digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Army's PR Office Spreading Partisan Attacks On Obama

blog.washingtonpost.com — The Army's public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news called "Stand To". Tuesday's edition contained an entry that struck me as unusual -- both for its headline and its patent political bias: "Obama: World peace thru surrender." Have any of these people actually read the Obama defense policy papers or speeches?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mentalmerc, on 06/12/2008, -46/+8Has anyone actually read the Obama voting record? Is everyone a hypnotized zombie who just takes what someone says at face value? Is the Jedi Mind Trick actually a real phenomenon? Obama has said he will: go into Pakistan against the country's will to fight al-qaeda, has voted for over $300 billion of war appropriations bills, has voted for police state legislation like Patriot Act reauthorization, and, for Black viewers, has been the #1 campaigner for Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan member who called the Black peoples "creatures from the darkest wilds". Look at this sometime.

    http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/buy ...
    • actorboy, on 06/12/2008, -2/+25I just had a look at your comment history. If you want to spam your blog all over Digg, try doing it through the Digg's story submission system.
    • dennisrhidalgo, on 06/13/2008, -4/+11Mentalmerc,
      I think that most of us would be open to an honest discussion about the news in question, but would react negatively to distractions and unfair accusations. Byrd may have been a KKK member, but his is currently one of the most honorable persons in the Senate. To bring his KKK past to discredit his current political judgment is not only unfair, but dishonest and plain cheap attack tactic.
    • malex, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Clearly, we've paid closer attention to his voting record than you have.
    • unreg, on 06/13/2008, -8/+1The Obama insurgency, making mountains out of molehills, again.

      Is the insurgency so insecure of their candidates ability that they have to go out sniffing for meaningless articles such as this?
      • Darksoul, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Yeah I hate to tell you moron this is hardly meaningless this is propaganda pretty much what morons like you want us to do is be quiet not say anything that way you can push your "propaganda" to get who you wanted elected its quite pathetic seriously. Next time to reading the article, by the way reading is the thing you do when your eyes move back side to side and up and down all to gather new information try it sometime.
    • SpinningHead, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3So Byrd is an issue, but it wasn't an issue that Cheney was one of the only members of the senate to vote against sanctions against apartheid South Africa?
  • sneakeykop, on 06/12/2008, -41/+6doesnt matter.... this elections is set up for him to win...regardless of what anyone says....

    OBAMA08

    a wolf in sheeps clothing...
  • livegreenordie, on 06/12/2008, -9/+47 Unless they hold a gun to their heads some soldiers are going to vote for Obama. Some absentee ballots casted by black & hispanic soldiers in some states like Florida, were challenged when certified letters were sent to their home addresses and returned as undeliverable. I guess they could use that tactic again~
    • dennisrhidalgo, on 06/13/2008, -1/+19I saw similar tactics used in the previous presidential elections. One that stands up in my mind is when a republican agent in the voting center harassed a Latino voter I had just brought with questions about identity, language and color of the skin despite the fact that she had brought her Driver License and her Voter ID.
      • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4A "republican agent" at the voting center? What's a "republican agent"?
        You had "brought" her? And what was the outcome?
        • dennisrhidalgo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6This was in Minnesota and the Republican Party there had dispatched a team of agents or citizen-monitors which had the right, according to state law, to question individuals' credentials to vote. I was providing transportation for individuals who lacked ways of getting to the polls when I saw these republican monitors practically harassing voters who came to vote from relatively poor sections of the county.
    • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -9/+3Wear the unifrom, get paid peanuts, fight and die on command. But DON'T have a political opinion?

      I think not.
      • coldpockets, on 06/13/2008, -0/+12The army fully embraces their soldiers having an opinion, just not spreading it in uniform and claiming that it's the position of the Army at large. It's the exact same as working for any company. I can vote for whoever I want and spread all the political tripe I'd like, but not from my company email account.
        • foofightrs777, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2But apparently it's okay for the Army to spread their political opinion.
    • sanman, on 06/13/2008, -12/+4Same old rotten game of Liberals/Democrats trying to attack the military. Just like Gore trying to exclude overseas military ballots to win the election. Then later on they always whine about it's an unfair myth that they are anti-military. Pathetic.
      • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Obama already said he was going to defund the military.
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0And expand it.
        • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2He said he was going to take away funding. Did Obama also say he'd expand it? Where did he say that? Anyway, typical contradictory Obama statements if he did say that.
  • Kavalier, on 06/12/2008, -7/+7These guys speculate that Hooah is Gates himself...

    http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/06/12/the-army ...
  • alapoet, on 06/12/2008, -10/+65It's a black mark against the Army's PR office that they'd stoop to partisan politics like this.

