As I enjoy reading, there was one but I am unable to remember “which” of the blogs it was. And if I remember right he was in the thread disagreeing with someone, as you and I are right now.
But I wasn’t frequently in CQ and since Ed shut it down no real reason to go there to look at archives, but I do remember this one Right before Petraeus did his tesitmony. As I said, Ed keeps quiet, but he is also subtle.
Anything else?
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics” (can’t remember who said it).
ABC wishing something to be true won’t make it so. Come November our alphabet stations, media here, and around the world, “all polls indicated otherwise – how can 65 million Americans be this stupid, again?”.
Entelechy on April 8, 2008 at 1:00 PM
No one has done that. The thread is about ABC making up statistics, to their own liking.
Entelechy on April 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM
When I joined the Navy in 1980, it was a heavily conservative group of people even then towards the end of the Carter administration. My son is serving now and he tells me it still is. ABC is full of it as usual.
Kowboy on April 8, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I tell you what; let’s propose letting everyone serving to cast 10 ballots this year. They certainly have earned it and, if this premise of the piece it true, such a measure would just sail through the Democratic COngress, right?
michaelo on April 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Hyperventilate much?
James on April 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM
There are more liberals/leftists or those who “lean” that way in the military than you would think.
I’m into my 21st year of active duty and I still run into them to this day. Matter of fact, my Chief leans pretty far to the left on a lot of issues.
Some of the statements about these being younger troops plays a part. I can remember being deployed (even when I wasn’t so young) and I wanted to go home. I didn’t cry about it, but it is a natural feeling. There are very few people who enjoy being deployed – conditions suck, area sucks, nothing or very little to do, you name it. Of course this shouldn’t be taken as to the troops not believing in what they are doing, or not supporting the overall mission (even though a small percentage does think that way.)
Of course one should consider the source (ABC)as has already been stated here.
Numerous deployments, especially over a long period of time does lead to frustration of those involved; regardless of the argument that they “signed a contract and do what they are told”. It is tasking. Frustration builds and people vent. ABC just took advantage of it.
Also being a junior enlisted person doesn’t allow for the bigger picture type of thinking, something even lacking in the officer corps. I did it when I was that age – you can’t see beyond your own “selfish” needs/wants and nothing else matters.
Of course a natural caveat would be that if this type of thinking were indeed prevalent, as ABC seems to want to insinuate, the enlistment and re-enlistment rates for the services would be drastically lower than they are. That is evidence enough that ABC’s premise is absurd.
And unfortunately, most younger people in the military DO NOT VOTE, just as is seen in the general population. (Perhaps slightly higher than the gen pop, but in my experience, it’s about the same) so again, this whole exercise is fruitless anyway.
Just another attempt by the MSM to use the troops to further their own agenda and biases.
catmman on April 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Just read it. It doesn’t fit your accusation. Not even close.
Slublog on April 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
foggy, I can’t agree entirely. I believe I was one of only four NCO’s on three of the four teams on which I served that ever voted for a Democrat. Remember now, that was more then forty years ago.
I gotta believe there would be a greater tendency among National Guard and Reservists held under the despicable “stop loss” policy of the Bush Administration; that will be voting for Democrats!
I certainly don’t believe those troopers are…
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Slublog on April 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
if you remember a year ago how everyone was feeling and who was pointing fingers at who, concerning this or that and why was this going on when that was going on. I do. I also remember not many were giving the General a chance. As I was just waiting for his report.
I am not saying Ed is a bad person… or even Allah. It is just my opinion, on some things I have noticed. If Allah doesn’t like it fine. At least we are adult enough to agree to disagree.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM
I’m being to think much (not all) of the political blogosphere is a bunch of hyperventilating.
terryannonline on April 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
catmman, the fact is; the enlistment and re-enlistment rates for the services are insufficient. Therefore the requirement for the damn “stop loss” policy!
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Next, ABC will have a focus group of cattle ranchers that mysteriously seem to support Veganism, a group of car enthusiasts who mysteriously seem to support closing city centers to anything but public transportation, and, of course, a group of hunters that seem to support banning guns.
