According to some posts at DailyKOS the Marine Corps is blocking access to many web pages with anti-Bush messages.

Wonkette is one of those sites. Amazing on this list is also some of the sites that are allowed:

Bill O'Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) - OK
Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."
Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) - OK
ABC News "The Note" - OK
Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."
G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) - OK
Don & Mike Show (www.donandmikewebsite.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/) is categorized as: Profanity, Entertainment/Recreation/Hobbies."

A person identified as a Marine on Wonkette has accumulated much more and has, pretty much, documented the situation. Apparently there are also ways of avoiding this firewall, but even that is questionable.

Finally, a question posed by Talking Points Memo addresses the issue of this Administration using uniformed members of the armed forces in its political messages- in total disregard of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Methinks we got the makin's of another tempest in a teapot here. One source says 'tis the Marines doin' the blockin', the other says 'tis CENTCOM, and 'twould seem 'tis all based on what one anonymous Marine is sayin', eh?

I know for a fact that DoD has started firewallin' its system, which is really like a humongous ISP, tryin' to keep it from bein' a source for generalized internet surfin' IOT cut down access for hackers, viruses and such. This also keeps their 'puters and personnel focused on doin' military stuff rather than other things, same as some businesses've done, eh? At the same time methinks they've also disabled most nonmilitary e-mail access to their system IOT cut down on spam and other stuff tryin' to clog their system and prevent "Denial Of Service attacks.

Y'all can get your knickers in a knot over this if it makes you feel better, but methinks 'tis not really part of a sinister Rovian plot to brainwash our military. Time to go back and read "Much Ado About Nothing" or "Chicken Little", eh?

As I posted at FireDogLake about this - it all fits into the Zogby poll results (via Newsweek):

• 75% of troops feel we should be out of Iraq within a year
• 85% feel we are there to exact revenge for 9/11

Where are they getting the information for #2?

Doc,

Me personally? I have no problem at all in the DoD, Marines, CENTCOM, or my own school district firewalling. There are certain things that certain groups of people need not see when they are using someone elses computer. However, DoD does have a history of "selective firewalling," so to speak. It literally took almost an act of congress to have Ed Shultz broadcast on Armed Forces Radio to counterpoint Bill O'Rielly and that wingbat bunch. As the Wonkette and KOS articles noted, the firewall seems to have a right wing political sensitivity, allowing access to convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy, as well as Limbaugh and O'Rielly but blocking the likes of Franken and AAR.

Too often, our armed forces are only hearing one side of the message, which, by definition, is distorted; I would say exactly the same thing if it were the reverse situation. My point is: this firewall has essentially become the Diebold of DoD media, so it is time to either keep all political broadcasts off all armed forces media, or none.

Well Noonan, if you couch the question in the way I hear what the troops coming out of Iraq say they expect to accomplish what they were sent there for in about a year. Why would you expect for them to want to stay there if the Iraqi security forces are up to speed?

I don't hear anyone saying we should cut and run from Iraq from anyone in the military.

I don't hear 'cut and run' from anyone, period- military or otherwise.

Well, that's what claiming 75% of the troops want out of Iraq in a year is saying. If you get the story strait 75% of the troops believe their job will be done in that time frame and yes, it will be time to go. It is deceptive the way the left couches that proposition and I think someone should point that out.

The problem is, they are not told why they are there. They were misled into war, and now they are being misled about why they are still there.

As Winston stated, there is a bias being applied to the filtering that makes one wonder about the motives behind the filtering.

And you haven't heard 'cut and run' from me either. The only time I ever hear 'cut and run' is from supporters of the war when they are bashing [/I]any discussion about any form of withdrawl of our troops. I support Feingold's proposal to set benchmarks and set our troop levels based upon informed and pragmatic decisions of both [I]our military and civilian leaders as well as the Iraqi leadership.

Claiming = as reported in a Zogby poll. Got a problem with that souce? That's the way the poll results are being reported by Zogby himself, both in print and in interviews.