    What gets me is that they see themselves as "supporting the troops" -- but their definition of "supporting the troops" translates to "let them provide target practice for both sides in Iraq's civil war."
    • Julik, on 06/13/2008, -14/+1Most of the troops understand what they are doing in Iraq and do not want to surrender. Those articles don't get on the liberal media outlets... they also don't get dugg on digg.
      • publiclurker, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8So tell me, what do they think they are doing over there? I'm sure we can all use a good laugh.
      • wendelgee2, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Grunts don't set the mission, buddy. The civilian leadership does...that's us.
        • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1I don't think you count as "civilian leadership" in any way shape or form.
        • wendelgee2, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1You're not really picking up on the whole "representative" gov't thing, are you?
      • mikelieman, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Please enlighten us. What, pray tell, are the troops doing in Iraq other than trying to stay alive and healthy long enough to get home -- where they belong in the first place.

        You know who should have the responsibility of securing Iraq?

        The Iraqis.

        In fact, last week, didn't their "democratically elected parliament" tell the US that they wanted them out?
      • siszam, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8Wrong. My son is a Marine. He and most of his fellow Marines have been against this unconstitutional, illegal war from the start. I think you're making things up to suit your warmonger agenda or you're talking to the few, brainwashed service members who tell themselves they are doing good so they won't lose it and blow their brains out.

        You're just as bad as those nut job moms who praise Bush and claim their sons died for some great cause. You're sick. You and your kind betray our troops. You people are the enemy.
        • Julik, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I was a troop. I am glad you heard from your son what he feels about the war, but I heard from a lot more than one person.

          A lot of the soldiers can see the change they are making and do understand what they are doing is helping. I personally know more than a couple marines that volunteered to go back to Iraq. Not that volunteering is necessary right now.
        • wendelgee2, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1They're good noble soldiers who want to help. I can respect that. But there's a lot of ***** in the world and they can't fix all of it. Are they fired up to go to Darfur too? There's a whole city in America that needs rebuilding. We could also use their help sandbagging Iowa. Hell, there's work to be done in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
    • SEN5241, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4And it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that congress is trying to shut the military up by outlawing all military press conferences?
      • sodade, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2The military should shut the ***** up. At this point all the higher ups are ***** suspect. If you want to voice your opinion on politics, then do it as a civilian. 60 years of lies and FUD to steal or tax money for what? Not one ***** thing that benefited the american people. War is a racket.
    • mtxrawkus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Note the updated story from Washington Post....

      http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/06/f ...

      "The Army Corrects Course

      Yesterday, I noted an Army website that linked to a patently political attack on Sen. Barack Obama. At some point yesterday, the Army's public affairs office removed the link from its page, so it's not there anymore. (I pulled a screenshot of the page earlier in the week, in case you want to compare.) Kudos to the Army for its quick course correction here.

      Also, I should note that both the Stand To and the Early Bird daily digests do regularly link to articles and blogs that are critical of the military, including World Politics Review, NPR and others. And when they do so, they typically take the headline verbatim, whether or not such headline is consistent with the Army's values and message."
  • Kavalier, on 06/12/2008, -10/+43I agree with alapoet, it's completely irresponsible and they are just shooting themselves in the foot if they have to work with Obama as say... I don't know... their next COMMANDER IN CHIEF?!
    • diggrim, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1it's an opinion piece
      • sodade, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Give your opinion as a civilian in a civilian paper.
  • erranttv, on 06/12/2008, -8/+35Don't know if it's true, but one of my friends in the military says the get McCain campaign emails even though they didn't sign up for them.
    • f3rr3r, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5I'm a Senior Non-Commisioned Officer In the Army. Got this in my work email where Spam is highly monitored and ***** FWD's are a no no. It was sent to me by a CW5...........


      Mrs. McCain: More than meets the eye.

