 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! October 4, 2004 4 to 1, baby, 1 in 5By GreyhawkNo one here will be surprised: An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him. "Patriotism" was likely another frequent response. I'd guess the Swift Vets had a bit more cred with the GIs than ol Mike Moore did. In the survey of more than 4,000 full-time and part-time troops, 73% said they would vote for Bush if the election were held today; 18% said they would vote for Kerry. Of the respondents, 59% identified themselves as Republicans, 20% as independents and 13% as Democrats. The Kerry camp was quick to insist the results were wrong, and that the military loves their boy: Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade called the Army Times Publishing effort "an inaccurate e-mail survey" and said that Kerry has "the vision and values to keep faith with military families and America's veterans." Described as historically "Republican and conservative" as a block, the story also notes that it's estimated that military personnel favored Bush over Al Gore 2-1 in the 2000 presidential race, meaning Kerry doesn't have the support the former VP did among GI's. The story concludes: Military personnel who responded to the survey said they were generally happy with their jobs: 73% said they would re-enlist. No word on whether that's contingent on any future developments. UPDATE:However, comma, the French support Kerry 9 to 1. Where do you stand? Posted by Greyhawk / October 4, 2004 6:16 PM | Permalink 3 TrackBacksUSA Today reports on an unscientific poll of U.S. military personnel that finds they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Meanwhile, the International Herald Tribune reports: Eighty-seven percent of French people would ba... Read More Michael Moore has begun flogging his new book Will They Ever Trust Us Again? a collection of letters purportedly written to Moore from soldiers, veterans and their families about the war in Iraq. Today's UK Guardian published a few choice letters sugge... Read More The Swift Boat Vets have a petition on line that you should take a look at and sign (if you are so inclined...): ...As you now seek to become Commander in Chief of our armed forces, we believe it is Read More 19 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
With the way the Dems like to challenge and throw out absentee ballots, especially from the military, they need a good ratio. I fear there is going to me more voter fraud this year than ever.
Yes I think the Democrats are going to try harder to cheat but this time around it is going to take a very hard try. The Republicans are watching for voter fraud like hawks since they are highly motivated after the 2000 fiascos, and since the Justice Department and several Federal Law enforcement organizations are now directed by a Republican administration, the penalties will be there and I have a feeling they will be severe. There have already been some rumblings and warnings on the grapevines.
I am one of those who support Bush. I don't like kerry because his record when it come to supporting the troop. To me, Bush has a stronger leadership and more appealing character. Feel free to contact me.
Sing,
Leo
US Navy
In my Reserve unit its running like 100% to 0 for Bush. No one like the Poodle.
I am a Disabled Veteran Marine. I do not see how any one in the military or with a loved one in the military could support Kerry.
Could someone contact me and tell me what they beleive supporting the Military means, so when I talk to liberals and can show them what a person in the military thinks it is...
I think it is telling the troops they are fighting the right battles. I think it is never leave anyone behind. I think it is never surrender. I think it is voting for the weapons they need to fight with. I think it is voting for the money to pay for the war they are in.
If I am wrong, or I missed something, please let me know what it is.
astonerii@yahoo.com
I think it also includes planning so that the troops can succeed. It includes listening when generals say we're going to need more people to get this done right. It also means spending money on things the troops need, not on the overhead that goes to the ceo's of private companies.
But then, the president may have felt he tried to do those things. I give him some benefit of the doubt.
But anybody who thinks John Kerry voted against getting supplies to the troops is off his rocker. He voted for a bill that did just that. Then, when the president had the bill amended to give himself a blank check to spend without congressional oversight, Kerry voted to try to kill that bill, so that the original bill could pass.
Was the president, in amending the bill, saying, do it my way or we'll cut off the troops?? No, he wasn't. He wanted to fund the troops.
Was Kerry saying, do it my way or we'll cut off the troops?? No, likewise of course not. He wanted to fund the troops too. That's why he voted (in fact authored) a bill to do so.
Both sides knew all along that some form of the bill would pass, and they were arguing about what form it should be in.