My post was supposed to look like this.

http://wonkette.com/politics/wonkette/our-...ssip-158687.php
Our Boys Need Gossip!
If we may do a brief update to a post of ours that got a substantial amount of attention last week:

We were originally going to say that we don't actually believe that we here at Wonkette are being “censored” by anyone just because military computers in Iraq are blocked from viewing our site. We were going to point out that, yes, we're blocked from more than one workplace (though, thankfully, not too many), often for non-human reasons such as automated filters that don't look too kindly on words like “ass"expletive deleted"ing.” The hyperbolic Call to Arms tone of the original post was just that — hyperbole. We even got emails from US Military spokespeople kindly explaining that soldiers and marines are allowed to check their email (though only through their .mil addresses, we think, and they all come out signed “Irving Washington”), and we were going to tell everyone to calm down, etc. etc.

But our embedded operative who sent us the initial heads-up sent an update.

Unfortunately anonomizers don't work out here (never have). Anyway, I had a few minutes today and thought I'd look and see what else was banned on the Marine web here. I think the results speak for themselves:

Wonkette – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion.”
Bill O’Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) – OK
Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) – OK
ABC News “The Note” – OK
Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) – OK
Don & Mike Show (www.donandmikewebsite.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/) is categorized as: Profanity, Entertainment/Recreation/Hobbies.”
And, uh, now we're just a wee bit suspicious. And even more upset than before, actually — they're making them read the goddam Note? No "expletive deleted"ing wonder 72% of 'em want to get the hell out of there.

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 [Zogby]
Earlier: We're Bringing the War Back Home
Wonkette: Blocked No More

Marine, 'cut and run' is a Republican phrase. Other than responding to that specific term, no Democrat in any position of power has ever used it. Period. The Republicans have tried to pin that term on the Left, but it has never been part of the Democratic agenda.

Y'all are surprised with the blog-blocks?

Bet you buttons they'd have done the
same thing during Vietnam if there was
an Internet then. Instead they tried to
belittle your service if you desented.

Does Swift Boating ring a bell?

It's an expected part of the game
when you work for the government
(or DP World). They have something to
say about what you are allowed to put
into the mix, but I expect that.

And, some of it makes sense to me...
strange as that sounds...moral in Iraq
must be a hinky thing. Unit pride is strong,
mission pride on the other hand...well it
depends on the troop. As it always has.
These guys are heart & soul...love 'em...
bring 'em home...and embrace them when
they come. I long for the day when our troops
have a clear, rational mission, then we can all
march as Americans...again.

U.S. soldiers don't "cut and run", but wise ones
know when to fall back, regroup and set a new
tactical plan before you have to call in air strikes
on your own position. Civilian Leadership, not
military moral is what is lacking. If the administration
rose to the courage and rational of our troops...
the nation would be united...I still hope it may be.

Like I said before, methinks it all depends on how the questions in the poll were worded and asked. From what little I've been able to learn from Gunny's son the Iraqi forces are comin' on line pretty well, so maybe our military folks're pretty confident Iraqi forces'll be doin' most or all the heavy liftin; a year from now, eh? Methinks then, even though I expect we'll have at least a force the size of a reinforced regimental strike team (probably almost all Marines) still stayin' there, almost all our combat troops'll likely be out.

As to the 9/11 inference, methinks they were asked in a way where they thought they were bein' asked if operations in Iraq are part of the war on terrorism, which methinks most think is true. Bet someone just put their own interpretation and/or spin on it. No, no no, no! We collectively, eh? Wasn't aware that O'Reilly or anyone else other than Limbaugh were even bein' carried on AFRTS, they weren't when I last checked the AFN Europe schedule 'bout six months ago where I noticed most of the news and talk stuff was from NPR and a lot of it fairly liberal oriented, eh? I guess if them military folks can stomach "Fresh Air" and Terri Gross they can stomach just 'bout anything though.I still question this info, seen too much stuff from KOS turn out other than originally represented to get all excited over it, but ain't seen enough from Wonkette to pass judgement. Methinks the single anonymous Marine as the only source also makes me wonder a bit.