      While Obama's wife has been hating America , complaining about the war and undermining our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan , McCain's wife has been worrying about her sons who actually are fighting or planning to fight in the war on terror. One, in fact, was until a few months ago deployed in Iraq during some of the worst violence.
      You don't hear the McCains talk about it, but their 19-year-old Marine, Jimmy, is preparing for his second tour of duty. Their 21-year-old son, Jack, is poised to graduate from Annapolis and also could join the Marines as a second lieutenant. The couple made the decision not to draw attention to their sons out of respect for other families with sons and daughters in harm's way.
      Cindy also says she doesn't want to risk falling apart on the campaign trail talking about Jimmy who was so young when he enlisted she had to sign consent forms for his medical tests before he could report for duty and potentially upsetting parents of soldiers who are serving or have been killed.
      The McCains want to make sure their boys get no special treatment. Same goes for their five other children, including a daughter they adopted from Bangladesh . During a visit to Mother Teresa's orphanage there, Cindy noticed a dying baby. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life.. So she brought the child home to America for the surgery she desperately needed. The baby is now their healthy, 16-year-old daughter, Bridget.
      Though all seven McCain children including two Sen. McCain adopted from his first marriage are supportive of their father, they prefer their privacy to the glare of the campaign trail. Another daughter, Meghan, 23, helps him behind the scenes.
      Cindy McCain not only cherishes her children, but also her country, which in an election year filled with America-bashing, is a refreshing novelty. She seethed when she heard Michelle Obama's unpatriotic remarks that she only recently grew proud of America . "I am very proud of my country," Mrs. McCain asserted.
      She also may be tougher than the other women in the race. While Hillary thinks she's come under sniper fire on mission trips abroad, Cindy has actually seen violence. She witnessed a boy get blown up by a mine in Kuwait during a trip with an international group that removes land mines from war-torn countries.
      Mrs. McCain also is a hands-on philanthropist. She sits on the board of Operation Smile, which arranges for plastic surgeons to fix cleft palates and other birth defects. She also has helped organize relief missions to Micronesia During a scuba-diving vacation to the islands, Mrs. McCain took a friend to a local hospital to have a cut treated. She was shocked, and saddened, by what she saw.
      "They opened the door to the OR, where the supplies were, and there were two cats and a whole bunch of rats climbing out of the sterile supplies," she recalled. "They had no X-ray machine, no beds. To me, it was devastating because it was a U.S. trust territory."
      As soon as she returned home, she arranged for medical equipment and teams of doctors to be sent to treat the island children.
      Michelle Obama may contribute to CARE, which fights global poverty and works to empower poor women. Cindy sits on its board.
      While the Democrat women talk about helping the poor and needy, Cindy McCain actually rolls up her sleeves and does it. Who's the out-of-touch elitist?
      THIS IS A "FIRST FAMILY"!!!!!!!!
      • diggrim, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1if it was sent to you by a CW5 it's not spam, by definition.
      • neognostic, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Cindy McCain also stole drugs from her own charity to feed her own addiction. She sits on those boards because she inherited over $250,000,000.00, not because she is Mother Theresa.
    • LucciX, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2INDEED! Make no mistake about it -- The US military will be fighting harder against Obama than Bin Laden in the months that lie ahead. A recent article in News Week (prior to Clinton's concession) was very telling of what I believe to be the principal underlying reason for this. The article focused on the candidates major spending agendas for the presidency. Obama came in third, wanting to spend a mere $275 billion on providing better health care to American citizens. Clinton was second, wanting to spend $400 billion on health care. And at number one, McCain, wanting to spend $500 billion on DEFENSE.

      If Obama is elected, the drunken orgy of windfall profits that the Military, and now Security, Industrial Complexes have been reveling in for the past seven years, will be over. Obama will raid the house, and the hangover will set in. They will be relegated to smaller, less glamorous military interventions such as those of the Clinton years. Hell, they might even be told to actually get Bin Laden!

      If McCain is elected, it'll be as if the parents come home to find a debaucherous frat party in their house, but rather than shutting it down, they instead unload brand new kegs from the back of the Hummer. There would be hiring, rather than layoffs. There would be MORE porky contracts, rather than fewer.

      So if you were ANYone in the military, with a high level of ignorance of the Constitution, and/or a low level of respect for the basic principles of Democracy, then why NOT use publicly funded infrastructure to promote McCain to such a large block of voters? No reason.

      Of course, as Stephen Colbert often points out with great disdain, REALITY has an inherently LIBERAL bias. So there are plenty of real reasons why this is SO WRONG.
  • nycmac247, on 06/13/2008, -7/+15WHAT IN THE *****!!!
  • Manhigh, on 06/13/2008, -5/+10The Hatch Act applies to these people, right?
    • dougmc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Probably not, at least not in this case --

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939 --

      In 1993 Congress amended the Hatch Act to allow Federal employees to take an active part in political campaigns for Federal offices. Active Federal employees are able to participate in campaigns for President, Senate, and House of Representatives.
      • gwolf, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3This seems a little different because it's government funded backing of a particular candidate.
        Military needs an ethical house cleaning and from the sound of it someone needs a court martial.
  • jakdracula, on 06/13/2008, -38/+10"I believe that every American should be forced to share with those who are not as fortunate" - B. Hussein Obama

    • spasticjedi, on 06/13/2008, -5/+12Yes, and that's just ***** unimaginable in the US today, isn't it? With the "***** you, I've got mine" mentality.

      Oh, and I dugg you down just because you HAD to point out his middle name.

      OH NOES, HE'S AN ISLAMOFACIST!
    • KanameTosen, on 06/13/2008, -3/+6You, my friend, are an idiot. Ooh, before I forget, your a racist too.
    • jamesLankford, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12interestingly, the armed forces are mostly made up of "those who are not as fortunate"
    • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Please tell me, where does that quote come from?
  • mexicanpower, on 06/13/2008, -38/+5NOBAMA '08!! Obama is way too inexperienced for office, while McCain and Clinton are what America needs.

    McCain/Clinton '08

    OR...

    McCain '08
    Clinton '12
    • KanameTosen, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Nice Dream ticket, lets wait for hell to freeze over....