Crass dishonesty, thy name is MSM.
Or, in other words,
“My baloney has a first name,
it’s M-A-J-O-R,
my baloney has a second name,
it’s M-E-D-I-A,
I love to watch it every day,
and if you ask me why I’ll say,
(clip ends, insert “shaping” analysis by reporter about how jingle spoofers approve of and trust the MSM)”
Merovign on April 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM
To be clear, I said traitorous Democrats, not traitorous Democrat soldiers. There’s a huge difference.
I was referring to the “I support the troops but not the CIC” crowd sitting in the halls of congress, and not any soldier involved in the fight. Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, any and every soldier fighting the fight has my undying support. I am quite certain their brothers in arms feel the same.
fogw on April 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Senator Jim Webb has it “right on” with his new GI Bill. It’s time for Senator McCain to get on board!
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 1:33 PM
fogw on April 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM
+1, with one exception – we should always write Soldiers with a capital “S”, no matter what the rules are.
Entelechy on April 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I thought Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911 should that our troops is dumb? If they’re for Obama/Hillary does that prove him right or wrong?
rbj on April 8, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I gotta believe there would be a greater tendency among National Guard and Reservists held under the despicable “stop loss” policy of the Bush Administration; that will be voting for Democrats!
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Bush’s despicable “stop loss”?
What are you, stupid?
Stop loss is a policy which has been in effect since the inception of United States military. It hasn’t always been called stop loss, but it’s been there just the same. It is a way to keep personnel on active duty during times of need.
Everyone who knows comes in the military signs the papers with the understanding they could be held beyond their period of enlistment if the need arises.
If you didn’t read the paper, your an idiot and have noone but yourself to blame either way.
The military is not a social playground for people to come and get money for college. It is a deadly serious business.
Or did you just write what you did getting your education from the recent movie of the same name?
Stop loss can hit people, I’ve seen it – once in my 21 years of service. It does affect people, but more people have been called back to active duty after retiring or seperating than have been held in due to stop loss.
Hell, more people have come back in the service after retiring – to serve some more – than have been affected by stop loss. That’s how infrequent it is.
The devil is in the details as they say. You enlist for whatever period of time; after your enlistment is done you are placed on the active reserve list for four years; after that time you are placed on inactive reserve for another four years. Only after that time (assumoing there isn’t a draft for some unseen emergency) and your still of age, you can get called back in even then.
So for a person enlisting for four years, you are agreeing to sixteen years of total service and possible call-back.
I know we got off on a tangent here, but this type of crap just gets my goat!
Bush’s despicable…
And since we’re on the subject, you know what I say? If you don’t want to participate in “Bush’s War”, then get the hell out of the military!
If you don’t get it and aren’t educating yourself on what the sacrifice of service really means, we don’t want your ass anyway!
I definately don’t want you staying in for any length of time and poisoning the service after I’m gone.
catmman on April 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM
And the enlistment and re-enlistment stats are plenty sufficient.
All the services continue to meet their goals. There is a bunch of press near the end of every fiscal year when the numbers aren’t all in yet, but the goals get met.
I guess the military is hurting for people so much that’s why we’re still drawing down forces?
The AF is pushing 40,000 people total (mostly officers) over the next few years. The other services are doing the same.
Speak about what you know J Gotcht, and this is one subject you don’t know about.
Out.
catmman on April 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM
I read that at the end of WW2 troops were rioting in Europe because they wanted to come home. They had won the damn war, enough already.
Keep in mind that we have a volunteer military, if those guys do not want to be there they can always be civilians.
Terrye on April 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Stop loss is and has been around for years. After you “retire” or just get out after a few years in… you had a 2 yr window that if something happened, you could be called back. It has happened to a few of my friends who were in critical MOS’s, and even though they complained for a couple hours, they stopped and did what they had to do.
It isn’t Bush’s anything. Stop blaming a person who really has nothing to do with it.
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM
It’s certainly not my intention to piss you off.