'Tis my understandin' that little by little most everything not havin' to do with the military'll be walled off their computer networks. 'Twould seem 'tis a slow process 'cause they don't want to cut off stuff that they really need to leave access to. Remember too, DoD is a government entity and so they don't always do stuff as efficiently as possible.No argument from me on that, but methinks I ain't willin' to remove them doin' the listenin' from the equation. Why not let them decide instead of us tryin' to censor what they hear and see?Oh? What about Nancy Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy, though they said and keep sayin' it in different words, for starters?

With all due respect to the Gunny and his son (I miss having Gunny around here) - and this hasn't changed since we started discussing this, although my sources have widened - nothing I hear agrees with this. The Iraqi forces are a joke to our troops. Insert "Iraqi" for "ARVN" in the old jokes and stories and what I hear is the stuff, different 'ally'.

The original information was updated on FireDogLake, and I think I posted this earlier. The information they are posting there comes from a woman who's boyfriend/husband (I can't recall) is in Iraq and the sites he can get to there are very much different from what he could get to in Germany. Stop by the site I linked to if you'd like to read it straight from the source.

I'll eat crow when I see Fox taken off the internet sites and AFR. I'll also be singing praises of the military heirachy if/when they clear some of the sites currently blocked. From what I posted before, Wonkette isn't blocked now, but she was.

I long for the day when our troops don't have any mission at all,
and all of us who have gone before
can join them
as they spend their days marching
in holiday parades.


Well said, Indianhead

Here! Here! Let the man speak!

You can't rise to courage
if you aspire to cowardice.

Hope disappeared
with Shock and Awe.

This thread is going too 'beat' for me to keep up.

Saying something other than "cut and run" is, by default, not saying "cut and run." No one is disagreeing today that we need to get outta that place, the question is how, how many, and when. Considering that, up until last year, Bush and Rummy had us staying there for perhaps a decade.

Don't do an Op when loyalty is in question.
We lost seven guys to this sort of B.S.
It ain't about political correctness...it's
about tactical security. Who is with us?
What do we stand for? I don't want GWB
defining it...or those who serve HIM. Give me
a military CO, company commander, batallion
commander...not some neo-con philanderer.

Not a problem with the source what so ever. I've got a problem with implying our troops want to cut and run which just isn't so.

Last November I was telling you people we would be seeing troop reductions based upon what I heard from people who had been in Iraq. Lo and behold, two months later the Pentagon puzzle palace announces they will be reducing troop levels in Iraq. One would think the old Top might know a few people who know what's going on, eh?

The troop reductions were coming about because the job is being accomplished. The Iraqi Army and Police forces are coming along nicely and as bad as you folks don't want to admit it, we are doing what we set out to do in Iraq. Same reason why 75% of the troops believe they will be out of Iraq in a year.

And I have a problem with the way you present the poll, it's deceptive to state 75% of the troops in Iraq believe they will be out without stating they believe they will be out because their job shall be done.

Try looking at these photos and try to claim the Iraqi Army is the same as ARVNs
http://www.gunco.net/gallery/showphoto.php...to/5836/cat/578

Hey Winston, who's talking about 'cutting and running' around here? You?

Can someone tell me what this mission is, because last time I hear 'mission' and 'accomplished' used at the same time, GW was 'landing' on a carrier, and we're still in Iraq years and thousands of lives later.

Sure, I was going to post something about this earlier today, and decided not to. To quote Da Governator, 'I'll be back'. Needless to say, the Iraqi police are years away from being an effective force according to what it says.

The job of exacting revenge for 9/11? Tell me again what their job is over there, because no one in DC seems to be able to do so.

Yes, nice slide show the Sgt. has there. I've seen pictures from my uncle in 'Nam that look similar, but he tends to spit after saying ARVN. My neighbor is stationed in Iraq as well, his reports (via his wife) don't mesh with your story. Our Sgt. may have a different take, and for his sake, I hope he does, because I worry about him just like the other people I know over there.