      And if America needs a liar and bush incarnate (albeit much older), we need to get our priorities straight.
    • gwolf, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Does experience at doing it wrong count too?
  • davidrools, on 06/13/2008, -5/+30They must be censoring the news the Army gets to see, otherwise they'd know how McCain doesn't care when they come home, just that they keep fighting and not dying so much. Obama will bring them home, rebuild Iraq, and save money in the process. He has a MUCH more detailed plan than McCain's stay-the-course of failure mentality.
    • isaactwito, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7McCain's plan is so ***** flawed, I'd like to see any McCain supporter try to defend it. He says he wants to be in Iraq at least until 2013, when he is no longer president, because he doesn't plan on running again! Is that ***** ***** or what? Talk about putting off the problem for your successor.
      • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said. "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."


        Whoops.
    • diggrim, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2really? he's laid out the plans already and you're versed on them?
    • mcsenget, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul STILL gets more donations from the military than McCain does.
  • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -27/+9LOL you freaking *****.
    "Tuesday's edition contained an entry under "WHAT'S BEING SAID IN BLOGS" that struck me as unusual"

    WHAT'S BEING SAID ON MILBLOGS IS THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO SURRENDER TO TERRORISTS.

    Let me guess the Army is racist for blogrolling any blog that might be possibly negative towards the Obamessiah.
    • nycmac247, on 06/13/2008, -3/+7Yeah... it's just like on FOX news when the interviewer says "well...some people say..." - except that is the US government talking, right?

      I heard a blogger in uniform said that you - a ***** - like to suck off stray dogs under the boardwalk for quarters. Now... I'm not going to comment on it ... I'm just repeating what I've heard ...oh and by the way your tax dollars are paying me to repeat it since we're publishing all this in a military paper.

      Sound professional?????

      • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3It's just a blogroll for christ sakes. It's not published, it's not being reported. It literally is just a link to an offsite blog under a section called "WHAT'S BEING SAID IN BLOGS".
        • nycmac247, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1What I am saying is that politics should be left out of the military's official publications, no matter what the guise. Do you really not see how this could be a slippery slope and why, in the past, it has not been done before?

          and PS - Blogs are opinion pieces and linking to them is reporting on them. They are out of bounds, just like many other subjects are that "the troops" may care about. So, while people may be talking about "Does Michelle Obama really hate white people?" or "Is John McCain's cancer still there?" they should not be touched by the military press in any way b/c they are off the table. What you're trying to do, I think, is treat the blogs as inanimate objects that can be reported on / noted when actually they are very emotionally charged. Is the intent to then have the blogs move directly onto the page itself? - because by linking to them you're essentially doing that by proxy.
        • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Blogrolls are now a form of reporting?
    • nova912, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3You're missing the point my good sir. It's not that the army said something negative about Obama, its that the army not even be covering politics, nothing should 'reported' about McCain either... The Armed forces is in the service of the united states, not any political party.
      • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3The Army isn't covering politics. The Army isn't reporting anything. Read the article and click the link and see for yourself.
  • IDCrewDawg, on 06/13/2008, -4/+22Active-Duty Military Political Activities
    PARTISAN VS. NONPARTISAN
    Partisan activities relate to candidates or issues
    representing national or state political parties.
    Candidacy for national or state office is partisan,
    even if the candidate is not affiliated with a
    national or state political party. Partisan activities
    are more restricted than nonpartisan activities
    Nonpartisan activities are not associated with a
    national or state political party but involve “stand
    alone” political issues, such as constitutional
    amendments, municipal ordinances, etc.
    Employees have more leeway with these activities
    as long as they:
    • Refrain from participating in uniform
    • Refrain from using Government
    facilities and/or resources
    • Avoid any implication that the Air
    Force endorses or supports their
    participation in the activity

    Members May:
    • Register, vote, and express their opinions
    on political candidates and issues (but not
    as a representative of the Armed Forces).
    • Make monetary contributions to a
    political organization.
    • Attend partisan and non-partisan political
    meetings or rallies as a spectator when
    not in uniform.
    • Promote and encourage other military
    members to exercise their voting rights, if
    such action does not attempt to influence
    or interfere with the outcome of an
    election.
    • Join a political club and attend its
    meetings when not in uniform.
    • Serve as an election official, if such
    service is not as a representative of a
    partisan political party, does not interfere
    with military duties, is performed while
    out of uniform, and has the prior
    approval of the Secretary of the Air
    Force.
    • Sign a petition for specific legislative
    action or a petition to place a candidate’s
    name on an official election ballot.
    • Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper
    expressing his personal views on public
    issues or political candidates, if such
    action is not part of an organized letter-
    writing campaign.
    • Display a political sticker on your private
    vehicle.


    Member May Not:
    • Use his or her official authority or
    influence to interfere with an election,
    affect the course or outcome of an
    election, solicit votes for a particular
    candidate or issue, or solicit political
    contributions from others.
    • Be a candidate for, or hold, civil office
    except as authorized below.

