Quiet Response to a Presidential Visit

Bush's visit, luncheon, and speech to troops at Fort Benning after his address to the nation about the increase in troops being sent to Iraq was "hushed", in regards to commentary by the troops to news media, by the base commander, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski.



I'm flabbergasted by the scrutiny of the US Government on the American troops. I understand that once you sign up for service, you become "US Government Property", but for as long as our military has been in service, the idea behind having servicemen and women on the field, was to protect our freedoms.

What happened to the troops' freedoms, rights, and liberties that they are putting their lives on the line for? They are not just another number. They are still American citizens!!

Many troops nowadays have a disagreement with the the assignments they have (as should be noted with the troops sent into New Orleans when they were to take the civilians "right to bear arms" away). They spoke out against what they had to do, while they were doing it, but they still did their job... wrong, right, or indifferent.

video.google.com...

[edit on 13-1-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Sorry kimosabe when you sign up to serve you give up most of your rights.
I think the only one you keep is the 5th ammendment.

However, it's not predominately noted to "keep quite" each time Bushy boy comes around.

Why is this time any different? What's he hiding?

*Shhh... we're actually sending you to Iran*

They can use "operational information" as a reason to keep them quiet.

They will need more than 20k to take on iran.

Well, certainly... but there's already 130K+ in Iraq... and Bush is just itchin to kick it in Iran.


As well, there's nothing being done differently in Iraq that what has been going on for the past 4 years, so why the change? I'm not saying you're wrong or I'm right... it just doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

[edit on 1/14/2007 by Infoholic]

I agree the powers that be want a fight in Iran; however out of the 130+k deployed only a small percentage are on ground fighters.

I think we would need a new draft system to have a prolonged conflict in Iran.

The draft has been discussed here on ATS and across the web already, and I'll echo the voice of reason...........


NO NEW DRAFT!!!

Infoholic, clearly, bush wouldn't bother to tell troops during a luncheon that they're really going to iran. It'd simply leak.

As far as a draft, the only people pushing for a draft are the democrats. Now that they have congress, perhaps they will start a draft (though its very likely that they won't).


As far as telling the troops not to talk to the media, its a good idea. The military should stay de-politicized. Most of the guys in the military are gun-ho about being in it, hell, thats why they joined in the first place. Clearly they're all going to be upset about leaving their families behind, but thats specifically what they signed up for.

The group addressed in this article was one of the 1st to go into Iraq. That doesn't mean much, but I'm certain there's always some that are hell-bent with excitement... "Hoo Rah, we're going in!"... yadda yadda yadda...

I'm just being imaginative, but surely there's some that are "in the know". Why wouldn't this group be such? After all, "these are my boys"... "you guys make me proud."

The possibilities are endless.

As far as telling the troops not to talk to the media, as I stated in an earlier post, it just doesn't make sense to me. We all know what's going on, to a point of course. It just comes across to me that "we've got something we don't want the American (or any other nationality) people to know about". That's a legitimate idea.

The majority that join/serve the military... sure their gun-ho about doing it. But I'm also certain that not a single one joined under the pretext of "let's just go out and annihilate anyone out there". This country was formed with the military being in mind to protect freedoms... not protect oil. As Bush continues to make that clear, that's where the troops would begin to speak out. Who wouldn't like to tell the media, "what we're going over there for, isn't happening. It's all about the oil."

you are absolutely right . he will not say anything about going to iran. we are going over there because the small oil pockets are drying up.and we have not found any new elephant oil pockets to handle the nations needs.check it out on the web, we are importing more oil than exporting, becase of small oil pockets are not enough and are drying up. the only big pocket left is in saudi , the elephant . we nations compete for this oil. the heads of oil are going to saudi to make a new package deal. more oil for the usa. iran and saudi are also in this oil deal since the oil pockets are connected underground. iran will not go for this and will likely use the use of the nuke it has to force the usa out of the oil with saudi. we currently have a full battlegroup stationed out there. the ground forces in iraq are ready to go if iran goes wild. and iran will likely do so. the competence of the oil has led to irans president to take up alliances with small countries with oil interests also in america, like venezuella and others im sure. other countries like china are curious to the intentions of america when it comes to the oil over there since they have interests over there too, where their livelyhood also comes into play on how much oil that they get. where the time is now, the meeting will go sour ,and iran fires at isreal. this will spark the beginnings of other nations to come into play and fall like domminos over this oil thing to protect their interests also.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by littlebird]