You're passing on info you've heard. I'm passing on info I've heard. Who's right in the end? Both of us. If you check back through the archives, I have talked about people saying there was good being done (schools, electicial, etc.) but all of those stories have stopped in the past 12 months. No one I talk to personally that has been in Iraq recently has anything good to say about the war, the Iraqi troops and police (and if you look back, I have expressed why I feel they are having problems), or their civilian leaders (for those permitted by law to express their views). The one constant since day one has been: why are we here, and how the he77 do we get home? Nothing new or unique to this war, but the positives have melted away.

You're pissin' me off Marine. No one thinks anyone wants to cut and run. NO ONE! Our military wants to come home because they've done their job. THEY'VE DONE THEIR JOB! Their Commander in Chief f'ucked up, but they did what they were told to do. They did it well, flawlessly, beyond expectations. They were not given enough boots on the ground, they weren't given the right equipment, and at home the Republican Congress and President who were supposed to look out for them did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO SCREW THEM. Reduced benefits and higher deductibles for their spouses and children, vet hospitals underfunded, double and triple rotations. AND, IN SPITE OF ALL OF THIS, THESE MEN AND WOMEN DID EVERYTHING THEY WERE ASKED! They deserve to come home, they've earned it, and the only reason they're still there is BECAUSE THEIR COMMANDER IN CHIEF, AND ALL HIS CIVILIAN SYNCOPHANTS, FEITH, RUMSFELD, WOLFOWITZ, CHENEY, THE WHOLE CABAL. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO F'UCKED UP! THEY F'UCKED UP! THEY...F'UCKED...UP! WHY SHOULD OUR MILITARY CONTINUE TO PAY THE CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH'S F'UCK UP! THAT'S WHAT ALL OF US ARE SAYING. THAT'S WHAT NOONAN SAYS. THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING.

Why does this conversation keep happening? We started off talking about finding out if our military in theater is hearing both sides of the story- not just the Fox News, but the AAR position too. Just investigating. That's all. Yet somehow this, once again, turns into an either/or, black/white dichotomy. It's not. It's not that simple, it's not that easy. Over the last 5 years we've been forced to think in these polarities, but the world isn't polar. Only we are. I have never suggested cut and run, Marine, never. I have suggested that we redeploy our forces into Afghanistan and finish the job from which this idiot of a Commander in Chief cut an ran.

You and I have argued several times about whether Iraq is in a civil war. It keeps getting worse and worse; even Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is afraid that the corner has been turned, that sectarian violence will become a civil war. Do you want our military to be stuck in the middle of that carnage? It's time they came home; with honor, with yellow ribbons on every tree and a 'job well done' enscribed on the banners waving upon their return, it's time to bring them home.

But getting back to the original intent of this thread: our military is entitled to hear both sides, or neither. And I would say the same thing if it was AAR on AFR instead of Limbaugh or O'Rielly.

Like Noonan said, jes' change ARVN to Iraqi.

Marine, Noonanda's pix are great, but Noonan is right: looks just like the pix from 'Nam

NO THEY DON'T!

When you look at ARVN's you are looking at a conscript army who just as soon didn't want to be fighting for a corrupt government. Kid's dragged out of their hamlets and given the choice of fighting for the Cong or Saigon depending on who snatched them from their home first.

When you look at the new Iraqi Army you are looking at men who stood in line to volunteer for their country. Stood in line with the full knowledge that Saddam's Fascist holdovers would target them for murder. The people you see in Staff Sergeant Noonan's photo's chose to join the Army of Iraq, chose to place their lives into harms way, and chose to make their country a better place. You insult and dishonor men who volunteered to serve their country by saying they are no better than conscripts.

Trying to make Iraq into Vietnam fails on all counts.

Well Winston when I keep hearing people say 75% of the troops in Iraq say we ought to be out of Iraq in a year without saying why we ought to be out is nothing but deceptive.

It would be sort of like claiming Southern Baptists are abandoning Christianity because there will be a mass exodus from their churchs between 12 and 12:30 next Sunday.