    Exception on holding office:
    As long as the member is not serving on extended
    active duty (EAD), enlisted members and reserve
    officers may hold partisan or nonpartisan civil
    office if the office is held in a private capacity and
    does not interfere with the performance of
    military duties.
    Enlisted members on EAD may seek and hold
    nonpartisan civil office as a notary public or
    member of a school board, neighborhood
    planning commission, or similar local agency, as
    long as the office is held in a private capacity and
    does not interfere with the performance of
    military duties
  • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -28/+5The people who serve in the military love this country. What Obama said (see video) is beyond insane. Stupid, naive, etc.

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/5/21/3703 ...

    Barack is going to get us killed.
    • veijeri, on 06/13/2008, -1/+10I support everything he says in that video clip.

      It is the exact polar opposite of dangerous. To think otherwise is frighteningly ignorant.
    • malex, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8He sounds pretty reasonable to me.
    • jamesLankford, on 06/13/2008, -1/+11just watched the video
      what specifically do you find stupid?

      not wanting to spend billions on "star wars" ?
      good for him
      that's a complete waste of money, especially considering the "war on terror" should go a totally different direction; terrorists aren't going to be shooting ICBMs at us

      how about getting rid of nuclear weapons?
      yeah, now that's a really bad idea because we all know that the capability to blow up the world 3 times isn't enough, we should be able to blow it up 5 times
      and as long as we have nuclear weapons we're totally safe from the effects of other countries like India and Pakistan having them

      and not wasting money on wasteful pet projects of certain congressman? wanting to actually control spending? where does he get off saying such things? unbelievable
    • phrenzy, on 06/13/2008, -1/+9lol "naive" is the meme du jour for the republicans this week. When that doesn't get traction (like all of the other labels they have tried) expect something even better!

      "Barack is going to get us killed." - Wow, with sound reasoning like that - McCain's got this election in the bag!
    • Darksoul, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1People like you are going to be the ones to get us killed not him everything he said there was great it needs to be done I seriously wonder about people like you that are so afraid that if we don't keep making new weapons that we are going to burn or something. We have enough weapons to last years upon years, so yes we get it no nuclear weapons to you is bad.........

      Was going to type more but why bother people like you rarely change their ***** way of thinking.
  • 1dog, on 06/13/2008, -4/+19Its all about oil. We have oil for the next 150 years. Let Iran take care of Iraq. Its all about the oil. Who gives a ***** about the middle east. Bring our troops home and rebuild America. Get off of the oil..
    • AdHavoc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Where did you read that we have oil for the next 150 years?
    • minox, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2If it was all about the oil, don't you think congress would have agreed to drilling in ANWR to avoid or end the war? If it actually is all about the oil, I suggest you blame congress for being all about the caribou.
    • diggrim, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2you want Iran to take care of Iraq? Have you ever, ever studied the area? Nice if you to sit back and pass judgment!
    • lastmaster, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Let Iran take care of Iraq? Are you serious? Do you know that we are training Iraq's defense force/military against their own terroristic extremist threats trying to prevent an all out civil war? Iraq is not our enemy, the terrorists are. Now let's see if you can figure out what Iran is full of...
      Even Obama realizes Iran is a threat.
  • amightywind, on 06/13/2008, -27/+8If I were a solder who was facing the election of a Commander-In-Chief who was a white flag waver and on the side of the enemy, I'd campaign against him as well.
    • malex, on 06/13/2008, -5/+12"... on the side of the enemy." You have no idea how insane you sound, do you?
    • publiclurker, on 06/13/2008, -5/+15But you aren't a soldier, your just a pathetic blow hard coward, so who cares what you think.
    • phrenzy, on 06/13/2008, -5/+10Hey everybody! It's Digg Republican Troll #4 and his merry band of ITGs!
    • jesushitler, on 06/13/2008, -4/+7I'm in the military and I'm voting for Obama, as are many of the people I work with.
    • SoulDrift404, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6Somehow I think we'd both despise being in the same army together.
  • dorkus999, on 06/13/2008, -8/+12Dear Army: I hope y'all are enjoying your stay in Iraq.
    • isaactwito, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2I don't. These aren't the people getting killed there. These are the bitches sitting in the pentagon or the green zone. They're not even legitimate combatants, totally pathetic.
      • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -6/+3The guy who wrote the offending blog is a retiree who's son is currently serving in Iraq. What's pathetic is your utter lack of comprehension after reading the article, or your partisan hackery of commenting as if you had.
    • knumbknuts, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4Dear Dorkus: I hope you are enjoying your stay in your parents' basement.
      • tugger, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2yeah, bringing peace through surrender...

        BEAUSE THE US ATTACK ON IRAQ HAS WORKED WELL FOR WORLD PEACE, HUH?

        ***** *****


  • tufftugg, on 06/13/2008, -6/+7 You can tell the brain washing works well in the military, they are the only ones who love America. Ah, the fresh smell of fascism.
    • johnnyfistfight, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2I would explain the meaning of patriotism to you but I'm afraid you got head stuck so far up Obama's ass who would hear me. Ah, the sweet smell of Obama's rectum.
    • sw33tsarin, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2The only ones who love America? Michelle is that you?