General Petraeus testified just this very morning that; he’s very concerned about the loss of officers at Captain’s rank and the failure of many senior NCO’s to reenlist.
Even a dumb arse like myself; might imagine those “merc outfits” paying six figure salaries might be influencing the situation.
I’ve been watching the Senate hearing with great interest. Taking notes, even…
My apologies for any undo aggravation.
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Hat tip me
The real question, is how many people did they have to go through before they could skew their report. Now I know I being in the military doesn’t make you Republican since I know people who have served and are very left wing. But come on ABC, you act like everyone that is articulate in the military is a democrat. Only the dumb looking, slack jaw yokels would support McCain, according to ABC.
Lance Murdock on April 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM
upinak, you’re right it’s our War!
However; President Bush made the decision to wage it and his DoD determined to reestablish the “stop loss” program due to lack of personnel for whatever reason!
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Look right now it is not about just time they have served over there in both Afg and Iraq, but it is also about Money.
Most Officers rarely if ever recieve a bonus, yet if they re-enlist they get a nice one…. and it is a nice one.
Also many Senior NCO’s (E-6 and above) don’t usually get bonuses either, and right now many who usually do not recieve one (these are not the critical MOS’s) are actually getting one for the first time in years as well. Critical MOS’s can usually recieve a bonus for re-signing, but it also has to do with when they re-enlist during the fiscal year.
Bush had nothing to do with the stop lose. This, as I have said before, has been around for years and years. It started after vietnam if I am remembering history correctly (though I would love it if someone told me I was correct or not). DoD hasn’t really used stop lose up until recently, and it wasn’t due to Bush. It was due to younger and lower ranking enlisted getting out.
And not sure what you mean by “our war”? Afgahnistan was a U.N. started war, in which the US helps. Iraq was started due to sanctions in which the U.N. agreed… then on to other things. Could you clarify?
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
This is a pile of DO DO,American Military are voting
Liberal,really.
By any chance does it have any connection to do with
the Presidentail Election!
So,when the Democratic Liberal Party went to court
during the hanging chad soap opera to try and deny
American Military Personnel their vote by the absantee
ballot,their voting left,ya okay!
canopfor on April 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Funny you should mention that. My husband served in Iraq with now Congressman Patrick Murphy from PA. And guess what.. he was JAG.
Amy Proctor on April 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
It’s our War because our brave men and women are fighting and dieing there.
The UN could have sanctioned till the cows come home. President Bush used the sanctions as part of his political cover to us as citizens; that he was justified in his decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
If the UN actually started the war in Afghanistan; wow you gotta admire their cajones!
Actually I was under the impression they agreed to support and assist US there.
In any case that’s were we should be fightin’ … al-Qaeda is their in spades!
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 2:44 PM
In 2004 the military voted 72-17 Bush over Kerry. Not exactly a “slim majority.”
Capitalist Infidel on April 8, 2008 at 3:05 PM
The Army is losing Captains (as the AF is) because of end strength levels set by Congress.
The services need to meet these levels, and the O Corps is taking the brunt of this drawdown phase.
As to SNCO’s re-enlisting. The Army’s rank structure is a bit different (as far as how fast promotions take place) but SNCo’s don’t re-enlist in as high numbers for a few reasons: 1) There aren’t that many SNCO’s as a percentage of teh total force. 2) SNCO’s by and large don’t have to re-enlist since they are already committed through their retirement.
Additionally, SNCO’s don’t stay too long after they hit 20 years since they have met their service committments, they hit their retirement time, they are worn out, little opportunity for further advancement to name a few.
I know about SNCO’s – I are one. I’m fortunate that I was allowed to re-enlist just recently. And I said allowed to re-enlist, it isn’t a guarentee.
I know your just saying what the good gerneral said, J Gotch. Just adding my two cents.
And stop with misrepresenting the stop loss. I smacked down your reasoning. You are still at it. You don’t do much for your credibility by continuing with your bias.
catmman on April 8, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Does this mean the Democrats won’t be suing to invalidate military votes, or will they be doing it anyway, out of general habit?