Both sides were involved in a political struggle - there were real differences, and I can understand someone who thinks the president might deserve a blank check (though that's not how war appropriations have been done during past wars.) And I can understand someone who thinks the president should have been overseen by Congress --the traditional method.
But you have to be daft to read that series of events and think 'Kerry was against getting supplies to the troops.'
Glad to know you are taking the vote seriously. I am with you. Thank you for your continued writing so that we at home know a little more of what is happening. God bless our troops.
Part of the reason the Gore Campaign attempted to disqualify military ballots, they were falling 2 to 1 Bush. And the attempt was based on technicalities. The democratic party will stop at nothing to win, including disqualifying military ballots if necessary. Disqualification from a candidate that negotiated with the enemy during a time of war prior to his discharge from the IRR, arguably an offense under the UCMJ, if not out and out dishonorable conduct in and of itself.
Bruno
Capt USNR
As a Vietnam vet I, along with many of my comrades, experienced first hand the effects of John Kerry's anti-war efforts. The force of his lies turned a country not only against the war but against those who were sent to fight it. You cannot separate the warrior from the war. If you oppose one, you oppose the other. Today the same words which gave comfort and support to the NVA, encourage the terrorists. Every time John Kerry says wrong war, wrong time, wrong way, jihadists the world over smile. They understand the struggle is not just bombs and bullets but also will. The terrorists make us bleed, but John Kerry makes us doubt. Doubt deadens resolve and cripples the public will to continue the struggle and the terrorists win.
Mr. Ultra,
If Kerry's vote against supporting the troops was a clever ploy to get a better bill passed, why is Kerry's record for 20 years in the senate so dismal?
Is it because he is not clever at all or is it because he is weak and ineffective? Pretty obvious to me.
Mr. Ultra,
If Kerry's vote against supporting the troops was a clever ploy to get a better bill passed, why is Kerry's record for 20 years in the senate so dismal?
Is it because he is not clever at all or is it because he is weak and ineffective? Pretty obvious to me.
Ultra,
The problem is that's the way legislation works. And somebody like Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 20 years, understands perfectly well that there is no such thing as a piece of legislation that a legislator will agree with 100%.
He should have taken the good with the bad and voted for the 87 billion dollars. He voted against our troops. And, that is only one of many votes that he has made in his Senate career that have hurt our military.
That this guy could claim that he will be a good Commander in Chief is nauseating.
While it's true that Senators do vote for and against bills to make a point while still supporting the bill's main intent (especially ones that will pass overwhelmingly), in this case we all know why John Kerry voted against: Because at the time, Howard Dean was kicking his ass and he had to do something to placate the anti-war base that was supporting Dean. There is no other reason. In fact, that's why Kerry became the 'anti-war candidate' in the first place. Had Howard Dean not been in the race, and had Kerry led the primaries by a wide margin, Kerry would have run as a war hawk to position himself for the general election. The man has no scruples. He'll take whatever side of an issue helps him win.
One of the things that baffle me about John Kerry and his experience is the fact that only since he started running for the democratic nomination has he become a centrist. After 20 years of being one of the most liberal senators, now he is trying to portray himself as a centrist. How is that escaping everyone.
Also, who are these military commanders that he says he has the support of now. Don't they realize that Kerry protested them and their activities in Vietnam? How can Kerry possibly run based on his military experience when he protested that very experience. How did no one in his campaign not catch on to that?
Lastly, who else realizes that the only (yes, the only) reason that John Kerry is the democratic nominee is because of Howard Dean's untimely scream?
Let's not forget Kerry himself said it would be irresponsible to vote against the $87 billion & then did exactly that. No sort of twisting & turning & trying to justify can square Kerry's positions, words, & actions. There is no consistency except political expediency. No sign of integrity or honor anywhere in the man.
Can anyone tell me what Kerry's sister doing in Australia bad mouth our country while my fellow service member risking their life to bring freedom to Iraq.
leo
Kerry is doing everything in his power to lose this election. There can be no other explaination
BTW: This Desert Storm vet is voting Bush early and often... :-)
But they forgot kerrys "V" that goes on his Silver Star,,,,Tsk Tsk Tsk slighting a vet like that
I understand the senator did get couple bandage scratches from Vietnam from self inflicted.