And there won't be a civil war in Iraq because too many Iraqis are still convinced there is a political solution. The only people who want a civil war in Iraq are Saddam holdovers who want Saddam back, foreign terrorists who want to destablize the region, and American liberals who want to make the Bush administration look bad.

You know, I can almost agree with the first sentence. I can see the fighting there dying down once our troops leave.

However, the rest of what you are saying flies in the face with what has been reported recently. The groups you talk about held sway early in the post-invasion days, but everything I see and hear now is all about religious strife and interneccine warfare. Things that won't go away until there is a winner. I guess I'm one of the bad guys, I'm an American liberal and I don't want to needlessly try to make the Bush administration look good. (I don't need to make them look bad, they do that just fine on their own, thank you.)

The reasons for withdrawal are so convoluted within themselves that reason is lost, it is meaningless, it is immaterial. Only 25% of our troops say we should stay. Some of them think we should stay because we need to build democracy, and for every one that thinks so, there are three who disagree. Some think we should stay to contain terrorism, and for every one that thinks so, there are three who disagree. Whatever reason one thinks, there are three who disagree.

Murtha said it best, and as recently as a week ago: we should leave because our armed forces have done all they can do. They won.

You have yet to address the civilian leadership that has put our troops in such an untenable position. They lost.

Troops won, civilians lost. Troops 1, Civilians 0

I would look at it this way: between noon and 12:30 every Sunday, the mission was accomplished. Just because we leave Iraq doesn't mean we've abandoned democracy, it just means that, to use your analogy, church is over.

There are too many others who believe otherwise.

My point exactly.

Besides being a patently false shibolith puked up Rove and his sickies, we don't have to want that. We don't need such pain and suffering inflicted upon a group of people who have never done anything to us for George Bush and his band of criminal incompetents to look bad. As Noonan said, they do a great job of that without any help from us liberals.

Now Marine, tell me why you think Bush and Rumsfeld have won the war? Our soldiers won, but tell me why you thing those two have?

See what Gen. Odom has to say about that.

Oh, I've read what General Odom has said. He's been retired for over fifteen years and his field of expertise is Russia and Eastern Europe(and he was in signals intelligence). His offering analysis on Iraq or Vietnam is about as good as if you wanted me to design a nuclear submarine.

Here's a list of his published articles where he workes at the Hudson Institute, suppose you point out to me where he says he claims he knows a thing about either Vietnam or Iraq.
*Intelligence Community No Better than Its Policymakers 08/03/2004
*Retreating in Good Order 07/23/2004
*Fixing Intelligence Book Discussion as seen on C-Span 05/29/2003
*General Odom's Bibliography of Published Articles 05/23/2002
*Realism About Russia 04/26/2002
*TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 04/17/2002
*Macedonia Crisis Shows Need for NATO Expansion 06/25/2001
*Buchanan Has It Backwards on Globalization 08/23/2000
*A Disaster Puts Putin in a Bind 08/23/2000
*21st Century Directions in American Foreign Policy 04/01/2000
*Russia's Next Blunder 10/29/1999
*Losing Our Russian Illusions 11/01/1998
*Ratifying NATO Enlargement: Borah Versus Vandenberg 04/01/1998


I never said Bush or Rumsfeild won nothing. I said saying 75% of the troops believe we will be out of Iraq because they believe our job will be done.

What job?

That was an amazing thing for an educated man to say Noonan.

Back at you.
I know what I think the job they are doing there is. I'm curious what you think 'the job' is , or what your sources say 'their job' is.

William E. Odom
From SourceWatch
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute's Washington, D.C. office. He is also a visiting professor at Georgetown University and a Fellow at Berkeley College, Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. [1] (http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=OdomWill)

From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. [2] (http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=OdomWill)

Odom graduated in 1954 from West Point with a Bachelor of Science and from Columbia University with both a Masters Degree and a Doctor of Philosophy in 1970. [3] (http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=224573) [4] (http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=OdomWill)

Odom is currently Chairman of the Board of Directors at the V-ONE Corporation of Rockville, MD, and has served on the board since 1996. He is also Chairman of the Board at American Science & Engineering of Billerica, MA, where he has served as both an officer and director since September 1996. [5] (http://www.v-one.com/board.html#odom) [6] (http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=224573)

He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy and an adjunct faculty member in the Security Studies Program of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. [7] (http://ssp.georgetown.edu/adjunctoz.html)

According to Media Transparency (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/odom_results.htm), in 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1998, Odom's research on military and security studies was funded by both the Smith Richardson Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation.