NoDonkey on April 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Was that liberal Marine actually in Iraq? If so, you’ve met one more than I ever have.
I have about as much interest in listening to the video clip as I have in listening to archived Tass and Pravda broadcasts.
What I want to know is: How was this “random sampling” orchestrated? That must have taken a huge amount of work and I’d pay money to see what ABC had to do to put this circus together.
logis on April 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Capital “S”. Ah yes, splendid idea Entelechy.
Now if only I could find a microscopic “d” on my keyboard.
cheers.
fogw on April 8, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I hope the American public is not stupid enough to buy into ABC News’ cherry picking.
SoulGlo on April 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM
This troop ain’t ever voting for a gdamned Democrat, ever, for anything.
NoDonkey on April 8, 2008 at 3:55 PM
It is nice to know that good NCO’s are still around. Look forward to working with you in the future.
Can you please do us a favor. Get some of your facts straight. Thanks
upinak on April 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM
J:
The Congress authorized this war and still would be if they thought it would win them the election.
Terrye on April 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Thanks for your two cents.
I’ve been out of the loop for more than forty years. I know when I left; the Army was offering for that time [1966--$ 4500 if memory serves?] fabulous bonus’s to reenlist if you had a critical PMOS and cross training like mine.
I do recall that the per diem on my first two missions was fabulous! We made more money in four days than we got for entire month of base pay, parachute pay and combat pay!
They couldn’t have paid me enough… to go back for a fifth time! Sooner or later you’re bound to buy the farm under those circumstances and I felt like I’d done my share.
I served sis years active and had prior service of nine years with the Wisconsin, Army National Guard.
“Stop Loss” never became and issue with me; perhaps because of the length of my NG and active duty service?
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM
catmman, set me straight!
The Congress foolishly agreed to abdicate their authority to declare the War in Iraq and gave President Bush the opportunity to exercise the advice of the sorry neocons that populated his “adults in Washington” cadre of advisors!
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I really wished they had a McCain supporter give a good answer to supporting him because he is the only candidate who supports keeping these soldiers there. I highly, highly doubt that the reason most military people are going to vote for McCain is so they can say in a war and get paid for it. That is just stupid and bad reporting.
glasschariot on April 8, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Senator Biden’s statement; said it all!
Thank you Senator Biden!
J_Gocht on April 8, 2008 at 4:44 PM
J Gocht
Stop loss never affected you because there was a draft, it wasn’t needed.
Length of service has nothing to do with it. Type of service has nothing to do with it.
Critical shortages in certain AFSC’s (MOS for Army/MC) can precipitate stop loss now. There is no draft.
So we could start this debate: What do we do, keep a few people on active duty for a few months (the longest you can be extended under stop loss is 12 months I believe), or re-institute the draft to cover any possible shortfalls?
And let’s not try to deflect the issue by bringing this back into retention or re-enlistment. The services are getting the troops in. But there is a training lag (up to several years) depending on specialty. Just as with equipment, sometimes there are shortages. But they are always shortlived.
Stop loss is used sparingly and as a last resort and anyone affected by it is released as soon as is feasable, usually only a period of months on average, but it could be as little as a few weeks, no more than a year as I stated above in extreme cases.
Bonuses are offered, they vary depending on service and specialty. I’ve never been authorized a bonus for my particualr field in 21 years of service. Others do get bookoo money for enlistment, re-enlistment, etc.
Per Diem used to be big. I remember my first TDY (1989) to Germany for a training exercise. I made a lot of money for a 35 day TDY. Nowadays, Per diem (especially in the AOR) is non-existant – mess and lodging are provided. If you get per diem, the rates are usually low. It can add up over time (if your gone long enough) though.
Most personnel make their money through savings of their base pay which is supplemented by hazardous duty/fire pay, family seperation allowance, stuff like that. You can bank a lot of money since you have very few outlets to spend it on while your deployed…
I think I’m officially off-topic now…
catmman on April 8, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »