Stars & Stripes LTE, highly informative and strongly critical of Bush

(Hubert Flottz, you're going to love what you read below.)

These letters are direct hits, which will be obvious after reading through the facts presented. Kudos to those who wrote them. One day the bulk of Congress will catch up to what the military family already knows.

Columnist’s errors, mistruth

“Using left’s logic, expelling Feingold also acceptable” (Opinion: Jay Ambrose, March 21 print edition) is full of errors and mistruth.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, the junior senator from Wisconsin, proposed censure for the president of the United States for breaking the law. Almost everyone on all ends of the political spectrum agree that the president did, in fact, break the law. Some just believe that the president has become above a law.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Security Act set up a court to oversee the National Security Agency’s use of electronic surveillance to ensure that citizens were not subject to unconstitutional searches. The court may issue warrants to conduct searches and has turned down only a handful of applications in nearly 30 years. That was not enough for the president.

President Bush has publicly acknowledged that he did not comply with this law, and justified it under the broad war powers he was given by Congress to respond to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

His justification is legally laughable, but that has not stopped writers and commentators such as Ambrose from repeating. Feingold’s proposal to censure the president is one option among many that the Senate has to address the president’s illegal actions. Many Republican lawmakers want to now change the FISA law to retroactively make the president’s behavior legal. That is not how the law works. If you break a law, you can’t get away with it by changing the law afterward.

As I am working in Iraq, helping to establish a society that is governed by the rule of law instead of the rule of a dictator who is above the law, I am glad that some senators, like Feingold, are protecting the home front and ensuring everyone, even the president, follows the law.

Capt. Will Dockry
Camp Victory, Iraq


Many facts exist to bash Bush

Re: Maj. Jeff Thornton’s March 17 letter “Where are the facts?”http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=35783: George W. Bush’s own military records and history shows him to be unfit for the title of commander in chief. That Mr. Bush “allowed himself” to be placed in front of many others in line for a slot in a Texas Air National Guard unit should have been enough to keep him out of the White House. Let’s not concern ourselves with the fact that he did not complete his own military obligation. By right, he should have been placed on active duty after missing the number of meetings he missed.

But, for something a little more recent: On Jan. 14, 2003, I heard Mr. Bush say on national television that he had not made up his mind about invading Iraq. We all know now that that statement was a lie and many of us knew it then. I’ll always remember that date, because the next day my son left home to begin basic training.

Mr. Bush has given many different reasons as to why he invaded Iraq. He will not acknowledge he went into Afghanistan with too few troops, boots on the ground. He is responsible for those of us not supporting the decision to go into Iraq being labeled “unpatriotic.” He was directly responsible for the display of the banner reading “Mission Accomplished” on the ship. Mr. Bush was directly responsible for sending too few troops into Iraq and without the equipment needed to fight the war.

More recently Mr. Bush lied about not knowing that the damage from Hurricane Katrina would be as bad as it was. Now what else would Maj. Thornton and those who think like he does about their beloved George W. Bush want to know? I served in the military during five different administrations and never was I ashamed to call any of our presidents during that time my commander in chief. I’m glad I departed the military before George W. Bush took office.

Sgt. 1st Class Bobby McGill (retired)
Valrico, Fla.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=36003

We've got a CIC lies to us whether it is a war or a hurricane like Katrina. Their whole attitude has been be happy and don't worry. They don't.

I'm shocked that those were in the S&S, and even more, one by a Capt in Iraq!

I wonder how long until his career is over?

That debate has been heating up in Stripes as a result of all the criticism aimed at Bush. Among the letters was one published just today, and yesterday. The prevailing view among the troops is that "YES, we are allowed to criticize Bush," and the documentation they quote supports it. We need to do our part and support the troops' right to speak up rather than assume they will get in trouble for doing so, which only emboldens Bush's desire to clamp down on dissent.

Incidentally, criticism in "Stars and Stripes" of the Commander in Chief wasn't at issue during the Clinton administration. No president has ever received this amount of criticism in a paper written by and for vets:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/18/45138/421

************************

The right to speak up

I took the advice of the writer of “Contempt violates directive” (letter, March 20)http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=35869 and looked up the Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 to which he referred to in his argument that enlisted people could not express their views on politics. Unfortunately for him, he failed to examine his own evidence.

In Paragraph 4.1.3., Enclosure 3 of the directive, Paragraph E3.2.6. expressly states that “a member on active duty may write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the members personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political party or partisan cause or candidate.”

The second reference referred to Title 10 U.S. Code Section 888. The section states “any commissioned officer” ... not enlisted members ... “who uses contemptuous words.”

Tech. Sgt. Benjamin Kratzer
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=36003

Free to speak up

Maybe the commander in chief deserves all the verbal abuse being thrown at him nationally and internationally (“Violations of UCMJ,” letter, March 8)http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=35567. George Washington once said “when we assumed the soldier, we did not set aside the citizen.”

Take it for what it implies, sir. We can say what we want, express our doubts, feelings! Live with it, major!

Master Sgt. Earl L. Adams (retired)
Wetzlar, Germany

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=35962

thanks for posting it

The argument of whether it's okay to criticize an "officeholder" wouldn't have come up time and again if there weren't an abundance of soldiers who had issues to get off their chest.

Consider the floodgates officially open! :)

Good post.

:-(

Can regime change be far behind?