Table of contents [showhide]
1 War on terrorism / War in Iraq

2 Publications

3 SourceWatch Resources

4 External Links

[edit]War on terrorism / War in Iraq
On Friday, April 9, 2004, Odom described the attack on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as "one of the great strategic errors of the post-Cold War era." [8] (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04100/298445.stm)

On April 28, 2004, the Wall Street Journal reported: "General William E. Odom warms that a military occupation will never produce a 'friendly democracy' in Iraq and argues that the Bush administration should removed US forces from the region as soon as possible. Gen. Odom puts it bluntly: 'We have failed.'" [9] (http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/edit/index.php?op=view&itemid=1391)

On NBC's "Today" show Thursday, April 29, 2004, Odom said "We have already failed ... Staying in longer makes us fail worse ... I think we've passed the chances not to fail. And now we are in the situation where we have to limit the damage." [10] (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8552589.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)

Also see Operation Iraqi Freedom: Military and Political Dissent.

[edit]Publications
"The most recent [ 1998 (http://66.218.71.225/search/cache?p=%22William+E.+Odom%22&ei=UTF-8&cop=mss&u=www.shevardnadzefoundation.org/biographies/biographies_odom.html&w=%22william+e+odom%22&d=D6EC35B78C&c=482&yc=11217&icp=1) ] of General Odom's books is The Collapse of the Soviet Military (Yale University Press, 1998), which won the Marshall Shulman Prize. He also has written America's Military Revolution: Strategy and Structure After the Cold War (American University Press, 1993); Trial After Triumph: East Asia After the Cold War (Hudson Institute, 1992); On Internal War: American and Soviet Approaches to Third World Clients and Insurgents (Duke University Press, 1992); and The Soviet Volunteers (Princeton University Press, 1973). He coauthored Commonwealth or Empire? Russia, Central Asia, and the Transcaucasus, with Robert Dujarric (Hudson Institute, 1995).

"He has published articles in Foreign Affairs, World Politics, Foreign Policy, Orbis, Problems of Communism, The National Interest, The Washington Quarterly, Military Review, and many other publications. A frequent radio and television commentator, General Odom has appeared on programs such as "McNeil/Lehrer News Hour," CNN's "Crossfire", ABC's "Nightline", NBC News, and BBC's "The World Tonight." He also is a periodic contributor the op-ed pages of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and others."

With all due respect to you Marine, it seems that a quick look at his resume would indicate he knows a little more about most of this stuff than you give him credit.  Seems to me a guy with a trio of stars on his shoulders might have a tad up on someone with any number of stripes on their sleeve, eh? 

So when'd you say you wanna start buildin' that submarine?

QUOTE(Marine @ Mar 9 2006, 05:12 AM)

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld won nothing anything.  I said saying 75% of the troops believe we will be out of Iraq because they believe our job will be done.

Guess that's the point, huh! Bush and Rummy haven't won squat, and I don't think they could win a fight with their own shadow. That's the real problem here: it's the losers leading the winners onto a victory they've already won, and snapping political defeat out of the jaws of military victory.

If "done" is- as you have used it- in the future tense, our military wouldn't want to come home so quickly because they're trained to stick around and get the job done. But change it to present tense and the 75% makes all kinds of sense: their job IS done so they want to come home. Can't say as I blame them.

So you know what Marine? I really think we are saying the same thing, but one of us is not chosing to recognize that fact. We did it Marine, we won. We beat Saddam, destroyed his army, captured him, killed his demon spawn, and have put the whole regime on trial; now we're training their military and law enforcement to take the job from here. That's what a military is supposed to do.