      I love my country, I hate the people in charge.
    • Darksoul, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Yeah only people in the military love our country the millions of us left just don't care......... are you serious.? And johnnyfistfight your a moron I suggest you go look up that meaning for yourself if you think it just goes for people in the military then I suggest stick your head up your own ass. Yeah now I remember why I blocked you your a ***** troll.
  • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -21/+5Hey, why are you nice tolerant and accepting people voting down my previous entry? Its just Barry talking in an unedited video about how he is going to cripple America's defense and kiss the butt of every dictator on the planet.

    Does truth hurt?

    Silencing all dissent of your candidate?
  • AdHavoc, on 06/13/2008, -17/+4Have YOU ever read Obama's defense papers or heard his speeches? All they are is populist talk geared at attracting crowds through ambiguous words and promises. I can't wait for Obama to start to tell us his platform; I've been waiting for a year and a half now.
  • abctuba, on 06/13/2008, -6/+17This ***** is what really scares me. The military needs to be publicly neutral in politics, otherwise were heading to Korea or Myanmar style government. Seriously, watch this stuff closely.
  • ufia, on 06/13/2008, -10/+5If Ron Paul supporters feels free to spread partisan attacks on other candidates, then it's only fair that the Army can do it too.
  • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -20/+4Well, I'm not overly concerned about Obama. His fellow Democrats are avoiding him knowing full well he probably isn't going to win:

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080612/D918GD8G1 ...

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/6/12/3740 ...

    • malex, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9(from the article)

      "For most of these fence-sitters - at least 14 as of Wednesday - it boils down to political necessity: They are vulnerable Democrats in conservative-leaning districts who take pains to avoid aligning closely with the national party."

      That doesn't exactly match your characterization of events, does it?
  • Adgeman, on 06/13/2008, -5/+9Sounds like the first stages of a coup d'etat.
  • rationalbeats, on 06/13/2008, -7/+8This PR stunt dosen't do much to stop the notion that the Army is a collection of uneducated thugs.
  • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -19/+3Obama: Selected, not Elected. Hillary Clinton WON the popular vote. Now, when this happened in 2000, it was the Evil Supreme court that Usurped the Democratic process. But when Democrats do it to Democrats? Its swept under the rug in the name of 'Party Unity.'

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10923.ht ...
  • TantrooM, on 06/13/2008, -4/+9Hold on, wasn't the army told NOT to get involved with the political discussion? Isn't he in violation of that rule? If so should he not be discharged or chastised?
  • BannedTwice, on 06/13/2008, -12/+5Army is right on. HUuuuAHH.
  • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -13/+6So this partisan hack at the WAPO is hyperventilating about a retiree commenting on Obama's own words?
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

    Again, another case where quoting Obama's own words is a "partisan smear" and "unfair attack".
    • minox, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Exactly. He's constantly taking any attacks against him and spinning them as "distractions," while attacks on any of his opponents of course reveal their true "character." It's almost as good as his long time association and then repudiation of the loons connected to his campaign. And when he repudiates them, his formula is "This is not the (fill in the name) that I knew."
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/13/2008, -5/+4Bill Oriely, and his buddies at Fox are saying that Republicans should not be attacking Michelle Obama.

    It's a trap!

    They know there is going to be a some BAD stuff come out about her pretty soon. When that happens, the guys at Fox can say, "I didn't support this kind of bashing, so don't blame us but hey it's out there now. It's not our fault, WE REPORT YOU DECIDE.

    It looks good for Fox, and bad for Obama.
    • itsontheway, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Quit spewing this same tired old meme. If something did exist, it would have been out there by now. The Clintons would have had it in their possession no doubt; and no of their proxies released it. How come? It would have helped them, woudln´t it have? I say, if you keep spewing this same old BS fine -- but back it up with evidence. Otherwise, it is just a theory spewed fourth by all the arm chair quarterbacks on the net.
      • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1The Clinton's would never release that crap. They will let the republicans do that dirty work for them. Then Hillary can come out and say how surprised she is at such conduct by Michelle Obama.

        It may very well lead to Obama stepping down and let Hillary take over.

        It ain't over yet.
      • Darksoul, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Ah, Hillary supports gotta love how daft they are even when their own candidate says its over.......

        Trust me its over for her the only thing she can hope to get is a VP slot and after the crap she started with Obama I don't know if he will do that.
  • jamesLankford, on 06/13/2008, -4/+9Obama did say that he would send troops into Pakistan to capture or kill terrorists even without permission from Pakistan's government

    he received a lot of flak from that, but it shows that he will make the tough decisions and has his priorities correct
    why send troops into Iraq when they should have stayed focused on afghanistan?