And, for what it's worth, through policing actions our military has kept the three factions from ripping out each other's throats- which, by the way, was not part of their military mission- whatever that mission might have been.

The civilians- State Dept., DoD, and whatever agencies might be involved- were supposed to pick it up from there. They failed miserably, they are failing miserably now, and from all indications, they will continue miserably failing well into the future. The reasons for their miserable failures don't matter anymore. Our troops are paying the price for civilian failures, and I think they should no longer have to pay that miserable price.

Sorry Winston but the Hudson Institute did not add that he had expertise on the Persian Gulf or Iraq until after his exertion that Iraq was like Vietnam. I've looked at General Odom's resume previously and claiming expertise about the Persian Gulf is a recent addition. Nice to claim to be an expert when never before he did anything or published any learned papers in that area, eh?

I don't deny he's and expert, I'd refer you to his publications, none of which deal with anything in the Middle East, to determine what areas of the world in which his expertise derives.

Noonan their job is to ready the Iraqi's to hold their own country against the folks who want to drag Iraq back into Fascism.

They have done a good job at doing that, if they hadn't 75% of the troops there wouldn't feel like the Iraqis will be ready to take over in less than a year.

Tell me something Noonan, when Bill Clinton was stopping Milosovic from exterminating the Kosovars will you reference me to something you posted opposing that? Or was that ok since Bill was a democrat? You know, we killed plenty of innocent Serbs and even put a precisionn guide bomb right into the Chinese Embassy, where was your outrage then?

Anyone providing internet access has the right to restrict the content flowing through that access. If the DoD were to try to restrict content on privately funded access, that would be a different story.

Anyone who joins the Military signs away rights they would have as civilians. It's debatable what should be restricted in the private lives, on the private property of active duty military. This is the second main reason why I didn't stay in the Military.

While they may have the legal right to do so, that doesn't make it right[I], do you see? We're not discussing legalities here. We're discussing and trying to shed light on what seems to be a well-orchestrated effort of our military big-wigs to restrict the flow of information to the troops, to skew it.

It may sound corny to say this, but that's un-American.

You are right, we shouldn't confuse rights with what is right. You have the right to gamble away your life savings, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do if you did.

The military has the right to restrict access to active duty members. We have the right to protest.

Having said that, It doesn't bother me if they restrict access as long as they don't provide biased political propaganda. For purposes of morale, we don't want the military to be against the current adminstration, as long as they are equally for whatever administration follows, Democrat or Republican.

Got a bunch to catch up and reply on in this thread, but methinks I gotta do this one right now!No they don't! Anyone who joins the military does not, and can not sign away any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. I once thought the same thing, at least 'til this pretty smart fella named Thurgood Marshall, who at the time was a sitting Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, spoke to a group of us at the Military Rights and Responsibilities training workshop I attended in DC in, I think, 1984.

Justice Marshall set us straight on many things, one of which was that joinin' the military in no way removed any of your constitutionally guaranteed protections and rights. He went on to explain that there is nothing contained in the constitution that would even allow this to happen. Accordin' to him the confusion comes in because each of our rights carries with it responsibilities, and the military more strictly enforces these responsibilities than you'd normally see in the civilian world.

That's good to know that it's the goal. The reality seems a little different.

I had a security clearance that restricted much of what I could say or do, and where I could even go without being tried for espionage in multiple countries. There are limits on free speech in the military. There is also double jeopardy in the military. You can be tried twice and punished twice for the same crime if convicted in a civilian court. There are very little checks and balances in military jurisdiction. A commanding officer can be judge, jury and executioner with the right to sentence capital punishment abroad. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice for the life-long civilians) is full of catch-alls that punish any undesirable behavior with regardless of the legalities. If it were only about the Constitution, they wouldn't need a UCMJ.

No, it was different because it was a NATO mission, not a gung-ho, planned before 9/11, invade Iraq at all costs that no one else really bought into mission.

Where was my outrage? Well, short of inventing a time machine and posting retroactively about it, my outrage was expressed in that time honored form - letters to Congressmen, the same guys I have today and to my papers, just like I do today.

You know, the funny thing is, I don't see why you bring up the Embassy if you're all hot and bothered about Billy boy, he didn't program in the coordinates off an outdated map. Perhaps you may know some of the guys that may have done that...

You're painting with a pretty broad stroke lately, Marine. Gotta remember that I'm not as far "left" on military issues as you are imagining, but you are making it harder and harder lately to prove it, not that I feel I do.

Yup, that's the bein' held responsible part, eh? Doubt you can realistically say any rights was infringed on though.Example please? Anything more stringent than you find in civilian life'll do just fine. Remember, 'tis gotta be somethin' that restricts the actual right, not how one gets held responsible. Only if the civilian court is a state court, and even then the charge can't be the same even when 'tis from the same incident. In fact civilians are subject to the same, though 'tis not often done. Methinks them that don't understand their rights and let themselves get railroaded is why the Military Rights and Responsibilities workshop program came into bein', eh? You've stated more misconceptions, but nothin' a meaningful trip through United States Code Title X, Chapter 47 wouldn't cure.

IMHO a good officer or NCO learns what it takes to protect their people, and uses it! 'Course I only served 30 years, so I mighta missed somethin', eh?

Methinks I'm gonna hafta go back and address the other stuff we was talkin' 'bout yesterday or whenever 'twas tomorrow. I'm so beat I can't even read right tonight.

I don't know Noonan, I thought what Bill Clinton did was a pretty noble thing. They'd only had a blood feud going on there for about 800 years so it took a little gumption to assume he could change anything about the situation there.

I remember republicans making the same arguments you make now, I remember the all is lost hand wringing and we have no business being there being shouted from the roof tops. I think I'll do what I did when we shut down the killing in the Balkans, pay attention to what is trying to be accomplished, ignore the political shrilling, and hope we make a difference in making a better world.

The USA is trying to make a change in a place in the world which has been a hot bed of hatred for over a millenium. I don't care if you hate George Bush or not, I hope what he is trying to do works, not because I like George Bush but because it would make the world a better place, I'd call what we are trying to do in Iraq a pretty noble idea too.

The only thing I'd say the military restricts in the private life and on private property is stuff which will effect the performance of one's dutys.

I knew a number of folks who got caught up in that argument when they started drug testing whether they used dope or not.

But you know something? There are a lot of civilian organizations who do the same thing, the only difference is getting fired in the civilian world doesn't carry the stigma as a dishonorable discharge.

Having only served a 5th of the time with no training on the subject, I concede that you probably know the difference between irresponsible abuse of rights and protected fair use of rights in the military better than I do. I can see how it would be possible to retain all of your constitutional rights in the military, even if it's not as easy as it is legally justified on paper. However, if the average member of the military believes that he/she has fewer rights, the effect is the same.

I favor the idea of responsibility over rights by principle and not law. For example, It's is irresponsible to publish cartoon bashing the Islamic faith. By law, it is legal. By principle, the outrage was justified.

I see Bill is reading this, so he may be writing the same thing now. What I assumed he was referring to in his posts was the restrictions on officers criticizing their CinC. That's limiting their 1st Amendment rights. I'll leave this up to Bill.

I think we are on the same page. They may have the legal right to criticize their CinC, but we all know how well that would go over. And I'm sure they could find something in the UCMJ that would make it at least ruled in a court-martial as illegal under the UCMJ.

You guys should know better than to take on Doc Flydangler in the area of military justice and law, especially where it involves protecting his juniors. On many more than one occasion I saw him go nose to nose with seniors, including Marine general officers, in support of his people (Marines and sailors) and I don't think he ever lost.

You might consider that his tendency to butt heads with the brass is probably a big part of what kept him from making Master Chief a loss, but I doubt seriously he ever regretted it. In fact I often thought he enjoyed it, but he was a bad influence. I think a little of him rubbed off on me and may be why I never made 1stSgt.