    Obama is smart and tough and correct

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc4qnpu3N0M
    • siszam, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Our troops should have never left American soil to engage in an illegal war of revenge. Period.
    • hellotyler, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Afghanistan was justified, and I supported taking the Taliban out of power. They were some evil ***** and there was no telling what Bin Laden would do next. Iraq on the other hand, we were sent in with completely faulty and manipulated intel, lied to about the progress, we didn't go through a proper inspection process, and the amount of human rights atrocities committed over there by our troops (even if they didn't have orders to do it) staggers me. End this illegal war NOW!
    • gwolf, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I couldn't agree more. When Bush took the focus off Afghanistan he gave the Taliban all the breathing room it needed and Bin Laden a free pass. Such incompetence can't be an accident.
  • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -11/+4Obama lost the popular vote to Clinton, according to RealClearPolitics-

    Popular Vote (w/MI)** 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...

    /Reposted from another thread
  • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -13/+4Cowards. Too afraid to debate anyone on the facts so you just vote down everything they post. But don't don't get comfortable... I'm nothing compared to what the GOP is going to do Barry Hussein.
    • p0s3r, on 06/13/2008, -7/+2Who cares what they'll do to Barry. He'll just throw anyone under the bus to cover for himself. What's going to be really good is the proper thrashing Omarosa is going to get for all her America hating.
    • kayala, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Hussein's actually not his last name, ignorant *****. The GOP can't do much better than make racist remarks against Obama's wife (baby mama, anyone?), so I'm not particularly concerned. Go crawl back into your cave and nurse your little delusions there.
      • ericjohnson0, on 06/13/2008, -7/+1Barack HUSSEIN Osama... er... Obama.

        I know his name, but its fun to watch you get all hot and bothered over someone insult your false communist messiah.
        • malex, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4I believe you'll find that it's less about people getting "hot and bothered" over an insult, than it is everyone feeling embarrassed that there are Americans so petty and shallow minded that they consider a foreign-sounding name some kind of talking point.

          Really, it does make you look incredibly stupid.
        • kayala, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Can you fourth-grade dropouts please decide, for once and for all, if Obama is a communist or a socialist? I just get so anxious waiting for you to decide which of the two distinct, legitimate political ideologies Obama holds.
          I do hope you never breed. We don't need yet another generation of inbred, mindless vermin.
    • TantrooM, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6No, we're digging you down because you're off topic, dumdum.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Please, gather all your ignorant friends and go die in a fire.
  • RRJackson, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12This is something that appeared as an editorial, not something written by the Army's "PR office" as the title suggests. It was written by a retired Army officer with a son serving in Iraq. So now all editorials must be pro-Obama? Freedom of Speech is only guaranteed if you agree with what's being said?
    • TantrooM, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1The Army's PR office linked to said blog without disclaimers that the links were not shared opinions with the PR office.

      Seriously, what PR amatur would do that. I heard they linked to pro Obama things to. It's wrong either way. Add the disclaimer that they are links to opinions, otherwise there will be confusion.
      • RRJackson, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6It was a link called, "What's Being Said In Blogs Today." Only an idiot would have assumed that meant it was something written or endorsed by the Army. That's like assuming that comments posted on Digg are all shared opinions of Kevin Rose.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3WOO HOO. Kevin Rose loves Ron Paul!!1!!1one!!!
        • TantrooM, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Only an idiot, meaning 1,051 diggers and counting.

          You obviously haven't worked with people. If you go "Only an idiot would..." you'd find out there are more idiots then you originally thought. Certainly not 1.
  • JarJar420, on 06/13/2008, -5/+3Yousa shouldn't be surprised, after all, it is the MILITARY-industrial complex.

    Yousa don't think there is propaganda *gasp* spread by yousa own government ???
  • WeavingSpiders, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1Uhhh, I guess they don't want to go to Iran.
  • nirav72, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Not to defend the Army (I support Obama's defence policy). But I guess they're in the business of fighting wars. So its natural for them to show skepticism to diplomatic overtures.

    Bill Clinton went through the same *****. I remember reading years ago about how the pentagon pretty much distrusted the Clinton administration during the initial years in the white house. Probably one of the main reasons he brought in William Cohen (a republican) as the Sec Def in the final few year. I think some of them did not like him through out his entire 8 year term. The cold war was over and they had no real identifiable enemy in the mid-90s. Obama if elected will have to work hard to win that trust. Thats just the way the military works. They distrust politicians.
    • diggrim, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1and anyone who's studied history would see why...too many people have died for political posturing
  • vinbot, on 06/13/2008, -3/+3Well, the offending post was only half intelligible, anyway (and not just because of the military jargon either), so I doubt it'll do any damage. If anything, it makes Obama's eloquent and rational arguments seem more eloquent and rational by comparison.
    If republicans want to make this election about Iraq (and whether they want to or not, that's what it is largely about) I say, bring it on (to paraphrase George W.).
    Still, this politicization of the Army PR machine is dangerous and disturbing, and Americans ought to demand better.
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Is it Freedom yet?
  • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -6/+4Obama already explained how much funding he was planning on taking away from the military.
    So he'll put us in a position where we HAVE to surrender.
    What a surprise. He's been buddies with one Communist, terrorist and/or America-hater after the next.
    Frank Davis, Rev Wright Father Pfleger, Wm Ayers. Eddie Said.
    • Darksoul, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Dear god what do you people come in droves or what I have already responded to like six other morons above now you. Do you all hold a meeting every week or something seriously.? If you are going to post this garbage at least show proof and I mean real proof not ***** some other moron like you says. Seriously just go away.

      Another moron blocked.
      • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Dear god do you NOT read the papers and still think you can post to digg? There's an obligation to supply links to new information. But this stuff is old hat:

  • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -4/+3Anyone here know what happened when we "brought our troops home" from Viet Nam?
    Viet Nam was conquered by Communists. They immediately killed tens of thousands. They placed a third of so of the rest in re-education camps. And, as always, they ruined the economy pushing the whole country into grinding poverty where it stays to this day. Also, when the US left, that cleared the way for Communist to take over Cambodia, where they killed a third of the population in three years.
    Just a reminder.
    • RRJackson, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2And that footage of us evacuating the embassy in Saigon is one of the most embarrassing moments in United States history. We ran away with the VC and Khmer Rouge right on our heels. I'd hate to see our country ever have to cut and run like that again.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVDF2aQpYZc
      • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I agree. And, we can't afford to send a message that, if you throw in with the USA, they may leave you in the lurch.
        If we leave Iraq too soon, the streets will run with blood. Any Iraqi who has worked for us in any capacity OR worked with the duly elected Iraqi government will be tortured and killed. Along with their families.
        • RRJackson, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1There should never be even the faintest thought in the minds of our enemies that they could send us packing. The United States does not abandon our allies.
        • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1RRJackson
          And there should never be the faintest thought in the minds of people willing to ally with us that we would abandon them. But, of course, there is. Because we've done it several times.

    • rhodydog, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0So what? why should I care about Iraq, I'd rather we look after our own kind.
      • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Did you know that the very first war the USA fought was with Islamic jihadis? Called the Barbery Wars. Took us about 15 years to beat them then. Did you know that Islam conquered Spain and ruled it for hundreds of years? Did you know that Islam almost conquered Vienna?

        The ultimate aim of Islam is world conquest. And now, funded by unearned oil money, Islam is on the move again.

        So we believe that we ARE looking after our own kind by fighting expansionist Islam in Iraq.
    • Darksoul, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Dear god a second post right after your own how did I know some ***** like you was going to bring up Vietnam that war is nothing like this war if you have even bothered to study history you might know that.
    • 140Suffolk, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Darksoul -

      You say "...Vietnam that war is nothing like this war" but you don't say how you mean.
      In both wars I say we have allies who will be slaughtered if we abandon them. Is that not correct? State your case, if you think you have one.

      Since you opened the door to personal criticism by calling me a "*****" I should mention that if you had even bothered to learn English you wouldn't be forming these run on sentences.
      Also, since you name yourself "Darksoul", does that mean you are very deep and sensitive?
  • charlietuna, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4I see no inaccuracy. The blog says Obama wants to surrender while we are winning, Obama's site says "He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Pure semantics: surrender versus strategic withdrawal. Now that we are there we are holding that tarbaby tight.

    Similar wish-wash about the second item: "Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq." Okay, true enough... we *already* have permanent bases built there. He tells the truth while we hear what we want to hear-- pure genius.

    So many people want to think he's some sort of mocha Christ figure. He's another politician.
    • HappyScrappy, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2It isn't about whether it's accurate or not. The armed forces are not supposed to take sides. And they have a policy against it.
    • andy314159pi, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2So you think it is okay for the military to issue a statement on who they think should be president? If you think that, then you have no business calling yourself an American because you have no idea what it means.
  • rtoo, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2"After all, what better time to surrender than when we are winning?"

    Define winning Mr Hooah! Don't you know as soon as we leave Iraq they're going to continue with their civil war? Or are you like McCain, someone who wants to stay there for 100 years and continue to spend trillions of dollars on a useless war while our ***** countries infrastructure falls apart. Maybe we should spend some goddamn money on our own people, what about education, healthcare or the roads!

    Give your head a shake you dumb bastard
  • andy314159pi, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1They are using the military to advance a political objective at home. That is totally unacceptable.
  • shrimp1970, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1Please skew this story now at http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/7421?sectio ...
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I'm sure they are out there right now looking for a mil-blog that supports Obama as a counter point. I'll keep on hitting refresh every minute and I'll let you know as soon as they fine one.
  • TriTech, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1The author of the article mentions the military's obligation to be loyal to the Constitution, but that is a document that the Bush regime has been smashing away at for almost 8 years. I'm not surprised that the Army has been contaminated by those that want to see the U.S. as a police state and fear the change back towards basic freedom that Obama represents.
  • ohplease, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0

    For you to surrender, someone has to attack you.


    Sometimes the really obvious needs to be stated.
  • PatNolan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Yes, those are the guys that actually have read Obama's classified positions and thesis.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.